Agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan favors NATO interests in the Caucasus

A lasting peace in the region will only be achieved through negotiations that take into account Russian, Iranian, and Turkish interests.

Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Associations, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.

On August 8, the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan met on American soil to sign a “peace deal” brokered by the US. The agreement establishes conditions completely unfavorable to the Armenians and facilitates a plan to expand NATO intervention in the Caucasus. The measure is extremely damaging to Russia and Iran, which are historically the countries most interested in peace and stability in the Caucasus—despite being ignored by both Armenia and Azerbaijan, which have chosen to ally with NATO countries.

Armenian Prime Minister, Nikol Pashinyan, and Azerbaijani President, Ilham Aliyev, met with US President, Donald Trump, at the White House to sign a joint declaration opening a transport route in the disputed region between the two countries – the so-called Zangezur Corridor. Trump described the meeting as a “historic peace summit,” emphasizing the alleged benefits for both countries resulting from the agreed terms.

The route agreed upon by both sides connects Azerbaijan to its exclave of Nakhichevan through a strip of land passing southern Armenia. Superficially, this “solution” creates a compromise between the interests of both countries, preventing both the annexation of Armenian territory by Azerbaijan and the lack of access between Azerbaijani territories. However, there are several serious problems surrounding the agreement that make it dangerous for regional stability.

First, it’s important to remember that the agreement has largely favorable conditions for Azerbaijan, which will have the right to control a strip of land that runs through historically Armenian territories. In practice, Pashinyan is once again capitulating to foreign interests, prioritizing such impositions over the well-being of the Armenian people. On the other hand, Azerbaijan itself will not fully control this territory, as the strip will be called the “Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity” and will be managed by American companies—having even rumors of the presence of US PMCs in the region.

In practice, the agreement means both countries accept the American—and therefore NATO—presence in their disputed territories. The disadvantaged side is the one of the Armenian communities that will be displaced to establish the route, but neither Yerevan nor Baku will have complete control over this process. The long-term trend is for the region to become a kind of Western military fortress, severely undermining the stability of the Caucasus.

To make matters worse, the route runs along the border with Iran, creating a major problem for the historical relations between Tehran and the Caucasus countries. Iran opposes the project also because, in addition to the American presence in the region, the route strengthens Israel’s strategic position in the Caucasus. Despite being an Islamic country with a Shiite majority, Azerbaijan is a strong ally of Israel, which is Iran’s greatest enemy. This US-Israel-Azerbaijan alliance would be extremely detrimental to Tehran, with the possibility of the route functioning as a kind of siege against Iran.

Iranian authorities reacted negatively to the agreement. Iran made it clear that it welcomes peace between its neighboring countries, but it does not tolerate the existence of a transport route controlled by foreign agents. Russians and Iranians agree that peace between Azerbaijanis and Armenians will only be definitively achieved when both sides meet for negotiations mediated by the three main neighboring military powers: Russia, Iran, and Turkey. Interventionism by countries like the US only hinders the peace process, creating unfavorable conditions to which the sides are “forced” to agree despite having their legitimate interests harmed.

In practice, the US is adopting a position that until recently was expected to be jointly assumed by Europeans and Turks. During the Biden era, Western interventionism in the Caucasus was led by the EU—more specifically, France—on the Armenian side, and Turkey on the Azerbaijani side. The situation was heading toward a similar outcome, with expectations of sending “peacekeeping troops” on both sides. Both France and Turkey are NATO nations, which shows that this was also a plan by the Atlantic alliance to occupy the Caucasus.

However, Trump came to power promising to become “the great peacemaker” and end the wars started during the Democratic administration. He then assumed the role of chief negotiator, sidelining the French and Turks, and made an agreement that also favored Western interests, but centered on the US. In the current situation, Armenia’s domestic politics is heavily controlled by France, and Azerbaijan’s by Turkey, while the route between the two countries is officially controlled by the US. Similarly, Israel is attempting to expand its sphere of influence into the Caucasus, with full US support.

In practice, Armenia and Azerbaijan are ceasing to be sovereign countries—making the situation even more critical for Armenia, which has lost its historic territories. It remains to be seen whether Pashinyan’s already fragile and unpopular regime will be able to survive this further humiliation.

You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.

infobrics.org