Armenia and Iran share many common interests, yet the two governments do not see every issue the same way. This was stated by political and economic analyst Hrant Mikaelyan, who commented on Yerevan-Tehran relations, energy cooperation and regional connectivity projects.
Iran Continues to View Armenia as a Strategic Priority
According to the expert, Armenia remains one of the five most important directions in Iran’s foreign policy.
“At this stage, Armenia is among Iran’s five main foreign policy priorities, alongside countries such as Iraq and Lebanon. This demonstrates how important Armenia is for Tehran,” Mikaelyan said.
At the same time, he stressed that the current quality of bilateral relations still falls short of Iran’s expectations.
“That said, the current level of cooperation is not yet what Tehran would ideally like to see. Nevertheless, Iran continues to view Armenia as one of its key strategic partners and intends to deepen cooperation,” he added.
Meghri Oil Refinery: An Old Idea With New Opportunities
Commenting on the visit of Armenia’s Minister of Territorial Administration and Infrastructure to Tehran, Mikaelyan said one of the most notable topics was the proposed construction of an oil refinery in Meghri. According to him, the idea has existed since 2007 but has never been implemented.
“The project was also included in Serzh Sargsyan’s 2008 presidential program, but it was never realized. At that time, the United States opposed it,” he noted.
The analyst believes the refinery could benefit both countries. Iran would gain a safer export route for its crude oil, while Armenia could export higher value-added products such as gasoline and other petroleum products instead of raw materials.
However, he warned that the project may still face both political and financial obstacles.
“The question is whether the United States would oppose it today. There is currently a certain shortage on the global oil market, while Donald Trump’s approach to some issues is more flexible. In addition, global access to capital has improved, making the project theoretically more realistic,” he said.
Nevertheless, Mikaelyan emphasized that the refinery’s success would also depend on supporting infrastructure.
He recalled that the European Union is discussing the possible integration of the energy systems of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkey.
If Armenia develops its own oil pipelines and petroleum transportation network, the outcome would be fundamentally different. If Turkish and Azerbaijani infrastructure is used instead, Armenia could end up serving merely as a transit link.
Gas Transit and the Gazprom Factor
Another major issue under discussion is the possibility of building a transit gas pipeline allowing Iranian gas to reach international markets through Armenia. However, Gazprom’s control over Armenia’s gas infrastructure remains the principal obstacle.
Asked whether Iranian gas imports could be expanded and whether Gazprom would allow changes to the current system, Mikaelyan said the issue is far from new.
He recalled that when the Iran-Armenia gas pipeline was built in 2007, a broader project had also been proposed to export gas through Armenia toward the Black Sea and European markets.
“When the pipeline was built in 2007, there was an attempt to construct a larger pipeline that would later allow surplus gas exports to the Black Sea and Europe. Gazprom insisted that Armenia should build a pipeline designed only for domestic demand,” he explained.
According to Mikaelyan, the existing pipeline has the capacity to transport around two billion cubic meters of gas annually, yet only about one quarter of that capacity is currently utilized.
“In reality, the existing pipeline’s full potential remains unused,” he said.
He explained that contractual restrictions with Gazprom are responsible for the situation.
“Under the existing agreement, Armenia may import Iranian gas only for processing before sending it back to Iran. Armenia does not even import this gas for its own domestic consumption,” he noted.
According to the analyst, this arrangement is linked to the preferential price Gazprom offers Armenia.
“Gazprom supplies Armenia with gas at roughly $180 per thousand cubic meters, while market prices are about three times higher. The company’s position is straightforward: if it supplies gas on such favorable terms, it expects to retain its monopoly. That is how the arrangement works,” Mikaelyan said.
He added that the same logic prevented earlier efforts to expand the pipeline.
“If Armenia had built a larger pipeline, it would have created export opportunities, which would have meant direct competition for Gazprom,” he explained.
At the same time, Mikaelyan pointed out that the European gas market is changing.
“Gazprom can no longer export gas to Europe in the volumes it once did. New European regulations are restricting Russian gas imports, creating room for alternative suppliers,” he said.
Still, he believes Russia is unlikely to surrender its position voluntarily.
“Russia has made concessions in many areas, but not in energy policy. This remains one of Moscow’s strategic priorities,” he stressed.
According to Mikaelyan, revising the current agreements could also lead to higher gas prices for Armenia.
“I believe that if Armenia seeks to revise the existing arrangements, gas prices will also be revised,” he concluded.
Iran Visit: Political Messaging Still Outweighs Implementation
The main question following the Armenian delegation’s visit to Iran is whether the announced projects will eventually materialize. Although several agreements were discussed, it remains unclear whether they will become real investments or remain political declarations.
Asked whether the projects discussed during the visit led by Minister Davit Khudatyan represent genuine opportunities or mainly a public relations campaign, Mikaelyan said political messaging currently outweighs practical implementation.
“There is certainly more PR than substance at this stage because Iran remains the only partner that enjoys broadly positive public perception inside Armenia. Any expansion of relations with Iran is politically beneficial domestically,” he said.
Nevertheless, he warned that projects left unrealized for decades are unlikely to be completed quickly.
According to the analyst, implementation depends on several key factors.
The first is the international environment, particularly the unresolved confrontation between the United States and Iran.
The second is the Armenian government’s ability not merely to announce projects but to implement them.
The third is the position of Western countries, whose policies continue to influence Armenia’s foreign policy choices.
Finally, he noted that the interests of Russia, Turkey and Azerbaijan may also create significant obstacles.
“In the end, the decisive factors remain professional capacity, political competence and political will,” Mikaelyan concluded.