According to some reports, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev may soon meet again, this time in the United States. While information about the planned meeting has not yet been officially confirmed, it is already raising questions: how realistic is it to achieve progress? Just recently, in early July, the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan met in Abu Dhabi. Despite high expectations, the negotiations, which lasted about five hours, did not yield any visible breakthroughs. Public statements from both sides contained no hints of progress—only an emphasis on their readiness to continue dialogue.
Against this backdrop, a potential meeting in the USA takes on special significance. Will it be just another round of the diplomatic process, or will it provide an opportunity for practical steps toward progress?
Prior to the Abu Dhabi meeting, the U.S. side publicly stated the possibility of a breakthrough, emphasizing that such expectations were “not baseless.” These statements, made at the State Department level, gave the impression that Washington has specific tools or initiatives that could move the process forward.
One such initiative might be the project previously mentioned by Carnegie Endowment analyst Olesya Vardanyan. Citing two Western diplomats, she reported that the Trump administration had proposed to Yerevan and Baku the construction of a road connecting Azerbaijan to Nakhichevan through Armenian territory. According to these reports, the proposal was similar to one previously promoted by the EU: the route would be managed by an American company, which was supposedly intended to ensure neutral oversight and alleviate mutual suspicions between the parties.
Official Yerevan has confirmed the existence of such proposals. On July 10, Armenia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Mnatsakan Safaryan, in an interview with Radio Liberty, stated that the issue of outsourcing in the context of unblocking communications is still under discussion. He emphasized that any decisions must respect Armenia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and control over the project’s implementation must remain within Armenia’s jurisdiction.
When asked whether the U.S. proposals were included in the agenda of the Pashinyan-Aliyev talks, Safaryan noted that several initiatives are under discussion. According to him, if they align with Armenia’s interests and the principles outlined in the “Crossroads of Peace” concept, they could be considered.
Political analyst Suren Sargsyan, commenting on this project, notes: “The main question is who will ensure security along the route and how. I can hardly imagine a private security company being in charge of control.” Sargsyan also points out that Iran is categorically opposed to the creation of such a corridor, and it is even harder to imagine Tehran reacting calmly to the presence of American forces, even if they are from a private security company. This scenario could lead to further escalation in the region.
Speaking about Washington’s recent activism, Sargsyan recalls that the U.S. has been actively involved in resolving Armenian-Azerbaijani relations since the 1990s. According to him, the Biden administration was deeply engaged in the negotiation process and even publicly urged the parties to sign an agreement. The expert suggests that achieving any progress could be used by Washington as a diplomatic success. With Donald Trump’s return to the center of the political process, Sargsyan says the U.S. is seeking to take the initiative back into its hands. “He wants the signing of a peace agreement to be his achievement, especially since the document has already been agreed upon,” the political analyst states, pointing to the Trump administration’s desire to position itself as a team that builds peace.