Menu
Latest
Menu
Latest
Opinion

Opinion: A new crisis in US-Iran relations is unwelcome in the South Caucasus

10 October 2017

President Trump's decertification of the Iran deal will put in jeopardy a number of regional projects, says Benyamin Poghosyan in this op-ed

One of the key events shaping the geopolitics of the Middle East in the coming days most probably will be the US President Donald Trump's decision to decertify Iran nuclear deal ( formally called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action - JCPOA), signed in 2015. President Trump has been a vocal opponent of the deal since he entered the Presidential race, and continued his tough stance on Iran after his election. The latest vivid example of this approach was President Trump's speech at the 72Session of the UN General Assembly in September. The US President accused Iran of spreading terrorism and undermining peace throughout the entire Middle East. He explicitly stated that the Iran deal was one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the United States had ever entered into, and that the deal was an embarrassment to the United States.

The likely decertification by President Trump will not automatically trigger the cancellation of the deal by the US government. The burden of the final decision will fall on the US Congress which will have to choose whether to reinstate the punitive sanctions on Iran or not. The elaboration of a decision will take time. Given the statement of Secretary of Defense James Mattis on October 3 at a Senate hearing in which he said that the Iran deal was in the US national security interest, it is evident not all in the US establishment are fond of drastic and hasty actions against Iran. However, the mere fact of decertification of the deal by President Trump will resonate all over the Middle East, triggering a change of calculus in many regional capitals.

The South Caucasus is one of the regions which will immediately face the impact of any negative developments on Iran. This is especially the case for Armenia. The landlocked country with no peace no war relations with Azerbaijan, and closed borders with Turkey, has only two routes to connect with the world - via Georgia and via Iran. Currently approximately two thirds of Armenian trade passes through Georgia, and the remaining part through Iran. However, the growing relations with Iran are key for Armenia to diversify its trade. Since 2016 negotiations have been underway between Iran, Armenia, Georgia, Greece and Bulgaria to launch the new Persian Gulf - Black Sea transit corridor. It envisages the developments of new routes to bring Iranian products through Armenia, Georgia and via the Black Sea to Europe. If successfully realized this project would play a key role in overcoming Armenia's isolation imposed through the joint efforts of Turkey and Azerbaijan.  For now, all regional energy and transport projects are bypassing Armenia. Baku - Tbilisi - Jeyhan oil and Baku - Tbilisi - Erzurum gas pipelines as well as Baku - Tbilisi - Kars railway, which official opening is scheduled for October 30, are out of Armenia's reach.

Another possibility for Armenia is to launch negotiations with China to include Persian Gulf - Black Sea project into the "One Belt One Road" initiative and involve multibillion Chinese investments. The possible signature of a Free Trade Agreement between the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) and Iran may create new opportunities as Armenia is the only EAEU member state which has a land border with Iran. Thus, companies from Russia and other EAEU member states may establish large scale production lines in Armenia and export products to the 80 million strong Iranian market. The upcoming signature of Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement between Armenia and the EU will create new possibilities for Armenia to take a role of bridge between the EU and Iran. Both Iranian and European companies may use Armenia as a launch pad to enter EU and Iran markets.  Before the end of this year Armenia is going to open a Free Economic Zone in Syunik region bordering Iran, and negotiations are underway with Iranian companies to actively involve them into this project.

All these developments gained momentum after the JCPOA signature in 2015. Any unilateral steps by the US towards the cancellation of the deal may create obstacles for the implementation of the above-mentioned projects. As a result, Armenia may face problems in its efforts to overcome its isolation and diversify its trade.     

Iran is one of the key partners of Azerbaijan. The two countries share similar Shia identity, and more than 10 million Azeri speaking population reside in Iranian regions bordering Azerbaijan. Economy plays a key role in relations between the two states. Azerbaijan, Iran and Russia are jointly developing North - South corridor which will connect India with Northern Europe via Iran, Azerbaijan and Russia. The project envisages the connection of Azerbaijani and Iranian railroads to facilitate the cargo transportation. Any tensions raising around Iran may complicate the implementation of the project and deprive Azerbaijan of the potential geo-economic and geopolitical benefits.  

Georgia has limited economic and political relations with Iran. The policy of euro-Atlantic integration makes Iran wary of cultivating close ties with Georgia. Nevertheless, in recent years there has been some boost in economic cooperation between the two states. The Persian Gulf - Black Sea corridor is one of the key projects involving Georgia and Iran, another opportunity may rise if Armenia, Georgia and Iran will link their energy transmission lines. Currently the construction of a new Armenia - Georgia and Armenia - Iran high voltage electricity transmission lines is underway. Starting from 2019 all three states will be able to implement electricity swaps. In the long-term perspective Armenia and Georgia may become an alternative transit route for Iranian gas exports into EU. However, Georgia will suffer less than Armenia and Azerbaijan if the situation around Iran worsens significantly.

For all the three South Caucasus countries a new crisis in relations between the United States and Iran is very unwelcome. All three have been seeking ways of exploiting the new possibilities arising out of the 2015 nuclear deal, and the subsequent end to sanctions, to promote new trade and communications initiatives. In all three capitals governments are watching events in Washington, hoping the storm clouds will clear soon.

Source: Dr. Benyamin Poghosyan is the Executive Director of the Political Science Association of Armenia. He contributed this op-ed to commonspace.eu

photo: The ministers of foreign affairs of France, Germany, the European Union, Iran, the United Kingdom and the United States as well as Chinese and Russian diplomats announcing the framework for a Comprehensive agreement on the Iranian nuclear programme in Lausanne on 2 April 2015). (archive picture)

 

 

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?
Trending

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

19 October 2026
Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Dennis Sammut
Editor's choice
News
Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security
Trending

Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

13 November 2026
Ukraine and Russia could see European countries join the next round of peace negotiations, following talks between US special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Thursday (November 12). However, conflicting positions over European military involvement, Ukraine’s territorial future and the continent’s security arrangements highlight the difficulties facing the diplomatic process. Speaking after the meeting, Witkoff said European participation would be an important development, describing the countries concerned as key partners. Kushner also indicated that Washington had noticed a shift in European attitudes and believed their involvement would not obstruct progress. In a statement published on X, he said the expanded discussions would address broader European security arrangements alongside territorial disputes between Russia and Ukraine. The US envoys subsequently travelled to Dublin, where they met Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a European summit. Zelenskyy welcomed the possibility of European participation and expressed hope that the negotiations would include measures to reduce tensions and establish ceasefires. He also reiterated the importance of European representation in decisions concerning the continent’s security. Moscow, however, has offered a more cautious interpretation of the proposed expansion. Putin's aide, Yuri Ushakov, suggested that European countries should first reconsider their military assistance to Kyiv, arguing that their current actions demonstrated an unwillingness to pursue peace. Putin similarly called on Washington to work with its European allies to establish whether they genuinely wanted peace or continued confrontation with Russia. The Russian president also rejected the prospect of European peacekeeping troops being deployed to Ukraine following a potential agreement, describing such a presence as a continuation of the war. His position reflects wider disagreements over the future European security architecture, with Moscow seeking discussions on the continent's broader security arrangements, while European leaders insist that such negotiations cannot replace a settlement of the war. Simultaneously, Zelenskyy raised concerns about disruptions to Starshield, the US-made satellite communications service used by Ukrainian forces. He described Washington’s discussions with Moscow about Europe's future security as unusual and warned against decisions that could undermine Ukraine's sovereignty. Despite the diplomatic activity, fighting continued. Russian drone attacks killed two people in Ukraine's Sumy region and injured five in Rivne, while a separate attack in Russia's Belgorod region killed one person and injured four. Ukrainian agricultural company Kernel Holding also suspended operations at all its oilseed extraction facilities following repeated Russian attacks.

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest
Trending

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

7 September 2026
Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Dennis Sammut
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”
Trending

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

21 September 2026
There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)
Dennis Sammut