Iran has firmly reiterated its opposition to a U.S.-backed proposal that would place an American company in control of a transport corridor linking mainland Azerbaijan to its Nakhichevan exclave via Armenia’s southern Syunik region, which borders Iran.
The Iranian Foreign Ministry, weighing in on the deepening debate over prospective Armenian-Azerbaijani transit routes, issued a pointed warning Monday against what it called the involvement of “extra-regional” powers in the South Caucasus.
“Rumors about the participation of extra-regional countries were rejected by regional actors,” ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said, according to Iran’s ISNA news agency. “Nonetheless, Iran is monitoring the situation closely and remains in contact with both countries.”
Baghaei reaffirmed Iran’s longstanding red lines: opposition to any change in Armenia’s internationally recognized borders, and rejection of geopolitical realignments that could alter the regional balance of power. His remarks echo Tehran’s deep concern over Azerbaijan and Turkey’s push for an extraterritorial land corridor—often referred to as the “Zangezur Corridor”—through Armenian territory.
The rhetoric from Tehran has intensified in recent days. Ali Akbar Velayati, a top adviser to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, accused the United States of being the principal architect behind the corridor project.
“The main objective is to weaken the Axis of Resistance, sever Iran’s land link to the Caucasus, and enforce a blockade on both Iran and Russia in the region’s southern flank,” Velayati said in a speech carried by the Tasnim news agency. He described the project as a component of Washington’s broader effort to shift geopolitical pressure from Ukraine to the South Caucasus, backed by NATO and pan-Turkic factions.
“Iran will confront this scheme through a policy of active prevention, not passive reaction,” he added.
On July 16, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan publicly confirmed that the United States had proposed placing a U.S. firm in charge of overseeing transit between Azerbaijan and Nakhichevan through Syunik. While he signaled openness to the idea, sources familiar with the talks suggest the proposal envisions a 100-year lease of Armenian territory to a U.S. entity—a prospect that has provoked alarm both at home and abroad.
In the days following the announcement, Pashinyan and newly elected Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian held a phone conversation, as did other top Armenian and Iranian security officials, underscoring the urgency and geopolitical sensitivity of the issue.
Russia has also voiced strong objections. On July 24, the Russian Foreign Ministry denounced the U.S. plan as part of Western efforts to marginalize both Moscow and Tehran in the region. That statement coincided with Pashinyan’s meeting with Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin on the sidelines of a conference in Siberia.
Despite Pashinyan’s earlier openness to the U.S. proposal, a senior lawmaker from the ruling Civil Contract party announced just hours after the Siberia talks that Armenia had rejected the offer.
“We saw a clear danger of ceding our sovereignty,” the lawmaker said, framing the decision as a matter of national self-preservation.
As competing global powers jostle for influence in the South Caucasus, Armenia once again finds itself at the intersection of broader geopolitical rivalries. Whether Yerevan can maintain sovereignty and regional stability amid this pressure remains an open—and pressing—question.
Iran has firmly reiterated its opposition to a U.S.-backed proposal that would place an American company in control of a transport corridor linking mainland Azerbaijan to its Nakhichevan exclave via Armenia’s southern Syunik region, which borders Iran.
The Iranian Foreign Ministry, weighing in on the deepening debate over prospective Armenian-Azerbaijani transit routes, issued a pointed warning Monday against what it called the involvement of “extra-regional” powers in the South Caucasus.
“Rumors about the participation of extra-regional countries were rejected by regional actors,” ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said, according to Iran’s ISNA news agency. “Nonetheless, Iran is monitoring the situation closely and remains in contact with both countries.”
Baghaei reaffirmed Iran’s longstanding red lines: opposition to any change in Armenia’s internationally recognized borders, and rejection of geopolitical realignments that could alter the regional balance of power. His remarks echo Tehran’s deep concern over Azerbaijan and Turkey’s push for an extraterritorial land corridor—often referred to as the “Zangezur Corridor”—through Armenian territory.
The rhetoric from Tehran has intensified in recent days. Ali Akbar Velayati, a top adviser to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, accused the United States of being the principal architect behind the corridor project.
“The main objective is to weaken the Axis of Resistance, sever Iran’s land link to the Caucasus, and enforce a blockade on both Iran and Russia in the region’s southern flank,” Velayati said in a speech carried by the Tasnim news agency. He described the project as a component of Washington’s broader effort to shift geopolitical pressure from Ukraine to the South Caucasus, backed by NATO and pan-Turkic factions.
“Iran will confront this scheme through a policy of active prevention, not passive reaction,” he added.
On July 16, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan publicly confirmed that the United States had proposed placing a U.S. firm in charge of overseeing transit between Azerbaijan and Nakhichevan through Syunik. While he signaled openness to the idea, sources familiar with the talks suggest the proposal envisions a 100-year lease of Armenian territory to a U.S. entity—a prospect that has provoked alarm both at home and abroad.
In the days following the announcement, Pashinyan and newly elected Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian held a phone conversation, as did other top Armenian and Iranian security officials, underscoring the urgency and geopolitical sensitivity of the issue.
Russia has also voiced strong objections. On July 24, the Russian Foreign Ministry denounced the U.S. plan as part of Western efforts to marginalize both Moscow and Tehran in the region. That statement coincided with Pashinyan’s meeting with Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin on the sidelines of a conference in Siberia.
Despite Pashinyan’s earlier openness to the U.S. proposal, a senior lawmaker from the ruling Civil Contract party announced just hours after the Siberia talks that Armenia had rejected the offer.
“We saw a clear danger of ceding our sovereignty,” the lawmaker said, framing the decision as a matter of national self-preservation.
As competing global powers jostle for influence in the South Caucasus, Armenia once again finds itself at the intersection of broader geopolitical rivalries. Whether Yerevan can maintain sovereignty and regional stability amid this pressure remains an open—and pressing—question.
