The Trump administration reportedly floated a proposal to establish a U.S.-operated transport corridor through Armenia’s southern Syunik province, aiming to address the ongoing blockade between Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey over regional connectivity, according to an analysis by Olesya Vartanyan of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Citing unnamed diplomatic sources familiar with the discussions, Vartanyan reports that the plan would place a U.S.-based commercial logistics firm in charge of managing and monitoring cargo transit between Azerbaijan and its Nakhichevan exclave via Armenian territory. The proposed model is said to mirror a prior European Union initiative and is designed to provide neutral third-party oversight while preserving Armenia’s sovereignty over the route.
The article also notes that Azerbaijan seeks to open a southern passage—dubbed the “Zangezur corridor”—through Armenia to Nakhichevan.
While the 2020 Russian-brokered ceasefire envisioned some form of Russian oversight, Armenia has consistently rejected any arrangement that would undermine its control over customs and security in the Syunik region. Yerevan maintains that any cross-border infrastructure must remain fully under Armenian jurisdiction, even as it explores avenues for regional transit and economic cooperation.
As part of this vision, Armenia has advanced its “Crossroads of Peace” initiative, which promotes regional connectivity under full Armenian sovereignty and mutual respect for international borders. The plan positions Armenia not as a corridor for others, but as a regional connector that preserves national interests without foreign control.
According to the Carnegie article, the U.S. proposal aims to reconcile these competing demands by introducing an American logistics operator as a neutral guarantor. The model reportedly draws on international monitoring mechanisms previously used in Georgia’s breakaway regions and would ensure data transparency for all involved parties.
The analysis suggests that U.S. officials believe such a structure could stabilize the corridor politically and economically—while also positioning it as a potential legacy-defining geopolitical achievement. One U.S. official reportedly even joked that the initiative could earn Trump a Nobel Peace Prize. While no final decision has been made, Washington is said to be weighing whether to pressure Baku to drop constitutional demands affecting Armenia’s territorial integrity or to encourage Yerevan to accept the corridor arrangement before a final peace agreement is signed. The proposal remains unconfirmed by U.S. authorities and is based on anonymous diplomatic sources cited in the Carnegie analysis.
According to the article, Azerbaijan is demanding that Armenia amend its constitution to remove references to a 1990 declaration asserting a claim over Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh). Although Armenia reportedly concedes the clause is symbolic and outdated, Vartanyan writes that repealing it would require a public referendum—a process that could take up to two years.
The article frames this constitutional dispute as a central roadblock to normalization and indicates that Azerbaijan may be willing to wait. However, it’s worth noting that these negotiations follow years of conflict, two wars, and what international observers and Armenian officials have described as a blockade and the forced displacement and ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Armenian population in Artsakh in 2023.
The Carnegie piece also details how Armenia’s outreach to Turkey has gone beyond diplomacy. It references symbolic cultural moves by Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, including a push to shift national focus from Mount Ararat—long seen as a historic symbol of Armenian identity—to Mount Aragats, located within present-day Armenia. According to the article, this is part of a broader effort to foster reconciliation and modern national identity. These moves have drawn criticism from many who view them as dismissive of Armenian history and ancestral claims.
The analysis highlights Turkey’s growing regional role, claiming that Ankara may now be the only actor capable of restraining Azerbaijan from military escalation. However, given Türkiye’s decades-long alignment with Baku, shared military cooperation, and close personal ties between President Erdogan and President Aliyev, many experts and Armenian observers question the extent to which Turkey can—or would—serve as a neutral broker or stabilizing force.
Carnegie’s report also ties this corridor initiative into broader geopolitical shifts. With Russia’s influence in the region declining due to its war in Ukraine, and Iran distracted by tensions with Israel and the United States, the article suggests the United States may be seeking to step into a strategic vacuum. It compares the proposed transit corridor to recent U.S.-backed economic projects involving rare earth minerals in Ukraine, suggesting that American business interests and geopolitical influence could be aligned in the South Caucasus as well.
Whether a U.S.-facilitated transit corridor will align with Armenia’s vision for regional peace and sovereignty remains to be seen.
