The Zangazur Corridor: A Geopolitical Crucible Reshaping Eurasian Power Dynamics

 

Executive Summary

The Zangazur Corridor, a proposed transport route connecting mainland Azerbaijan to its Nakhchivan exclave through Armenia's Syunik Province, has emerged as a critical geopolitical flashpoint in the South Caucasus. Its origins in the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement have set the stage for a complex dispute with immense economic and strategic implications for regional and global powers, including its potential to reshape Eurasian trade routes.

The recent US proposal, floated in July 2025, for a 100-year lease of the corridor to a "private American military company" has further intensified tensions, eliciting strong reactions from Armenia, Russia, China, and Iran. While Azerbaijan and Turkey champion the corridor as a pathway to economic integration and pan-Turkic connectivity, Armenia vehemently opposes any extraterritorial control, citing profound sovereignty concerns. Iran perceives the corridor as a containment strategy orchestrated by the United States and Israel, threatening its regional access and national security. Russia, traditionally a key player, views the US proposal as a challenge to its regional influence and a potential NATO-aligned logistical threat.

However, to fully understand the current dynamics, one must examine the deeper historical context that shapes these modern tensions, particularly the artificial separation of Azerbaijan from Iran by Tsarist Russia in the early 19th century and the long-standing strategic relationship between Shiite Iran and European powers against Ottoman expansionism.

 I. Historical Context: The Roots of Modern Geopolitical Tensions

The Artificial Division: Tsarist Russia's Separation of Azerbaijan from Iran

For over a millennium, Azerbaijan was an integral part of Iran’s cultural and political sphere. Although its population predominantly spoke a Turkic language, the region remained deeply embedded in Iranian culture and Shiite tradition, sharing profound historical, linguistic, and spiritual bonds with the Persian people and the broader Iranian world.

The current geopolitical configuration of the South Caucasus cannot be understood without examining the disruption caused by Tsarist Russia’s expansion in the early 19th century. The Treaty of Gulistan (1813) and the Treaty of Turkmenchay (1828) forcibly severed the northern part of Azerbaijan from Iran, creating the artificial borders that still shape regional dynamics today.

The region was not only a core part of Iran’s territory but also the birthplace of the Safavid dynasty in the 16th century—a dynasty that made Shiism the state religion and forged the foundations of the modern Iranian state. Iranian Azerbaijan also played a decisive role in the Constitutional Revolution (1905–1911), when cities such as Tabriz became epicenters of resistance to absolute monarchy. Leaders like Sattar Khan and Bagher Khan emerged as national heroes, symbolizing Azerbaijani commitment to Iran’s modernization and unity.

This historical centrality continued into the 20th century. During the 1946 Azerbaijan Crisis, Soviet forces under Stalin attempted to establish a separatist puppet state in Iranian Azerbaijan. Only U.S. President Harry Truman’s firm diplomatic pressure—backed by the threat of military confrontation—forced Moscow’s withdrawal, preserving Iran’s territorial integrity.

The Russian conquest and later Soviet incorporation of northern Azerbaijan disrupted centuries of organic Persian–Azerbaijani unity, creating an artificial state structure susceptible to external manipulation. This history explains Iran’s deep sensitivity to the modern Zangazur Corridor project. To Tehran, the corridor is not merely a transport route, but a strategic move that could complete the separation of Azerbaijan from Iran, potentially encouraging separatism among Iran’s own Azerbaijani minority (roughly 16% of its population).

The Iran-Europe Strategic Alliance Against Ottoman Expansionism

An often-overlooked dimension of regional history is the centuries-long strategic partnership between Shiite Iran and European powers against Sunni Ottoman expansion. From the 16th to 18th centuries, whenever the Ottoman Empire advanced into the Balkans, Iran opened southern fronts in Mesopotamia and Anatolia—diverting Ottoman resources and enabling European defenses.

The Safavid–Habsburg alliance, Iranian diversionary campaigns during the sieges of Vienna, and the coordination of offensives with European powers demonstrate a sophisticated understanding of mutual strategic interest. This was not a temporary alignment, but a geopolitical constant: Iran and Europe shared a structural interest in containing Ottoman power..

Modern Implications of Historical Alliances

These patterns find a disturbing echo in the recent Nagorno-Karabakh War, culminating in the 2023–2024 ethnic cleansing of Armenians by Azerbaijani forces, backed by Turkey and supported by Uzbek and Turkmen religious networks. This campaign, framed as “liberation,” in reality erased centuries-old Armenian communities and heritage. It was not an isolated atrocity but the latest manifestation of a long-standing geopolitical dynamic in which Turkic powers—whether Ottoman, imperial, or republican—expand at the expense of indigenous populations.

In this light, Iran’s traditional role as a bulwark against Turkic expansion suggests that U.S. support for Turkish–Azerbaijani corridor projects—especially the “Zangezur Corridor”—is strategically shortsighted. Under President Erdoğan, Turkey openly advances pan-Turkic and neo-Ottoman ambitions, as seen in its aggressive policies toward Greece and Cyprus, military interventions in Syria and Libya, and renewed influence in former Ottoman territories from the Balkans to the Caucasus.

From a historical and strategic perspective, Turkey poses a greater long-term challenge to Western interests than Iran. Erdoğan’s project undermines NATO cohesion, threatens European energy security, and advances an expansionist ideology at odds with the current international order. Iran—despite its revolutionary rhetoric—remains a natural counterweight to such ambitions..

II. The US Proposal: Strategic Miscalculation and Geopolitical Realignment

Details of the Proposed 100-Year Lease

In July 2025, Tom Barrack, the US Ambassador to Turkey and Special Envoy to Syria, publicly disclosed Washington's proposal to manage the contentious Zangazur transport corridor. The plan outlines a scenario where a private American firm would lease and operate the 32-kilometer route for an unprecedented period of 100 years. Barrack presented this initiative as a neutral guarantee, stating: "America steps in and says: 'Okay, we'll take it over. Give us the 32 kilometers of road on a hundred-year lease, and you can all share it.'"

The proposal includes provisions for deploying approximately 1,000 personnel from a US private military company, authorized to use force to "preserve the integrity of the corridor." This effectively places the route outside direct Armenian control while creating what amounts to a permanent US military presence in the region.

Strategic Contradictions in US Policy

The US proposal reveals fundamental contradictions in American strategy. By supporting Turkish-Azerbaijani corridor ambitions, Washington risks:

1. Alienating a Historical Strategic Partner: Iran's centuries-long role as a counterweight to Ottoman/Turkish expansionism aligns with Western interests in containing authoritarian regional powers.

2. Strengthening Neo-Ottoman Ambitions: Turkey's current trajectory under Erdogan poses direct challenges to NATO allies and European security, making US support for Turkish connectivity projects strategically questionable.

3. Ignoring Sectarian Dynamics: Both Azerbaijan and Iran are predominantly Shiite, suggesting natural cultural and religious affinities that could be leveraged for regional stability rather than exploited for division.

4. Creating New Security Vulnerabilities: A US-controlled corridor adjacent to Iran and Russia simultaneously threatens both powers, potentially driving them into closer military cooperation.

III. Stakeholder Analysis: Competing Visions and Strategic Interests

Azerbaijan and Turkey: Neo-Ottoman Connectivity

Azerbaijan's pursuit of the Zangazur Corridor must be understood within the broader context of Turkish neo-Ottoman strategy. President Aliyev's declaration that the corridor will "unite the whole Turkic world" directly aligns with Erdogan's pan-Turkic ideology and territorial ambitions.

Turkey's vision extends beyond economic connectivity to cultural and political hegemony across the Turkic-speaking regions of Central Asia and the Caucasus. This represents a fundamental challenge to the existing post-Soviet order and directly threatens the territorial integrity of multiethnic states like Iran and Russia.

The artificial nature of the Azerbaijani state, created through Russian conquest and Soviet engineering, makes it particularly susceptible to Turkish influence. Baku's alignment with Ankara represents not organic historical development but the manipulation of post-colonial state structures for contemporary geopolitical purposes.

Armenia: Defending Sovereignty Against Historical Patterns

Armenia's resistance to the Zangazur Corridor reflects not merely contemporary sovereignty concerns but deep historical memory of how transport routes have been used as tools of imperial control and ethnic displacement. The Armenian Genocide of 1915-1917 was facilitated partly through Ottoman control of transportation infrastructure, making any extraterritorial transport arrangement particularly sensitive.

Armenia’s ‘Crossroads of Peace’ initiative represents a bold attempt to disentangle regional economic connectivity from the grip of geopolitical domination, projecting a vision of trade grounded in mutual respect and sovereign equality. Yet this approach unfolds in a precarious landscape shaped by Turkey’s neo-Ottoman revival under President Erdoğan, whose pan-Turkic ambitions seek to weave a corridor of influence stretching from the Caucasus to Central Asia, often cloaked in the rhetoric of economic cooperation.

While Armenia aims to transform infrastructure into a platform for reconciliation and growth, the risk remains that such corridors—if not safeguarded by firm regulatory oversight and multilateral guarantees—could inadvertently serve Ankara’s strategic designs, enabling deeper penetration into the South Caucasus. These designs are not isolated: they echo in Erdoğan’s assertive posture in the Eastern Mediterranean, Libya, and Cyprus, where connectivity has repeatedly been weaponized to assert dominance rather than foster peace.

In this light, the ‘Crossroads of Peace’ must navigate not only the legacies of empire—most painfully embodied in the memory of the Armenian Genocide—but also the contemporary danger of economic entanglement becoming a vector for renewed subordination. It is a vision that holds promise, but only if pursued with eyes wide open to the unintended consequences of regional power asymmetries."

Iran: Protecting Historical Spheres and Strategic Depth

Iran's declaration of "red lines" regarding the Zangazur Corridor stems from its understanding of how infrastructure projects can reshape geopolitical realities. The corridor threatens to complete the historical separation of Azerbaijan from Iran while simultaneously creating a Turkish-controlled barrier between Iran and Armenia.

From Tehran's perspective, the corridor represents the final stage of a centuries-long process of territorial fragmentation initiated by Russian imperialism and now continued through Turkish neo-Ottoman expansion supported by the United States. This explains the intensity of Iranian opposition and its willingness to consider military responses.

Iran's historical role as a strategic partner to European powers against Ottoman expansion suggests that its current opposition to the corridor aligns with broader Western interests in containing Turkish expansionism, even if current US policy fails to recognize this alignment.

Russia: Managing Imperial Legacies and Strategic Competition

Russia's complex position reflects its historical role as both the creator of current artificial borders and a contemporary great power seeking to maintain influence. Moscow's initial proposal for FSB (Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation) control of the corridor represented an attempt to perpetuate its imperial role as regional arbitrator.

However, Russia's current preoccupation with Ukraine has limited its capacity to enforce traditional spheres of influence, creating opportunities for other powers while simultaneously increasing the risk of regional instability.

China: Pragmatic Connectivity Versus Geopolitical Entanglement

China's approach to the Zangazur Corridor reflects its broader Belt and Road Initiative philosophy of economic connectivity divorced from political control. Beijing's interest in the Middle Corridor as an alternative to Russian routes demonstrates adaptive pragmatism rather than ideological commitment.

China's cautious stance regarding regional political disputes allows it to maintain economic relationships with all parties while avoiding the geopolitical costs of territorial commitments. This approach may prove more sustainable than the zero-sum strategies pursued by other powers.

Israel: Strategic Miscalculation and Regional Realignment

Israel's support for Azerbaijani military capabilities and the Zangazur Corridor project represents a significant strategic miscalculation based on short-term tactical thinking. While Israeli policymakers view the corridor as a tool for containing Iran, they fail to recognize the broader implications of Turkish neo-Ottoman expansion.

Turkey under Erdogan poses a far more fundamental challenge to Israeli security than Iran. Turkish support for Hamas, aggressive policies toward Israel's key partner Cyprus, and neo-Ottoman territorial ambitions directly threaten Israeli interests. By strengthening Turkish connectivity projects, Israel inadvertently supports a power that represents a greater long-term existential threat.

The historical pattern of Iranian-European cooperation against Ottoman expansion suggests that Israeli interests would be better served by strategic accommodation with Iran rather than supporting Turkish regional hegemony.

IV. Current Dynamics and Future Scenarios

The Abu Dhabi Talks and Persistent Deadlock

The July 2025 bilateral talks between Armenian Prime Minister Pashinyan and Azerbaijani President Aliyev in Abu Dhabi marked a significant departure from traditional Russian or European mediation formats. However, the failure to achieve breakthrough reflects fundamental incompatibilities between Azerbaijani demands for extraterritorial passage and Armenian insistence on sovereign control.

The persistent nature of these disagreements suggests that the corridor dispute cannot be resolved through purely bilateral negotiations without addressing broader regional power dynamics and historical grievances.

Environmental and Economic Vulnerabilities

The declining water levels of the Caspian Sea present a critical but underexamined threat to the entire Middle Corridor concept. Climate change and upstream diversions have dramatically reduced Caspian water levels, potentially rendering major ports inaccessible within decades.

This environmental factor suggests that the 100-year lease proposal may be based on fundamentally flawed assumptions about the corridor's long-term viability. Investment in infrastructure vulnerable to predictable environmental degradation represents poor strategic planning regardless of geopolitical considerations.

Scenario Analysis: Paths Forward

Scenario 1: Historical Realignment and Strategic Accommodation Recognition of historical patterns and strategic interests could lead to a fundamental recalibration of US policy. Acknowledging Iran's role as a natural counterweight to Turkish expansion might facilitate Iranian-Armenian-American cooperation in developing alternative connectivity solutions that respect Armenian sovereignty while containing Turkish neo-Ottoman ambitions.

Scenario 2: Escalation and Regional Militarization Continued US support for Turkish-Azerbaijani corridor demands risks triggering Iranian military responses and Russian countermeasures. This scenario would transform the South Caucasus into an active theater of great power competition with severe implications for global trade and energy security.

Scenario 3: Environmental Reality and Adaptive Planning Recognition of environmental constraints on Caspian-dependent trade routes could prompt investment in alternative connectivity solutions that account for climate change impacts while serving legitimate economic development needs.

V. Conclusion: Toward Strategic Wisdom and Historical Understanding

The Zangazur Corridor dispute represents far more than a contemporary infrastructure disagreement; it is the latest chapter in a centuries-long story of imperial competition, artificial border creation, and enduring alliance patterns that continue to shape regional dynamics. Current U.S. policy risks misreading these deeper historical currents by supporting Turkish-led connectivity projects that serve neo-Ottoman expansion—despite their fundamental incompatibility with long-term American and Western strategic interests.

The recent ethnic cleansing of Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh by Azerbaijani forces, conducted with direct Turkish support and aided by Uzbek and Turkmen religious networks, offers a stark warning of what such policies enable in practice. This operation not only erased an ancient community but also demonstrated the willingness of the Ankara–Baku axis to use military force and demographic engineering to consolidate power—methods historically associated with destabilization across the Caucasus and beyond.

The artificial separation of Azerbaijan from Iran, engineered through Russian imperialism and perpetuated by Cold War dynamics, provides crucial context for understanding Iranian sensitivities and strategic responses. Likewise, the historical record of Iranian-European cooperation against Ottoman expansion underscores that today’s American support for Turkish–Azerbaijani corridor initiatives runs counter to the very patterns of alliance that once safeguarded Western interests.

A more strategically informed approach would recognize Turkey under Erdoğan as the primary regional challenger to Western security—threatening NATO allies Greece and Cyprus, undermining European energy independence, and advancing a pan-Turkic, neo-Ottoman agenda. Iran, despite its revolutionary posture, remains a natural counterweight to Turkish expansionism, sharing a Shiite religious identity with Azerbaijan and a history of pragmatic engagement with Western powers.

The environmental fragility of Caspian-dependent trade routes further amplifies the risks of current planning, rendering heavy investment in such vulnerable corridors questionable from both a geopolitical and an economic perspective.

Ultimately, the Zangazur Corridor stands as a test of whether policymakers can learn from both history and present-day realities—or whether they will repeat the mistakes of imperial overstretch and artificial state creation. The consequences of choosing poorly will extend far beyond the South Caucasus, shaping the future of Eurasian connectivity, great power competition, and the balance between stability and expansionist ambition in the 21st century.