By Emil Avdaliani

The US involvement in the South Caucasus means that Washington will become increasingly dependent on Turkey to ensure the long-term viability of the corridor through Armenia. The TRIPP not only invites direct American economic and business presence in the South Caucasus but also expands Turkey’s role in the region. The TRIPP agreement will advance Ankara’s commercial and political interests in the South Caucasus and sideline Iran and to a certain extent Russia. The agreement also opens the way for the restoration of ties between Ankara and Yerevan. But the slow progress of the ongoing Armenia-Turkey talks once again demonstrates that the key to normalization lies in a peace agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

                                                                               Credit: PICRYL

BACKGROUND: On August 8 in Washington D.C., Armenia and Azerbaijan reached a landmark arrangement. Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev signed a Joint Declaration on Future Relations, pledging to “chart a bright future not bound by past conflict, consistent with the UN Charter.” The historic document stated that the two countries no longer regard each other as enemies. A core component of the Washington deal is the TRIPP, Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity, which envisions a transit and trade corridor through Armenia’s southern territory to link Azerbaijan proper with the Nakhchivan enclave. The United States is granted a 99-year mandate to oversee the creation and operation of the transit corridor across Armenian territory.  

For Turkey, the TRIPP offers an opportunity to diversify its commercial routes across the South Caucasus. Until now, Turkey enjoyed only one transit route to the Caspian Sea. The corridor through Georgia built in the 1990s, expanded in the 2000s and consisting of roads, railways and pipelines has been an important factor in strengthening Ankara’s relations with Tbilisi. The Georgia route has boomed since February 2022 when Russia invaded Ukraine and the north Eurasian route linking China with the EU became less secure. As a viable alternative, the Middle Corridor running from Turkey and Georgia to Central Asia has become more attractive for global transport companies and actors such as the EU and China.

Yet reliance on one route is fraught with risks. The fickle geopolitical situation in the South Caucasus calls for developing alternatives and the route through Armenia’s southern territory is attractive to Ankara and Baku. Indeed, right after the TRIPP announcement, the Turkish side unveiled the start of construction of the Kars-Iğdır-Aralyk-Dilucu railway line, which will become a key element of the corridor. The project’s cost is up to €2.4 billion and is set to serve as yet another link for China-EU trade. More importantly, it will connect Turkey with the Central Asian market and sideline its competitors in the South Caucasus – Russia and Iran.

IMPLICATIONS: The TRIPP lands Russia and Iran in an uncomfortable position. Iran’s concerns are based on the notion that any plan that might alter regional borders or limit Armenia’s sovereignty would by default weaken the Islamic Republic’s influence in the South Caucasus. Since 2020, when Azerbaijan recovered most of its lost territories, Tehran has actively resisted the projects advanced by Baku which would see the so-called Zangezur Corridor (in Armenia referred to as “corridor” or “Syunik corridor”) running through Armenia’s southernmost territory of Syunik. Iran considers the short border with Armenia as an only reliable land link into the South Caucasus, free of Turkish-Azerbaijani influence. The route to Armenia is also a corridor for Iran to access Georgia’s Black Sea ports and from there the European market.

The TRIPP also benefits Turkey since it strips Iran of a geopolitical leverage it has had over Azerbaijan, namely, the Aras corridor which connects Azerbaijan proper with its exclave of Nakhichevan via Iran’s northern territory. In 2023, Baku and Tehran reached an agreement to expand the infrastructure along the route which envisioned a transit flow of 15 million tons of cargo by the end of this decade. The corridor stretching for 107 km though is not seen by Iran as a mere transit of goods and passengers through its territory. In fact, Tehran perceives the route as an important instrument for retaining influence in the South Caucasus and for checking Turkey’s growing role.

Russia’s position in the South Caucasus meanwhile is changing. Russia is preoccupied with its war in Ukraine, remains heavily sanctioned by Western countries and the dialogue with the United States has not yielded any results; on the contrary, President Donald Trump now seeks to bring the war to an end by stepping up the military pressure on Russia. In this wider context, Moscow’s relations with Azerbaijan, Turkey’s key ally, are undergoing structural shifts which began in late 2024 when an Azerbaijani civilian plane was shot down by Russian air defense batteries over the North Caucasus. The incident however only served as a pretext, overshadowing the much deeper differences between Baku and Moscow. With the return of Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijan has become more self-reliant in pursuing its foreign policy aims. Meanwhile, Russia’s relations with its major ally in the region, Armenia, are also changing.

Discontent with how Russia acted in 2020 and 2023 when Nagorno-Karabakh fell, Yerevan began to rapidly diversify its foreign policy by developing multiple strategic partnerships with actors ranging from the US to China. These two major developments elevate the role that the Turkey-Azerbaijan axis plays in the region and paved the way for the rapprochement between Ankara and Yerevan.

Given the fact that the TRIPP should facilitate the reaching of a Armenia-Azerbaijan peace deal, it will also, in turn, advance the ongoing rapprochement process between Yerevan and Ankara. Initiated in the aftermath of the second Nagorno-Karabakh War, the dialogue between Turkey and Armenia initially centered on the potential opening of the common border closed since 1990s when the first war over Nagorno-Karabakh raged and Ankara supported Baku. Eventually, the Armenian-Turkish rapprochement began to cover the restoration of diplomatic ties. The two sides held a series of meetings and the Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan even went to Turkey on an official visit. 

On September 12, a meeting between Armenia and Turkey's special representatives for the normalization of relations, Ruben Rubinyan and Serdar Kılıç, took place in Yerevan. The two sides reaffirmed their commitment to continuing the process of dialogue and cooperation, emphasizing its importance for the entire region. Yet, the meeting did not yield any major progress for Yerevan, as it seemed to have served to clarify the details of Armenia’s compliance with Baku and Ankara’s demands. Just prior to the meeting, the Armenian side announced it would drop featuring the Mount Ararat on the country’s border crossing stamps. This is not the first time that Armenia did so. In 2008, when a major normalization effort between Ankara and Yerevan was underway, the Armenian Football Federation briefly removed the depiction of the Mountain Ararat from its logo but the decision was swiftly rescinded.

The slow progress of the ongoing Armenia-Turkey talks once again shows that the key to normalization lies in a peace agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Turkey, time and again, has also made it clear that the final resolution of the differences between the two sides was contingent upon Yerevan and Baku reaching a comprehensive peace agreement. This involves Armenia changing the preamble of its constitution with its reference to the Nagorno-Karabakh. Another precondition seemed to have been what Baku referred to as the Zangezur Corridor.

CONCLUSION: The US involvement in the South Caucasus means that Washington will become dependent on Turkey to ensure the long-term viability of the corridor through Armenia. The TRIPP not only invites direct American economic presence in the South Caucasus but also expands Turkey’s role in the region. The losers are Iran and Russia and in response a further alignment between Tehran and Moscow can be anticipated. Both Iran and Russia prefer north-south connectivity, while Turkey and the Western countries opt for the east-west direction of railways and pipelines.

Yet, in practice, Russia and Iran have fewer tools to reverse the development of the TRIPP. Neither Tehran nor Moscow can afford any deterioration of ties with Turkey or Armenia and Azerbaijan at the time when the Islamic Republic and Russia have other pressing geopolitical issues to attend to.

Emil Avdaliani is a research fellow at the Turan Research Center and a professor of international relations at the European University in Tbilisi, Georgia. His research focuses on the history of the Silk Roads and the interests of great powers in the Middle East and the Caucasus.

By Emil Avdaliani

Armenia and Turkey are itching closer to full restoration of bilateral relations. While the normalization process remains vulnerable to external pressures and domestic political constraints, the factors driving the engagement today are structural, and both parties clearly recognize the benefits of full restoration. However, this outcome will nonetheless require strong political leadership and a shift in domestic public opinion in both countries – none of which are guaranteed. The most likely outcome is a pattern of managed normalization, slow, cautious, and transactional. Under this model, Turkey and Armenia would gradually deepen technical cooperation, possibly culminating in consular-level relations and partial border reopening, particularly for commercial traffic.

Photo source: iravaban.net

IMPLICATIONS: The normalization with Armenia opens new avenues for regional connectivity. Turkish policymakers view the South Caucasus as a gateway to Central Asia, the Caspian region, and potentially China via the Middle Corridor—a logistics and trade route that bypasses Russia and Iran. In this context, improved relations with Armenia could facilitate the development of multimodal transport infrastructure and integrate it further into EU-Asia connectivity. 

The reopening of the Turkish-Armenian border would not only benefit Armenia’s trade and connectivity with the broader region, but would also offer Turkish businesses access to new markets in Armenia and potentially further into the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). As a member of Russia-led EAEU, Armenia would enable eastern Turkish provinces like Kars and Iğdır to benefit from cross-border trade, transit infrastructure, and logistics services. 

While Turkey has announced its readiness to finalize the improvement of relations with Armenia, it has also signaled that Yerevan will first have to conclude a peace treaty with Azerbaijan. Recent statements do indeed suggest that the two countries are close to signing a peace agreement. Baku and Yerevan have confirmed that the work on the document has been concluded and that the two sides are closer than ever to reaching a historic agreement. However, there are still disagreements about the corridor through Armenia and the Armenian constitution, which calls for unification with Nagorno-Karabakh. 

Nevertheless, Baku and Yerevan have taken major steps to toward the peace agreement which in turn would open the door to Turkey to pursue bilateral engagement with Yerevan without prejudicing its strategic relationship with its ally Azerbaijan. Arguably, once a peace deal has been reached between Armenia and Azerbaijan, the efforts to reopen the Armenia-Turkey border and restore diplomatic ties will be accelerated.

Yet political, psychological, and logistical barriers will still have to be overcome. While Baku has officially refrained from opposing the Turkey-Armenia talks, it maintains significant leverage over the process. Turkish policymakers are traditionally sensitive to Azerbaijani perceptions and have repeatedly stated that normalization with Armenia will not come at the expense of their ties with Baku. This creates a structural ceiling for Turkish diplomatic engagement, one that is unlikely to be breached unless Armenia and Azerbaijan reach a final peace settlement that clarifies the status of the Zangezur Corridor and other contentious issues.

Domestic political dynamics in both Turkey and Armenia further complicate the picture. In both capitals, members of the political elites continue to harbor skepticism toward bilateral engagement. In Yerevan in particular, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan faces domestic constraints. While he has demonstrated willingness to explore normalization, his domestic political opposition accuses him of capitulation to Turkey and Azerbaijan, particularly in the wake of the loss of Nagorno-Karabakh.

Deficient infrastructure poses an additional challenge. Even if the two sides agree to reopen borders or launch joint trade initiatives, new physical infrastructure will be necessary to facilitate such interaction. Decades of closed borders have resulted in minimal customs cooperation, and underdeveloped trade logistics. Reviving these systems is going to require significant investment, time, and coordinated planning.

CONCLUSIONS: The emerging dialogue between Turkey and Armenia is not the result of spontaneous goodwill, but rather of shifts in the regional power balance coupled with economic imperatives. In comparison with previous attempts to improve relations, this time practical steps have been made, aided by geopolitical situation in the region. Over the next months, several plausible scenarios could emerge. The most likely outcome is a pattern of managed normalization—slow, cautious, and transactional. Under this model, Turkey and Armenia would gradually deepen technical cooperation, possibly culminating in consular-level relations and partial border reopening, particularly for commercial traffic. This would allow both governments to claim progress without provoking political backlash or over-committing to full diplomatic recognition. Such a path could potentially be underpinned by parallel Armenian-Azerbaijani negotiations or even formats which would include other regional actors.

A more optimistic scenario would involve a formal diplomatic breakthrough following a peace agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan. This would remove the principal strategic obstacle from Turkey’s calculus and could lead to the exchange of ambassadors, the full reopening of land borders, and large-scale investment in regional infrastructure. In this context, Turkey could position itself as an economic gateway for Armenia helping it to break its isolation and attract diversified foreign capital. 

Overall, the geopolitical situation in the South Caucasus is favorable to a definitive improvement of Armenian-Turkish relations and the two parties clearly recognize the benefits of full restoration. However, this outcome will nonetheless require strong political leadership and a shift in domestic public opinion in both countries – none of which are guaranteed.

AUTHOR BIO: Emil Avdaliani is a professor of international relations at the European University in Tbilisi, Georgia, and a scholar of Silk Roads. He can be reached on Twitter/X at @emilavdaliani. 

By Barçın Yinanç

November 9, 2023

A peace settlement in the Caucasus provides a huge window of opportunity for the realization of the Middle Corridor. Turkey needs to strike the right balance in its relations with Armenia and Azerbaijan while neutralizing the disruptive influence of Iran and Russia. Turkey, whose military backing has been decisive in Azerbaijan’s victories in Nagorno-Karabakh, needs to convince its close ally that it’s in their common interest that Armenia is rewarded for its policies, and that inaction could prove costly for regional peace and pan-Turkic ambitions.

By Richard Weitz (vol. 5, no. 18 of the Turkey Analyst)

Turkish-Azerbaijani relations have been on the rebound in recent months since the Turkish-Armenian reconciliation effort, launched in 2008, has effectively collapsed over differences regarding the Armenian-occupied territories of Azerbaijan and the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh. The summit earlier this month between the two governments will accelerate this process, especially by helping them develop their energy partnership.

By Joris Gjata (vol. 3, no. 7 of the Turkey Analyst)

The Turkish-Armenian reconciliation process, formalized with the signing of two Protocols on October 10, 2009, does not seem to be going anywhere. The failure to materialize the promises of opening the border and establishing diplomatic relations has complex reasons and crucial implications. There are important lessons to be drawn from the mistakes in this process not only for the Western political leaders but most importantly for Turkish and Armenian foreign policy makers.