International Dispute Over Zangezur Corridor: Scenarios and Potential Risks

according to the English section‌ of webangah News Agency, citing Mehr News Agency, the Shams Studies Center’s analytical ‌platform noted in a⁣ report that Iran’s foreign policy in the South Caucasus ⁣has‍ traditionally aimed to maintain balance among regional powers. However, the announcement⁤ of establishing ‍the Zangazur corridor has sparked meaningful concerns within Iranian political circles regarding its motives, outcomes,⁤ and implications for Tehran’s logistical interests.

These concerns intensified after Azerbaijan and Turkey announced their targeted plan to implement this⁣ corridor through Armenian territory-an issue that would shift regional dynamics in favor of Azerbaijan​ and at Iran’s expense. The project poses multiple threats to Iran’s geopolitical and economic interests. Key ‍risks include possible border alterations disrupting land connectivity between Iran and Armenia; increased likelihood of Armenia aligning closer with Western blocs; diminishing transit advantages for Iran along the North-South​ corridor; strengthening Turkey’s influence regionally; and bolstering NATO’s presence on⁣ Iran’s northern borders.

First: Factors disrupting regional balance

Iran is a central regional actor in the South Caucasus. It closely monitors geopolitical changes‍ that​ could affect ⁤its⁢ national security and strategic role-especially along its northern borders. In this context, the Zangazur corridor project raises profound ​concerns due to its potential effects ​on geopolitical equilibrium across transportation, energy security, national defense sectors, as well as efforts ⁢reshaping local alliances both regionally and internationally.

1. Regional border geopolitics: The issue of changing borders by severing terrestrial links between Iran and ‍Armenia-and ⁢proposed land swaps between Armenia and Azerbaijan-is​ not new. Paul Goble first ‍raised this idea in 1992,followed by Turkey introducing a “dual-corridor” ⁣concept that same year. Azerbaijani ‌and Armenian ⁢officials‍ later ⁤engaged in ‍negotiations over territorial exchanges within this framework but failed due to domestic opposition on both sides.

2. armenia’s move toward the West increasing Iran’s strategic isolation: Relations between Iran and Armenia have been stable ​based on several geopolitical priorities​ governing their ties-particularly since Armenia shares borders with Azerbaijan and Turkey but lacks access to open waters. To break out of this blockade, Yerevan has reinforced⁢ relations with Tehran⁢ as a counterbalance against adversaries. However, executing ceasefire agreements alongside constructing zangazur Corridor accompanied by normalization steps with Azerbaijan ​and⁤ Turkey might reposition Armenia as a key link within an⁢ east-west ⁤transit route-weakening Yerevan’s critical reliance on tehran.

3. Reduced transport⁣ benefits for Iran: Iran enjoys essential advantages from being situated along an international North-South trade route integral to global logistics networks. It has ​invested heavily through projects ​like developing Chabahar port-with Indian collaboration-and enhancing transport links with ⁤central Asian countries plus Transcaucasia states. Nevertheless, activating Zangazur may severely undermine these competitive transit benefits passing through Iranian territory.

4. Growing Turkish influence : For centuries Caucasus lands have been contested among Russia, Turkey &‌ Iran⁣ seeking dominance here.The current situation-with Russia engaged militarily in Ukraine-appears opportune for Ankara to‌ expand power footholds‌ locally while securing greater access to Caspian Sea oil & ​gas resources.

5.NATO expansion entrenched : NATO pursues enhanced engagement agreements across Central Asia & Caucasia states.Possible⁢ expansion here fueled speculation about Western ambitions leveraging existing ​Turkish membership status,to extend alliance influence eastward‌ towards russia-Iran frontier⁤ regions .

6.Azeri-Israeli ties deepen :Azerbaijan maintains significant military-strategic partnerships with Israel whose economic cooperation blossomed significantly recently.The corridor grants‍ Baku ​direct routes​ viaTurkey connecting Haifa & tel ⁣Aviv facilitating israeli presence bordering both Azerbaijani‌ & Iranian territories .

The Second:​ Possible scenarios

The Shams studies Center outlined prospective pathways forward ‌summarized below:

1.Achieving ⁢Agreement

An ‍agreement among stakeholders is arguably ⁢most logical given‍ none desire direct confrontation or consequences arising​ from‌ fresh conflict⁢ within geopolitically ‍sensitive environs.Politically⁤ ,militarily,and economically none holds readiness or appetite for ⁤wide⁤ escalation yet.All parties ought ideally enter bilateral talks supported⁤ neutrally via supportive policies from surrounding powers.Crucial preconditions include respecting status quo frontiers without forced alteration,pursuing reciprocal security assurances,and activating⁢ joint oversight mechanisms ensuring⁢ effective ‌monitoring exercising any future accord.Obligatory participation from key players such as IRAN,TURKEY,& RUSSIA also remains imperative balancing respect sovereignty while preserving collective interest equality.Although ​distrust persists alongside ‍competing ambitions throughout,the prospect depends greatly upon willful commitment exerted collaboratively .

2.Stalemate Continues

This scenario⁣ pertains stagnation delaying substantive dispute resolution steps ⁣involving azerbaijan-Armenia conflict.Attention directed at persistent deadlock though complicated⁢ thus far,vulnerable entrenchment ‌continues.Iranian diplomatic-military deterrence reduces risk Azeri-Turkish imposition unilateral ​pathway forcefully realizing project consolidation infra ⁣structure.At present‍ it functions importantly preventing violent disruption likely prolonging standstill phase‍ even though frustration intensifies rapidly accordingly nationwide political decision-making analysis focused cautiously ⁣mitigated calculus .

3.Eruption Of New War

A resumption armed⁢ hostilities between⁣ Yerevan-baku remains real possibility despite risks.Current power balance favors Baku possessing‍ superior military capabilities paired directly influential backing Ankara together western⁤ allies.Nevertheless signficant barriers loom deterring outright war foremost including anticipated Iranian countermeasures.Tehran considers breaches⁣ infringing secured boundaries against⁢ Armenian areas basic threat breaching vital national safeguard matrix all actors acknowledge massive repercussions extended fights entail diplomatically region-wide ‍globally raising stakes substantially.This makes major war outbreak improbable although ‍cannot be wholly excluded thanks ongoing tensions sustaining volatile peace fragile stability gameboard respective players operate⁢ within spotlights .