The National Interest, an online publication focusing on defense issues, national security, military affairs and hardware, foreign policy, has published an article, titled “What the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace deal means for the Middle Corridor.”
News.Az presents the article, by Michael Rossi, a Lecturer in Political Science at Rutgers University of New Jersey, United States, and a Visiting Professor at Webster University, Tashkent.
In August, Armenian prime minister Nikol Pashinyan and Azerbaijani president Ilham Aliyev signed a US-brokered peace agreement in Washington, formally ending decades of hostilities. Central to the deal is the “Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity” (TRIPP), more commonly referred to as the Zangezur Corridor.
The corridor is a short but strategically important stretch of land in southern Armenia that connects mainland Azerbaijan with its Nakhchivan exclave and Türkiye. Under the agreement, Armenia maintains sovereignty, but the United States secured rights to develop and manage the corridor through a consortium for 99 years.
While this arrangement resolves a long-standing regional dispute, its significance extends beyond Armenia and Azerbaijan. TRIPP is effectively a new link in the Trans-Caspian “
Middle Corridor,” the east-west trade route connecting China to Europe across Kazakhstan, the Caspian Sea, the South Caucasus, and Türkiye. The Middle Corridor is emerging as a strategic
alternative for global supply chains, and the peace agreement gives Washington a direct role in its development.
The Middle Corridor’s Growing Weight
The Middle Corridor, also known as the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route, has gained traction since the war in Ukraine disrupted routes through Russia. Once considered an auxiliary option, it is increasingly viewed as a central artery for Eurasian trade. Freight volumes along the corridor reached 2.3 million tons in the first half of 2025, an increase of around 7 percent compared with the previous year. Governments along the route are investing heavily to sustain this growth.
Kazakhstan, the pivotal state in the corridor, has accelerated major infrastructure programs. Work is progressing on the Dostyk-Moyynty double-tracking and the Almaty rail bypass, projects designed to ease bottlenecks at the Chinese border and within the domestic network. The government aims to expand transit cargo volumes to 100 million tons before 2035. Furthermore, President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev has made transport modernization a centerpiece of his agenda.
Between now and 2030, Kazakhstan
plans to modernize or build over 5,000 kilometers of rail lines and repair 11,000 kilometers of existing track, a scale of work double that of the entire post-independence period. On the western end, Kazakhstan opened a
multimodal terminal at Georgia’s Poti port in June, with an annual capacity of 120,000 tons. At
Aktau on the Caspian, container handling capacity is being increased from around 140,000 to
240,000 twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs).
These investments are complemented by “soft infrastructure.” Corridor members—Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Türkiye—are
rolling out a unified
digital transit document and harmonized customs procedures, supported by the
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe’s push for multimodal digital freight standards. Together, these steps demonstrate that the corridor is becoming a coherent trade system.
In this context, the Zangezur Corridor plugs a missing gap in the Middle Corridor. Once developed, it will allow goods moving from Central Asia and across the Caspian to flow directly through Azerbaijan into Türkiye and Europe without diversions through Iran or Russia. The route’s reliability and throughput will increase substantially.
Because the agreement places development of TRIPP under US management, Washington gains a rare opportunity to shape the standards and financing of a trade artery in the South Caucasus. Armenia retains sovereignty, but the corridor’s long-term lease to the United States means American companies and institutions will be central to its construction and operation. That presence will inevitably extend beyond infrastructure into economic and political influence.
The Middle Corridor’s Strategic Implications
The peace deal, therefore, carries implications that go well beyond conflict resolution. For Washington, three stand out.
The first is strategic presence. By taking responsibility for TRIPP, the United States acquires influence at a geographic chokepoint linking Europe, the Middle East, and Central Asia. The second is a commercial opportunity. The need for investment in rail, energy, telecommunications, and logistics across both TRIPP and the broader Middle Corridor creates a pathway for US companies to enter supply chains that are geopolitically safer and sanctions-compliant. This can expand markets for American firms in engineering, logistics, and digital services while embedding US standards into corridor operations.
The third is a broader geoeconomic play. With TRIPP in place, Washington has the chance to deepen its influence across the Caspian-Central Asia arc by linking infrastructure to investment and governance initiatives. This allows the United States to present itself as a partner in Eurasia that offers an alternative to China’s Belt and Road Initiative.
Meanwhile, supporting the Middle Corridor should be viewed through both strategic and economic lenses. Kazakhstan’s location makes it indispensable for the corridor’s success, and the country has repeatedly
emphasized its desire for closer economic cooperation with the United States. This cooperation need not be limited to transport. Kazakhstan
holds some of the world’s largest reserves of critical minerals, including uranium and rare earth elements, which are increasingly important to US supply chain security. Linking logistics development with resource cooperation could help diversify American access to strategic commodities.
Steps the United States Could Take
There are several practical ways Washington could support the Middle Corridor’s development. One is by helping advance digital and regulatory standards, from interoperable freight platforms to simplified customs regimes, which would cut transit times and reduce costs. Another is by partnering with Kazakhstan on critical rail and port upgrades that underpin the corridor, such as the modernization of the Caspian ports of Aktau and Kuryk.
US technical and commercial involvement in these projects would strengthen the corridor’s reliability while deepening bilateral economic ties. A third is by aligning transport cooperation with mineral supply initiatives, embedding corridor development within wider US economic priorities.
None of these steps requires large new commitments of resources. They do, however, require political attention and a recognition that Eurasian connectivity is strategically significant to Washington.
The Armenia-Azerbaijan peace agreement has been presented primarily as a breakthrough in resolving one of the post-Soviet space’s most entrenched conflicts. Yet its longer-term significance lies in the way it connects the United States to the Middle Corridor. By anchoring TRIPP, Washington gains a strategic foothold, new commercial openings, and a role in shaping Eurasia’s economic future.
The task now is to move beyond celebration of the deal itself and to view it as a starting point for sustained engagement. The Middle Corridor is becoming a critical link in global trade, and supporting its development in partnership with Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Türkiye, and Armenia aligns directly with US interests.
News.Az
