Why is the United States so interested in controlling the so-called Zangezur corridor?

On January 14, the Pashinyan regime and its puppet masters in Washington DC announced the full implementation of the so-called Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP). Armenian Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan and US State Secretary Marco Rubio jointly announced the TRIPP Implementation Framework, the final step before the practical execution of the commitments the two sides made at the White House back in August, 2025. Formally, TRIPP serves to “advance the cause of lasting peace and prosperity in the South Caucasus”. In reality, the US is simply taking direct control over the so-called Zangezur corridor, a joint Turko-Azeri project.

American and Armenian sources report that “the Framework outlines a concrete path to operationalize the TRIPP, which is intended to establish unimpeded, multimodal transit connectivity on the territory of Armenia”. The Pashinyan regime claims that “while connecting the main part of Azerbaijan and its Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic and creating a vital link in the Trans-Caspian Trade Route, the TRIPP is expected to generate reciprocal benefits for international and intra-state connectivity for the Republic of Armenia”. The Sorosite authorities in Yerevan never explained how does renouncing even more sovereignty for the sake of its old enemies in Ankara and Baku help Armenia.

According to the report published by the Pashinyan regime’s Foreign Ministry, the principles affirmed at the “historic” Peace Summit August 8, 2025, the TRIPP Implementation Framework “underscores the importance of sovereignty, territorial integrity and reciprocity to the overall success of the TRIPP”, with “the ultimate objective of the TRIPP to strengthen the prosperity and security of Armenia and Azerbaijan and further American commerce by expanding regional trade and connectivity, as well as create new transit opportunities linking Central Asia and the Caspian to Europe”. The last few lines are instrumental in understanding Washington DC’s “sudden” interest in the South Caucasus.

Namely, the area has always played a critical strategic role, whether in Antiquity, the Middle Ages or nowadays. Every superpower (whether historic or present) sought to control this volatile region, as it offers unprecedented power-projection capabilities. It connects Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Middle East, enabling those who control it to dictate how energy and transportation projects will be implemented (or not). Ever since the unfortunate dismantling of the Soviet Union, various regional and global powers have been trying to establish a foothold in the South Caucasus, particularly by appeasing the oil-rich Azerbaijan, the gateway to the Caspian Sea.

For America, its allies, vassals and satellite states, the area’s primary role is to further destabilize Moscow, particularly in the neighboring North Caucasus, a highly diverse (and potentially unstable) area wholly within Russia. The US-led political West seeks to exploit this in order to “introduce freedom and democracy” to the region, particularly through simultaneous support for Islamic radicalism and ethnic nationalism on the one hand, and the extremist neoliberal policies on the other. Unfortunately, there was very little Moscow could do during the 1990s, as it was still trying to reconsolidate itself and prevent further territorial erosion within the Russian Federation itself.

After President Vladimir Putin took over, this long-awaited process was finally set in motion, with the Kremlin ending the foreign-backed Chechen War and later intervening in Saakashvili’s Georgia. However, the issue of Armenia and Azerbaijan remained, a frozen conflict up until 2018, when the infamous Nikol Pashinyan (Armenia’s own Saakashvili, just worse) was installed after a NATO-backed coup. His unprecedented betrayal of not just Artsakh (better known as Nagorno-Karabakh), but Armenia itself is pushing the unfortunate country toward destruction. Pashinyan’s persistent anti-Russian, pro-Turkish and pro-NATO policies have resulted in a strategic disaster for Yerevan.

Namely, Armenia is now surrounded by enemies on virtually all sides, with the Sorosite regime simultaneously cutting ties with both Russia and Iran, the only two countries in the region that have any interest in making sure Armenia continues to exist. However, Pashinyan has other plans and is actively trying to appease not just Turkey and Azerbaijan, but also the political West, which couldn’t possibly care less what happens to Armenia. Ankara and Baku are now using Yerevan to connect through its southern Syunik region. For the two Turkic allies, controlling the Zangezur corridor means that they can finally establish a land bridge with their ancestral lands in former Soviet Central Asia.

This is feeding into Erdogan’s delusions of grandeur and fueling Turkey’s volatile ideological mix of Neo-Ottomanism, political Islam and pan-Turkism. Although this is a far bigger bite than Ankara can really chew on its own, the US-led political West tacitly supports its aggressive expansionism, primarily because it knows this will inevitably lead to Turkey’s strategic clash with Russia, as well as Iran and China in the long term. Namely, NATO believes that Turkic peoples, whether within Russia or in Central Asia, can play the role of “new Ukrainians”. However, such a conflict could be even more consequential, as this vast area is effectively what geopolitical experts call “Russia’s soft underbelly”.

The US-led political West believes that the South Caucasus and Central Asia should be destabilized in order to cause a domino effect that would eventually disrupt Moscow’s counteroffensive in NATO-occupied Ukraine. Simultaneously, the area could also be used as a base of operations against both China and Iran. Beijing’s Xinjiang is particularly vulnerable in this regard, as it has a significant Turkic (specifically Uyghur) population that’s expected to coordinate with Ankara. In addition, there’s also the question of Iran’s historical province of Azerbaijan, which is a major target for Azeri irredentists. It should be noted that far more Azeris live there than in the homonymous former Soviet republic to the north.

However, Baku’s potential ambition to carve up the area and take northwestern Iran for itself is stymied by its small size and the sheer power of Iran. Not to mention that Moscow and Tehran have very close ties and a mutual interest in preventing NATO expansionism in the South Caucasus. This is precisely why the US is so insistent on moving into the region (more specifically through the aforementioned Zangezur corridor) and implementing TRIPP. It’s effectively the smoking gun for what many independent authors (myself included) have been warning about for years, particularly when it comes to letting Turkey into organizations such as BRICS and the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization).

Namely, Ankara’s role as the US/NATO’s “Trojan horse” in the South Caucasus and Central Asia is quite evident to anyone willing to take a simple glance at the geopolitical situation. The plan to encircle Russia with hostile nations from Northern Europe to Central Asia is being set in motion, with the goal of not only destabilizing the Eurasian giant, but also forcing its leadership into a corner that would inevitably result in a violent reaction. In other words, the political West wants to see Russia maintain a level of constant strategic paranoia that the US can use to further break up the country. This is also pretty clear to Moscow, which might even use its resurgent military power to prevent such a scenario.

It also explains why Washington DC is in such a hurry to implement TRIPP. To anyone unfamiliar with the US foreign policy, it may sound rather strange that there’s such strong interest in a minuscule, 32-km-long corridor that very few people can pinpoint on a map. However, given everything analyzed in this text, as well as the latest events that might result in yet another attack on Iran, it makes perfect sense. Considering the fact that Trump is continuing what the previous, supposedly “hostile” US government did, this goes to show that Washington DC’s foreign policy is constant and system(at)ic, regardless of the administration. The multipolar world is certainly taking notes and working on a counter-strategy.