The “Trump track” (TRIPP) project is gradually taking clearer shape. As a result, discussions around the initiative are intensifying. Following recent statements by Armenia’s prime minister, reactions have also emerged in Iran and Russia.
Iran and Russia step up their response
Ali Akbar Velayati, adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader on international affairs, issued a strong statement. He equated TRIPP with the Zangezur corridor. According to him, U.S. economic involvement could evolve into a military presence. Velayati described the project as a threat to regional security and warned that it could reshape the geopolitical map.
Russia’s Foreign Ministry representative Mikhail Kalugin stated that Moscow should be involved in the project. He argued that Armenia’s membership in the EAEU, the presence of Russian border guards, and Russian management of Armenia’s railways justify Russia’s claim to a role in TRIPP.
A possible unexpected outcome
How should these reactions be assessed in the context of regional relations and emerging geopolitical realities? The issue is analyzed by regional affairs expert and orientalist Armen Petrosyan.
According to him, Iran, Russia, and Georgia are highly sensitive to the Armenia–Azerbaijan normalization process. This is especially true regarding the unblocking of transport routes. For decades, these states shaped their regional policies around the existence of the conflict. They had few contingency plans for a possible resolution.
Petrosyan explains that Iran used the conflict as a strategic lever. It provided Armenia with access to the outside world. For Azerbaijan, Iran ensured a land connection to Nakhchivan. Georgia benefited from energy and transit projects. Russia maintained geopolitical influence by exerting constant pressure on both sides.
“Now this environment appears to be changing,” Petrosyan notes. At the same time, these countries lack adequate tools to respond. Russia is absorbed by the war in Ukraine. Iran has suffered significant losses after the conflict with Israel. Georgia is also facing internal and external challenges.
Russia’s calculation: constructive rhetoric as a blocking tool
Petrosyan believes that Russia’s response appears constructive only on the surface. In substance, it is not aimed at advancing the project. Moscow justifies its involvement through formal arguments. These include Armenia’s EAEU membership, Russian border guards in Meghri, and Russian control over Armenia’s railways.
“However, these proposals are not suitable for serious discussion,” the expert stresses. In his view, Russian involvement in TRIPP would turn the initiative into a platform for geopolitical confrontation. This contradicts the project’s logic.
According to Petrosyan, Moscow uses constructive rhetoric to signal supposed support. Its real goal is to hinder implementation. “The moment Russia says, ‘I also want to participate,’ the process already begins to stall,” he explains.
Iran’s approach: returning to an old toolkit
Unlike Russia, Iran lacks instruments to demand direct participation. Instead, Tehran has revived its long-standing rhetoric against the creation of “corridors.”
In this context, Velayati equates TRIPP with the Zangezur corridor. He argues that there is no fundamental difference between them for Iran. Tehran again raises concerns about border changes, limits on sovereignty, and threats to the Armenia–Iran border.
Petrosyan notes that the Zangezur corridor implied a Turkish-Azerbaijani controlled route near Iran’s border. This could have severed Armenia’s land connection with Iran through Syunik. Such a scenario posed a serious strategic challenge for Tehran.
In the case of TRIPP, the situation is even more sensitive. “Previously, the issue involved regional actors. Now it involves the United States,” Petrosyan says. The U.S. is Iran’s primary geopolitical adversary. Recent U.S. strikes on Iranian territory have reinforced this perception. As a result, TRIPP is viewed as an added security threat.
The Georgia factor: missed opportunities
Turning to Georgia, Petrosyan notes that Tbilisi is also sensitive to ongoing developments. However, he argues that Georgia’s current policy is not fully effective.
The expert stresses the importance of inclusive regional processes. He believes Georgia could act as a key third party and moderator.
“It is extremely important for Tbilisi to serve as the negotiation platform, rather than external centers such as Abu Dhabi or Washington,” he emphasizes. Yet, according to Petrosyan, Georgia has not shown sufficient initiative. As a result, it remains on the sidelines.
He concludes that this is a dangerous trend. Georgia’s exclusion from active regional processes increases its dependence on Russia.