No matter how it is packaged, Armenia agrees to cede a part of its sovereign territory. Vardan Oskanyan.
Today, U.S. President Donald Trump will host Nikol Pashinyan and Ilham Aliyev in Washington. The meeting will likely end with an agreement on a transit route between Azerbaijan and its Nakhichevan exclave—packaged as a U.S.-brokered breakthrough, perhaps even branded the “Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity” (TRIPP).
Before anyone applauds, let us be clear: it does not matter whether the corridor is operated by Armenia, the United States, or some “international operator”; whether it is leased for a hundred years, ten years, or one year; whether it is presented as a neutral “Syunik road” or wrapped in diplomatic euphemisms. The fact that Armenia is agreeing to cede control—temporarily or permanently—over any part of its sovereign territory is unacceptable. The real scandal is not whether the deal is good or bad; it is that it exists at all.
For years, the so-called “Zangezur Corridor” has been wielded by Baku as a political weapon to erode Armenian sovereignty and rewrite the post-war order. Now, instead of rejecting this premise outright, Washington’s mediation has further legitimized it by transforming a manufactured Azerbaijani demand into an item for “creative problem-solving.” This is the diplomatic equivalent of negotiating how much of your front yard you are willing to give away, rather than insisting the fence stay where it belongs.
By engaging in “technical” discussions about management models, lease terms, and operator neutrality, Armenia is being drawn into a trap that treats the corridor as inevitable. Once the debate shifts from whether the corridor should exist to how it might function, the fundamental principle of sovereignty has already been compromised.
Let us be clear: Armenia has never agreed to grant any country extraterritorial access through Syunik. Armenian law explicitly forbids leasing land for such purposes. The Crossroads of Peace initiative—Armenia’s own framework—offers regional connectivity grounded in sovereignty, jurisdiction, reciprocity, and equality. A “TRIPP” deal that places a road segment under U.S. control for the long term violates all four principles.
Iran has already made plain it will not tolerate any foreign military or political foothold in Syunik. These warnings are not mere rhetoric: Syunik is both a strategic lifeline for Armenia and a critical link in the North–South axis. Turning it into a bargaining chip for geopolitical theater jeopardizes Armenian security and regional stability alike.
Proponents will argue this is a pragmatic compromise to advance peace talks. But what kind of peace begins with the erosion of one side’s sovereignty? Some may claim a U.S. presence offers a “neutral guarantee.” Yet neutrality is meaningless when the very act of brokering the corridor fulfills Azerbaijan’s demands.
If the aim is genuine peace, it must be trusted by both sides. If Azerbaijan insists it cannot rely on ordinary Armenian roads to reach Nakhichevan without a “Trump” corridor, then reciprocity demands a “Trump” corridor inside Azerbaijan, so Armenians can safely access the Caspian basin for trade or travel.
The Pashinyan–Aliyev–Trump meeting may be hailed in some quarters as a diplomatic milestone. In truth, it risks becoming a showpiece that cements an unacceptable concession into the peace process. The corridor debate should never have been entertained. Instead of applauding clever compromises over its terms, the only principled stance is to reject it outright.
Vardan Oskanyan
