Armenia’s government is seeking to move quickly toward the practical implementation of the TRIPP project. Political analyst Suren Surenyants argues that Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s recent statements clearly demonstrate Yerevan’s expectation of continued American support.
According to him, any major regional initiative can succeed only if it takes into account not only the interests of its direct participants but also the security concerns of key regional actors, particularly Iran and Russia.
Tehran’s Red Lines
Surenyants notes that one day before Pashinyan’s remarks, Iran’s Ambassador to Armenia, Khalil Shirgholami, openly outlined Tehran’s concerns regarding the risks associated with TRIPP.
He argues that Iran’s primary concern is the future security environment surrounding the project. Following recent US and Israeli military operations, Tehran has become increasingly sensitive to any expansion of American influence near its borders.
If TRIPP is viewed as a mechanism for establishing a long-term US strategic presence, including proposals involving 99-year infrastructure rights, Iran is unlikely to accept the project in its current form.
Moscow’s Remaining Leverage
According to Surenyants, Russia also sees TRIPP as an expansion of US influence in the South Caucasus.
Although Moscow’s regional position has weakened in recent years, it still retains significant leverage. He points to Russia’s influence over Armenia’s railway system and the continued deployment of Russian border guards along sections of the Armenian-Iranian border close to the proposed corridor.
He also notes that Russian officials have already warned Armenia about the risks of following a so-called “Ukrainian path,” mentioning potential gas price increases, trade restrictions, and other forms of economic pressure.
A Political Rather Than Technical Challenge
Surenyants believes the future of TRIPP will not be determined solely by the preferences of Yerevan and Washington.
Instead, he argues that negotiations should focus on reshaping the project’s political and security framework to accommodate the concerns of both Tehran and Moscow.
Without such adjustments, TRIPP could evolve from a regional connectivity initiative into another source of geopolitical confrontation.
US Domestic Politics Could Reshape the Timeline
Political analyst Lilit Dallakyan approaches the issue from a different perspective.
She argues that although TRIPP is presented as an American initiative, it is closely associated with President Donald Trump and the future of his administration.
Dallakyan notes that discussions about alternative regional corridors date back to the Obama administration, but implementation has always required many years.
She believes upcoming US midterm elections could weaken Trump’s political position. If Democrats gain control of Congress, Washington’s attention may shift toward domestic political battles and developments involving Iran.
She also expects significant geopolitical changes later this year in the United States, Russia, and other major international centers that could affect the project’s prospects.
According to Dallakyan, Moscow, Beijing, and Tehran all have strong incentives to prevent a lasting US presence along regional transport corridors.
Technical Work Continues
Political analyst Armen Petrosyan offers a more optimistic assessment.
He argues that the project’s viability is demonstrated not only by official statements but also by practical cooperation.
According to Petrosyan, representatives of an American consulting company have already visited Armenia three times this year, and recently worked alongside Armenian government specialists to inspect the planned project area in Syunik.
In his view, these activities show that Washington remains committed to the initiative at both the political and technical levels.
Petrosyan concludes that TRIPP will ultimately benefit all participating parties and will be implemented according to the planned timetable.