Developments surrounding the TRIPP project go far beyond economic considerations and pose deep geopolitical risks for Armenia, particularly in the context of relations with Iran. This assessment was offered by political analyst Grant Mikaelyan. According to him, potential US military action against Iran and the strengthening of American presence in Armenia could sharply alter the country’s regional position.
US Presence as a Red Line for Iran
Mikaelyan argues that Iran’s negative stance toward TRIPP has already taken shape. If the project results in direct American presence near Iran’s border, Armenia may be perceived by Tehran as a non-friendly state.
He stresses that this represents a serious danger. For Armenia, relations with Iran are far more important than relations with the United States, especially given the country’s geography and dependence on the southern corridor.
This issue becomes even more sensitive amid discussions of possible military action against Iran.
Border Openings as a New Tool of Pressure
Commenting on Donald Trump’s statement about a potential 25 percent tariff on countries trading with Iran, Mikaelyan describes the proposal as politically controversial and legally questionable.
He does not rule out that such statements are intended more as political pressure than as a mechanism likely to be implemented. Even if applied to Armenia, the impact would amount to roughly $25 million — a notable but not decisive figure.
Mikaelyan expresses hope that even if such a measure is introduced, Armenia would be exempt. Until now, the United States has shown a degree of understanding toward Armenia’s relations with Iran, particularly given that no dual-use or military goods are involved. This tolerance has been linked to Armenia’s vulnerable geopolitical position.
However, he warns that the situation could change if borders with Turkey and Azerbaijan are opened or partially opened. In that case, Washington could demand restrictions or closure of Armenian–Iranian communications, arguing that Armenia would already have alternative routes.
In this context, he recalls the 2018 visit to Armenia by US National Security Advisor John Bolton, during which the idea was clearly voiced that Armenia would eventually need to close its border with Iran.
Meghri as a Geopolitical Hub
According to Mikaelyan, the 2020 war was largely connected to the southern direction and corridor logic. Azerbaijan’s advance along the Araks River aimed to cut Artsakh off from Iran and reach Armenia’s border, laying the groundwork for imposing a corridor concept.
Today, he says, this process continues in a different format. If the United States becomes the main actor behind TRIPP and corridor-based projects, the issue will no longer be framed as Armenia–Turkey or Armenia–US relations, but as a subject of negotiations between Washington and Ankara.
In such negotiations, Turkey could trade concessions on entirely different dossiers, including Syria. For Ankara, TRIPP carries far greater strategic significance. “It is the Turkic route,” Mikaelyan emphasizes.
Convergence of US and Turkish Interests
Mikaelyan notes that US and Turkish interests converge within this project. Turkey seeks unobstructed access to Central Asia, while the United States views the region as a potential new zone of pressure on Russia — a second “Ukraine.”
Within this logic, Meghri could become a key hub for arms transfers to Central Asia, turning it into a zone of heightened tension and vulnerability. The analyst recalls that Armenia’s prime minister has already spoken about the possible transit of military cargo along this route.
Who Really Decides
Mikaelyan underlines that Armenia and its current authorities do not actually shape the strategic agenda of this project. The agenda, he argues, is set by Turkey, with the United States acting as a powerful external player, Azerbaijan imposing its conditions through force, and Armenia left to accept the framework and negotiate only minor details.
He concludes that the corridor is clearly directed against both Russia and Iran, though it is not Armenia’s decision. Armenia, he warns, is facing a project whose long-term consequences could prove dangerous for its statehood.