The Zangezur Corridor: Roots and Consequences for Iran

A fundamental principle in geopolitics teaches us that a power vacuum never remains empty it is invariably filled by rivals. The recent agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia to establish the Zangezur Corridor brokered by the United States is a prime example of this principle.

A fundamental principle in geopolitics teaches us that a power vacuum never remains empty; it is invariably filled by rivals. The recent agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia to establish the Zangezur Corridor, brokered by the United States, is a prime example of this principle. This agreement is not the product of short-term diplomatic consultations but rather the result of the accumulation and convergence of a chain of multiple factors at the national, regional, and international levels over many years. For this reason, the establishment of the Zangezur Corridor undoubtedly constitutes a geopolitical crisis for Iran.

What are the implications of the Zangezur Corridor for the Caucasus region?

The establishment of this corridor will reduce the territorial conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia, serving as a stabilizing agreement for both nations and fostering a foundation for sustainable cooperation and peace. From this perspective, the Zangezur Corridor is beneficial to Iran as it promotes peace between two of its northern neighbors.

However, on the other hand, the Zangezur Corridor will shift the regional balance of power in favor of Azerbaijan, Turkey, the United States, and the Israeli regime, to the detriment of Iran and Russia. It will diminish Russian and Iranian influence in the Caucasus while increasing that of the U.S., Turkey, and Israel in the South Caucasus. The American stewardship of the Zangezur Corridor could, in the future, facilitate a NATO presence on Iran's northern borders. Furthermore, Iran's access route to Europe will become restricted and fall under the supervision of the U.S., Turkey, and Azerbaijan.

The Zangezur Corridor will connect the separated exclave of Nakhchivan to mainland Azerbaijan, thereby neutralizing Iran's geopolitical leverage over Azerbaijan. Although this corridor is an agreement between Armenia and the U.S.—and every country is sovereign to lease parts of its territory to a foreign power—the practical outcome of American management of the corridor is the positioning of the U.S. as a buffer between Armenia and Iran. Consequently, Iran will effectively lose one of its neighbors and, to connect to Europe via Armenian territory, will inevitably have to pass through an American-controlled (commercial) corridor.

What are the roots of the Zangezur Corridor?

The Zangezur Corridor should be seen as the outcome of political and economic processes that have been taking shape as future-shaping trends in the Caucasus in recent years. Now, after years of development, this series of trends has culminated in the "fruit" of the Zangezur Corridor for its beneficiary actors. What are these trends, which are the true roots of the corridor?

1. At the systemic level, Zangezur is a product of the transitional era from the old to the new international order. Both the bearers of the old order and the emerging powers in the international system are seeking to penetrate subsystems to claim their share and consolidate their position in the future global order.
2. The elevated geopolitical status of Russia and the geostrategic and geo-economic attractions of the South Caucasus for Western powers and the Israeli regime have drawn the attention of rival powers to the region in recent years.
3. The decline of Russia's geopolitical influence in the Caucasus following its invasion of Ukraine, and the subsequent expansion of political ties between Caucasus nations and Europe and the U.S., have paved the way for this geopolitical shift.
4. The decline of Iran's geopolitical influence in the Caucasus over the years has also played a role. Iran's conflict with Israel and its active confrontation with the U.S. have consumed a significant portion of its foreign policy energy, particularly over the last 20 years. Various crises in the Persian Gulf and the periodic emergence of security threats in Iran's eastern regions have prevented its foreign policy from engaging proactively in the Caucasus and Central Asia.
5. The slow penetration of Turkey into the Caucasus and the formation of a Turkic-Azeri axis, amidst the forced distancing of Russia and Iran from the South Caucasus, have also contributed to this geopolitical transformation.
6. The bipolarization of the international system after the Ukraine war and the alignment of Iran with Russia in that conflict have pushed Azerbaijan and Armenia into the Western camp.
7. The result of these developments is an unwritten regional coalition between the U.S., Israel, Turkey, Azerbaijan, and their allied Arab states. For Armenia, facing strategic isolation, there was little choice but to acquiesce.
8. The Zangezur Corridor is a new manifestation of the process of "sidelining Iran" from crucial regional corridors, a trend that began years ago in Iran's periphery (the concept of "Irrelevance").
9. Given the regional developments after October 7th and Israel's grand strategy to weaken Iran and the Axis of Resistance, it is probable that Zionist lobbies played a significant behind-the-scenes role in the U.S.-brokered agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia (evidenced by Benjamin Netanyahu's swift welcoming of the deal).
10. The prevailing discourse of "peace through sustainable trade" has led Armenia and Azerbaijan to conclude that resolving their historical conflict can be facilitated by embedding themselves within the international trade network, thus consenting to U.S. stewardship in the corridor's establishment and management.

Policy Recommendations for Iran

1. Inaction in the Caucasus, for the reasons mentioned, will likely accelerate the process of Iran being sidelined in the region.
2. Achieving balance in Iran's foreign policy towards its surrounding environments requires resolving the overarching challenge of the last two decades: the conflict with the U.S. over the nuclear issue.
3. Strengthening bilateral relations with Turkey and Russia with a comprehensive agenda would preserve and enhance Iran's regional influence in the Caucasus.
4. The Israeli presence in the South Caucasus now constitutes a more direct territorial threat to Iran than ever before.
5. In the future, the strengthening of "Pan-Turkism" in the South Caucasus will pose a threat to Iran on par with the Israeli presence.
6. Iran's foreign policy in the Caucasus is gradually taking on a more security-oriented dimension and appears to require high-level, strategic decisions.
7. Iran's foreign policy in the Caucasus has always been based on geopolitical imperatives; therefore, pragmatism is more feasible here than in other regions. The skill and experience of Dr. Larijani, the new Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, in pragmatic and proactive engagement could preserve and strengthen Iran's remaining channels of influence in the Caucasus.

Seyed Mohammad Hosseini, Senior Expert, Institute for Political and International Studies

 (The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the IPIS)