Azerbaijan has no real interest in becoming involved in the emerging large-scale regional conflict. This opinion was expressed by political analyst Tigran Grigoryan. According to him, Baku’s primary focus remains the implementation of its transport and connectivity projects and the preservation of its economic calculations.
The Iranian “alternative corridor” in uncertainty
Grigoryan recalls that for years Azerbaijan argued that if Armenia did not provide a route to Nakhichevan through its territory, Baku had an alternative option — a route through Iran. This project is commonly referred to as the “Araks corridor,” planned along the Araks River.
As part of the project, Azerbaijan has already built two bridges connecting its main territory with Iran. The plan was to eventually connect this route through Iran to Nakhichevan as well. According to initial projections, the project was expected to be completed by March.
However, the military situation surrounding Iran has made the prospects of launching this route uncertain. Although some level of understanding between Baku and Tehran has recently emerged, and Azerbaijan has even sent humanitarian aid to Iran, it remains difficult to discuss the active use of this route while Iran is viewed as a conflict zone.
Armenia’s proposals and Azerbaijan’s preferences
The political analyst notes that after the Second Karabakh War Armenia consistently declared its readiness to open routes for Azerbaijan to reach Nakhichevan, both through northern and southern parts of the country.
However, Azerbaijan repeatedly rejected these proposals because its priority remained the route through Meghri. In the past Baku referred to this as the “Zangezur corridor,” while more recently it has used the term TRIPP.
According to Grigoryan, Azerbaijan has long feared that Armenia might delay the implementation of such connectivity. This concern explains why Baku was reluctant to accept alternative routes.
The Iran crisis as a new opportunity
In the current situation, Armenia appears to be trying to use the destabilization around Iran to send a clear signal to Azerbaijan: Yerevan is ready to provide a route so that Baku can maintain its connection with Nakhichevan during the crisis.
For Armenia, such a solution could be effective if Azerbaijan agrees to use the route within the framework of Armenian legislation — a condition that Yerevan has consistently insisted upon.
At the same time, several technical issues may arise. For example, questions remain about how trucks and vehicles would transit Armenian territory and whether they would require escorts.
Despite discussions about peace, the conflict has not been fully resolved and continues to exist in public perceptions, which may create additional challenges.
Changing attitudes in Azerbaijan
Grigoryan also points out that attitudes in Azerbaijan appear to be shifting. Previously, proposals from the Armenian government were immediately rejected, but now a certain change in tone is noticeable.
Just a few weeks ago, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev spoke about Armenia’s “Crossroads of Peace” initiative in a dismissive manner. However, in recent days Azerbaijani public discourse has begun to include statements suggesting that this option could be discussed — particularly if the war around Iran becomes prolonged.
Grigoryan notes that he has personally recorded at least two publications and interviews by well-known pro-government experts discussing this possibility.
Interestingly, these first reactions appeared immediately after the strikes on Iran, even before Armenia itself began publicly discussing such a possibility.
According to the analyst, this suggests that in the future the idea of a temporary humanitarian corridor for Azerbaijan could also be discussed to maintain transport connectivity during a regional crisis.