Iran International
Iran’s hardliners have vowed retaliation against a US-brokered deal last week which would link two parts of Azerbaijan via a corridor through Armenia, while President Masoud Pezeshkian’s government has so far offered only a muted response.
The planned route — formally named the “Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity” — will run through Armenia’s Syunik region, linking Azerbaijan to its Nakhchivan exclave and on to Turkey and Europe.
By bypassing Iranian territory, it undercuts Tehran’s land link between Azerbaijan and Europe and gives Washington a new foothold in the South Caucasus.
‘Graveyard for US allies’
“This passage will not become a gateway for Trump’s mercenaries — it will become their graveyard,” Ali Akbar Velayati, senior adviser to supreme leader Ali Khamenei, told the Revolutionary Guards-linked Tasnim, warning about a potential NATO presence in the region.
Ali Bagheri-Kani, a member of the Foreign Ministry’s Strategic Council, told state television Iran would not remain silent “whether Russia joined in the action or not.”
The editor of the Iranian Kayhan newspaper who is appointed by Iran's Supreme Leader labeled the Baku–Yerevan deal a betrayal.
“(Tehran) must use the levers at its disposal to confront them,” Hossein Shariatmadari wrote in an editorial.
“As a first step, it can ban the passage of US and Israeli vessels through the Strait of Hormuz.”
Cautious government line
Tehran’s official position, outlined in an August 9 Foreign Ministry statement, welcomed the peace agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan without mentioning the Zangezur Corridor.
It warned of “any form of foreign intervention … that could undermine the security and lasting stability of the region” and reiterated support for regional initiatives such as the 3+3 mechanism with Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Iran, Turkey and Russia.
It remains the government’s only reaction so far.
Voices in-between
“If the intention is diplomacy, then things should not have reached this point in the first place,” prominent reformist journalist Ahmad Zeydabadi wrote on his Telegram channel. “But if the intention is a military solution, it is impossible to enter into conflict at every point with different parties.”
Zeydabadi also questioned claims the corridor would remove Iran’s control over the Iran–Armenia border or block access to Armenia.
Caucasus expert Ehsan Movahedian said the gap between the administration’s caution and the aggressive line put out by the supreme leader's adviser “(speaks) volumes, including why we have fallen behind in developments in the Caucasus!”
Iran should seek a role in the American consortium with 99-year development rights over the corridor, he suggested.
But economist Sadegh Alhosseini challenged the bleak takes.
“This corridor is harmful first to Armenia and then to Russia, while the damage to Iran is considerably less than to those two,” he posted on X.
“The extent of the harm has been greatly exaggerated. Not every regional development is designed for the geopolitical strangulation of Iran! Iran is not the center of the world, friends!”
