AZE.US
The TRIPP project could evolve into a major Trans-Caspian corridor encompassing railways, highways, pipelines, power lines and fiber-optic networks. Its implementation may reshape the economic and political landscape of the South Caucasus while increasing concerns in Russia and Iran.
As AZE.US reports, CivilNet journalists Stella Mehrabekyan and Arshaluis Mgdesyan discussed the project’s expansion, the growing alignment between statements from Baku and Yerevan, and the possible reactions from Moscow and Tehran.
The discussion followed a noticeable intensification of Armenian-American contacts. Senior adviser to the U.S. special envoy Aryeh Lightstone and House Armed Services Committee member Abe Hamadeh recently visited Yerevan.
Armenia’s ambassador to the United States, Narek Mkrtchyan, also gave several interviews, including one to CivilNet. According to the diplomat, the parties could soon move toward the project’s practical implementation.
Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has said negotiations with Washington on establishing the TRIPP company are nearing completion. Under the proposed structure discussed in the program, the U.S. side would hold a 74% stake, while Armenia would own the remaining 26%.
However, the CivilNet participants cautioned that construction cannot be considered underway until equipment and workers appear on the ground.
More Than a Transportation Route
The speakers highlighted the increasingly similar language being used by Azerbaijan and Armenia.
Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev first indicated that TRIPP should not be limited to a single transportation route. Armenia’s ambassador in Washington subsequently offered a comparable assessment.
The project could include roads and railways as well as power transmission lines, pipelines, gas infrastructure and fiber-optic networks.
“We are literally seeing the project expand. It is becoming increasingly ambitious, with TRIPP turning into TRIPP Plus,” the participants said.
Its immediate purpose is to establish a connection between mainland Azerbaijan and Nakhchivan through Armenian territory. However, its strategic significance could be much broader.
The route may eventually connect Central Asia with the South Caucasus, Turkey and European markets, creating another channel for cargo moving between Asia and Europe.
Mgdesyan argued that a new geo-economic framework is taking shape and will inevitably acquire geopolitical significance. A wider Trans-Caspian route could transport cargo from Central Asia to Europe while bypassing Russia and Iran.
From this perspective, TRIPP could become a central component of the broader Middle Corridor.
Why Russia Is Concerned
Moscow initially responded to the project with restraint and, at times, even cautiously positive language.
The CivilNet participants suggested that Russia may have expected to secure some role in TRIPP or retain a degree of influence through agreements with the United States. So far, however, there is no indication that those expectations will be met.
Another sensitive issue is Armenia’s railway infrastructure, which remains under Russian concession management. A new route developed with direct U.S. participation could alter the existing balance and reduce Moscow’s influence over Armenia’s transportation system.
According to the discussion, signs of Russian unease are already visible, particularly amid sanctions and other restrictions.
Iran Has Yet to Form a Clear Position
Tehran’s potential reaction remains equally important.
Iran has traditionally opposed arrangements on Armenian territory that could weaken its regional position or threaten its access to the Armenian border.
The CivilNet speakers said Tehran is currently preoccupied with domestic challenges and military escalation. It is also unclear which center of power is shaping Iran’s final position on TRIPP – the political leadership, the clerical establishment or the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
As a result, Iran does not yet appear to have developed a single, clearly articulated approach to the project. That position could become significantly firmer once the country’s internal situation stabilizes.
Armenia, the speakers argued, should therefore engage Tehran in advance and work to reduce potential risks.
Yerevan must simultaneously consider the threat of additional U.S. sanctions. Iran is one of only two neighboring countries with which Armenia has open borders and stable relations. Bilateral trade was estimated during the program at approximately $600 million to $700 million annually, giving Armenia a strong interest in maintaining economic ties.
Could Trade Produce Peace?
The discussion also addressed the growth of economic interaction between Armenia and Azerbaijan before the establishment of diplomatic relations and the final signing of a peace treaty.
TRIPP, bilateral trade and the reopening of regional communications could gradually create conditions for normalization. Under that scenario, a formal political agreement would become the result of practical cooperation rather than its starting point.
Mgdesyan noted, however, that Baku continues to demand amendments to Armenia’s Constitution or the adoption of a new constitution without references to the Declaration of Independence. Azerbaijan considers provisions linked to that document to contain territorial claims.
The situation is complicated by the Armenian ruling party’s failure to secure a constitutional majority in the June elections. Even if amendments pass through parliament, there is no guarantee that voters would approve them in a referendum.
The final signing and ratification of a peace agreement therefore remain uncertain in the near term.
The most realistic option, according to the CivilNet discussion, may be to continue negotiations along separate tracks – including communications, trade, border delimitation and demarcation.
This would allow Baku and Yerevan to advance in areas where their positions have already moved closer without waiting for every political dispute to be resolved.
The success of this approach would depend on political will in both Azerbaijan and Armenia, as well as the role of the United States as the principal facilitator and a direct participant in TRIPP.
Armenia’s New Parliament: Fewer Scandals, More Politics
The second part of the CivilNet program focused on the opening weeks of Armenia’s ninth National Assembly.
Ruben Rubinyan was elected speaker. Two deputy speaker positions went to representatives of the ruling Civil Contract party, while opposition lawmaker Aram Vardevanyan secured the third.
Rubinyan called for a new parliamentary culture and a reduction in the level of confrontation. Despite harsh rhetoric between the government and opposition during the election campaign, lawmakers have so far largely kept their disagreements within political boundaries.
Conflicts, boycotts and disputes over appointments to parliamentary committees continue, but the debates have become more substantive.
Compared with the previous parliament, where confrontations occasionally escalated into physical altercations, the new legislature currently appears more disciplined and manageable.
The CivilNet participants attributed this partly to the younger composition of the new parliament. They estimated the average age of lawmakers at approximately 35 to 37, while several major factions are also led by younger politicians.
The opposition Strong Armenia faction, which holds 29 seats and is led by Narek Karapetyan, has sought to present itself as a constructive force. Its members appear willing to operate within parliamentary rules while using targeted boycotts and other protest mechanisms to extract concessions from the governing majority.
Deep political divisions nevertheless remain. Both the government and opposition are attempting to demonstrate their readiness to work and find limited areas of agreement without abandoning mutual criticism.
For now, Armenia’s new parliament appears calmer and more focused than its predecessor. The question is how long that relative balance can survive.
AZE.US