By Eldaniz Gusseinov and Daniel Longerich

On June 14, 2026, the U.S. and Iran announced a framework deal meant to end the war that began on February 28 and to lift the U.S. naval blockade of Iranian ports. The ceasefire reopens the Strait of Hormuz, yet the acute phase has already redrawn the logistical map around Iran. The war exposed Tehran’s dependence on a single maritime chokepoint and pushed it to seek overland routes to the east. This reorientation bears directly on Central Asia and the South Caucasus, through which both Iran's plans and those of its rivals now pass.

BACKGROUND:

The war has accelerated a reshaping of overland corridors around Iran. Tehran is strengthening its rear in Afghanistan, where it has already become the top trading partner and is extending a railway northward from Herat. Iran's rivals are moving in the opposite direction. The U.S. is establishing itself in the South Caucasus through the TRIPP project, while Turkey and the Arab monarchies are building routes that skirt Hormuz. For Central Asia and the South Caucasus, this raises the region’s transit weight and at the same time turns it into an arena of rivalry. The Afghan route gives Iran only partial insurance, since a through connection to China is not yet built and depends on Beijing's willingness to open the border.

For decades, Afghanistan was seen as Pakistan’s strategic depth against India. After the Taliban came to power in 2021, that logic broke down. Pakistan accuses Kabul of sheltering the Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP), and cross-border attacks have grown more frequent. Clashes in October 2025 and again in February and March 2026 closed the Torkham and Chaman crossings as reliable commercial routes. For Afghans, the cost has been high. The chamber of commerce estimated losses at about 2.5 million dollars for each day the border stayed shut, and in 2025 some 2.9 million people returned to the country from Iran and Pakistan, adding pressure on markets and food supplies.

Against this backdrop, Kabul turned toward Iran. Tehran overtook Pakistan as Afghanistan’s largest trading partner, with a turnover of around 3.5 billion dollars, almost entirely Iranian exports of fuel and food. Afghan cargo shifted to Iran’s port of Chabahar as a substitute for Pakistan’s Karachi, and the Taliban cabinet invested about US$ 35 million in the port.

After the closure of Hormuz and the U.S. blockade, the ports of Chabahar and Bandar Abbas were cut off, and World Food Programme supplies ran out by mid-April. Squeezed from both sides, Afghanistan shifted toward Central Asia, increasing trade with its northern neighbors from Turkmenistan to Tajikistan. The fate of Afghan trade thus became tied directly to the transit role of the region’s neighbors.

IMPLICATIONS:

Iran’s answer to its maritime vulnerability lies in overland infrastructure. The Khaf-Herat railway, opened in 2020, connected the Iranian network to Herat. The Afghan leg of this line is itself run by a Mashhad-registered consortium controlled by Iranian entities, including the state-owned Islamic Republic of Iran Railways. In October 2025 the parties agreed to build the Herat-Mazar-i-Sharif line, with a technical and economic feasibility study due by March 2026.

The project itself has not moved beyond surveying and financing, and construction has not yet begun. In June 2026 Afghanistan’s central bank announced that commercial banks would finance the line, which would run about 657 kilometers and cost some 55 billion afghani, or roughly US$ 780 million, while survey and design work proceeds with Uzbek involvement. In May 2026 Kabul reopened, after a US$ 6.3 million reconstruction, the fifth section of the Hairatan-Mazar-i-Sharif line, the existing outlet to the Uzbek network, and on June 15 Afghan and Iranian officials discussed speeding up work on the Herat-Mazar-i-Sharif line. Completion is tentatively set for around 2028. The line is meant to extend Iran’s outlet into northern Afghanistan and onward toward Central Asia and China, bypassing the maritime chokepoints.

The route’s ultimate aim, an outlet to China, depends above all on Beijing’s stance. The Afghan side has advanced toward completing a road through the Wakhan Corridor to the Chinese border. China, however, remains cautious about opening the single crossing at the junction with Xinjiang. According to analysts, Beijing’s reluctance stems from concerns over the infiltration of East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM) Uyghur militants from Afghan territory, and it has pressed for closer counterterrorism cooperation. In March 2026 China established Cenling County along the border with the Wakhan, signaling interest, though there is still no customs post there. For the Taliban, the prospect of Iran-China transit through Afghanistan serves as leverage in talks with Beijing, yet the corridor will stay closed until China itself opens the border.

At the same time, Iran’s neighbors are building corridors that go around its territory, and the center of gravity is shifting to the South Caucasus and the Gulf. To the north, the U.S. is promoting the TRIPP project through Armenia’s Syunik, linking Azerbaijan with Nakhichevan and onward to Turkey and Europe, and under a January 2026 agreement the U.S. side holds 74 percent of the management company for an initial 49 years. Tehran is firmly opposed and sees in it the severing of its link to the Black Sea and Europe and a U.S. presence on its border. In Syunik, the Meghri station has stood silent for more than thirty years, and local residents live in uncertainty after a series of conflicts. To the south, Baghdad is accelerating Iraq’s Development Road from the port of Faw toward Turkey, while the India-Middle East-Europe corridor is being laid across Arabia around Iran. The Gulf is meanwhile expanding pipelines toward the Red Sea and the Gulf of Oman to move oil past the strait.

For Central Asia and the South Caucasus, the combined effect cuts both ways. The region’s transit weight is rising, since both Iran and its rivals need overland routes through it. At the same time, the region risks becoming a field of rivalry between U.S.-backed routes and alignments involving Iran and Russia. Central Asian capitals are responding with diversification, developing the Middle Corridor and the China-Kyrgyzstan-Uzbekistan project. The weak link remains Afghanistan’s stability, without which any Iranian outlet to the east is vulnerable.

CONCLUSIONS:

Iran’s turn to the east began before the war, and the events of 2026 sharply accelerated it. Afghanistan is becoming Tehran’s overland insurance against maritime pressure, and the railway to Herat, together with the plan for Mazar-i-Sharif, anchors that link. A through bypass of the maritime chokepoints, however, has yet to be built. Its fate depends on Afghanistan’s stability and on China’s decision about its own border, and the durability of the June ceasefire adds further uncertainty. For Central Asia and the South Caucasus, the main outcome is that the region’s connectivity has become an object of strategic bargaining. U.S.-backed routes to the north and in the Gulf pull the region one way, while Iran’s outlet to the east pulls it another. The region’s states gain from rising transit weight, but their resilience will depend on their ability to keep several directions open at once and avoid attaching themselves to a single center of power.

AUTHOR’S BIO: 

Eldaniz Gusseinov is Co-Founder and Head of Research at Nightingale Int., a geopolitical risk and foresight advisory focused on Central Asia and Greater Eurasia. Contact: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Daniel Longerich is a Partner at Nightingale Int., where he supports the organization in expanding the use of applied data and AI analysis methods. Contact: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

By Suren Sargsyan 

The U.S.–Iran conflict, along with repeated failed negotiations, shows no clear path to resolution, and its future trajectory, consequences, and broader implications remain uncertain. Although a substantial body of research and commentary seeks to forecast developments in the Middle East, there is limited analysis of how this conflict may affect the South Caucasus, particularly in terms of future U.S. engagement in the region and the prospects of the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP) project. From Tehran’s perspective, TRIPP may constitute a legitimate target, as it conflicts directly with Iranian interests. It is therefore essential to assess the risks that the Iran–U.S./Israel conflict poses to the TRIPP project.

BACKGROUND:

A defining feature of the Trump administration, distinguishing it from its predecessors, is a marked increase in U.S. engagement with the South Caucasus. This was demonstrated by the approval of the TRIPP project and the announcement of peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan under U.S. mediation. However, U.S. involvement in the region clearly extends beyond relations with Armenia and Azerbaijan alone.

The implementation of TRIPP also aligns with broader U.S. regional interests, particularly in terms of isolating Iran. Currently, Azerbaijan’s shortest direct land connection to its exclave, Nakhichevan, runs through Iranian territory. If implemented, TRIPP would enable Azerbaijan to reduce its reliance on Iran by providing an alternative route. Such a development would also diminish Iran’s importance for Armenia, making Yerevan less dependent on the Iran–Armenia border, especially if accompanied by substantive progress in Armenia–Turkey relations, a goal the U.S. has supported since the George H. W. Bush administration.

Therefore, TRIPP should not be understood merely as a mechanism for regulating Armenian–Azerbaijani relations through the establishment of direct connectivity between the two states. Rather, it should be viewed as a broader geopolitical project, which will among other outcomes diminish the strategic significance of Iran for both Armenia and Azerbaijan, particularly by reducing their reliance on shared borders and transit routes through Iranian territory.

IMPLICATIONS:

Since the outbreak of the war, the United States and Israel have targeted not only Iranian military assets but also infrastructure of major strategic importance. Iran has incurred substantial losses, including damage to its naval capabilities, the elimination of senior political and military figures, and significant economic disruption. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has further imposed considerable costs on the Iranian economy. In response, Iran has launched missile strikes not only against Israel but also against U.S. military bases within its operational range, despite these bases being located on the sovereign territory of states that have not formally joined the anti-Iran coalition.

Moreover, Iran has expanded its targeting beyond U.S. military installations in neighboring states to include economic infrastructure linked, directly or indirectly, to U.S. interests. From Iran’s perspective, there appear to be few meaningful geographical constraints. Rather, its strategy is to impose maximum costs not only through direct confrontation but also by targeting U.S.-associated economic projects and interests across the region and its immediate periphery. 

From this perspective, the TRIPP project could also emerge as a potential target. As a major infrastructure initiative involving significant U.S. investment and the presence of U.S. security personnel, it carries clear strategic implications. Therefore, if tensions persist over an extended period and the conflict’s geographical scope expands, it cannot be excluded that this transportation corridor may eventually be targeted by Iran, despite Tehran’s relatively cooperative relations with Armenia.

This risk is underscored by reports of Iranian drones appearing over Azerbaijani territory, developments that have already provoked strong reactions. Although Iran denied these allegations, the incident nevertheless generated significant strain in bilateral relations and may be interpreted as a signal. There is no guarantee that Iran would refrain from deploying drones in the area, conducting limited troop movements, or undertaking other preventive or deterrent measures against the TRIPP project. Such a scenario becomes more plausible if tensions persist, hostilities intensify, and U.S. forces begin targeting Iranian infrastructure that has thus far remained largely intact, including power grids, transportation networks, and other critical facilities.

At the same time, it should be noted that there is currently no official information regarding the status of the project’s construction, at least on Armenian territory, where it is reportedly financed by the U.S. government. Although Armenia’s Foreign Minister has indicated that the intensity of Armenian–U.S. contacts concerning the project has not diminished, he has not addressed the timeline for the implementation of construction activities.

Even a single strike on this corridor would likely make potential investors and commercial actors significantly more cautious about using it for cargo transportation or committing to further infrastructure investments, given the associated security risks. Although detailed data on the expenditures of Armenia and Azerbaijan, along with U.S. contributions, remain unavailable, it is evident that the project entails substantial costs for both countries, even if only part of the planned infrastructure has been completed to date.

Moreover, if the war does not produce a significant systemic transformation in Iran’s regime, an outcome that currently appears unlikely, the project may remain a long-term potential target for Tehran, as it represents a form of U.S. presence in close proximity to the Iranian border. Under such conditions, it would be difficult for Armenia and Azerbaijan to advance the U.S.-mediated peace agenda in the absence of the project’s implementation, as the failure of one of its key components would raise uncertainty about the viability of the broader framework.

CONCLUSIONS:

At present, it is difficult to determine how long the war and/or negotiations with Iran will continue or what their eventual outcome will be. Statements from the Trump administration suggest that a clear strategy or exit plan has yet to be fully articulated. Nevertheless, it is essential to consider Iran’s likely post-war approach toward U.S. economic projects in its immediate vicinity. On the one hand, if the U.S. and Iran reach a peace agreement, the significance of the TRIPP project could be fundamentally transformed, with its purpose and structure potentially redefined, possibly even allowing for Iran’s participation.

On the other hand, if tensions between the United States and Iran remain elevated even after the cessation of active hostilities, Tehran may come to view TRIPP as a legitimate target and act accordingly. In this sense, whereas the project’s future previously depended largely on U.S. policy, it is now also contingent on Iran’s strategic priorities, policy choices, and perceptions of regional dynamics.

Armenian and Azerbaijani authorities have several options to reassure Tehran that the project cannot serve as a basis for a U.S. strategic or military presence in the South Caucasus, nor be used offensively against Iran. Despite relatively stable relations with both Yerevan and Baku, Tehran may still perceive the initiative as a threat to its core strategic interests and border security. In this context, Iran could find a receptive partner in Moscow, which has also expressed skepticism toward the project. At present, however, the implementation timeline has effectively been suspended, with all stakeholders awaiting either stabilization or further escalation.

AUTHOR’S BIO: 

Suren Sargsyan is a PhD candidate Political Science. He holds LLM degrees from Yerevan State University, the American University of Armenia, and Tufts University Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. He is the director of the Armenian Center for American Studies.

By Sudha Ramachandran

Afghanistan currently finds itself in an exceptionally precarious position. To the west, neighboring Iran has become an active war zone, while to the east, Pakistan has initiated what it describes as an “open war” against Afghanistan. After decades of conflict, Afghanistan’s capacity to manage the far-reaching consequences of the situation in Iran remains severely limited. The country’s already fragile economy is being further strained by rising global oil prices. At the same time, its access to maritime trade routes via Pakistan has been effectively closed for several months, while alternative trade corridors through Iran, the only viable substitute, are increasingly under threat. The likelihood of a substantial influx of refugees, including returning Afghan nationals, is expected to exacerbate an already critical humanitarian situation. Concurrently, the Taliban authorities are closely observing how the Iranian government responds to external pressures aimed at regime change.

BACKGROUND:

On the night of February 21-22, Pakistan launched “Operation Ghazab Lil Haq” against Afghanistan. Islamabad said that its missile and air strikes were targeting camps and hideouts of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan and the Islamic State of Khorasan Province based on Afghan soil. Over the past month, Pakistan’s strikes have intensified and expanded in terms of the nature of targets and their geography. If initially Islamabad targeted border posts and alleged terrorist camps in Afghanistan’s border provinces, soon it was hitting Taliban military assets and ammunition depots as well as civilian targets, including a drug rehabilitation hospital in Kabul.  

Meanwhile, Afghanistan’s western neighbor, Iran, came under devastating missile and air strikes launched by the U.S. and Israel on February 28. Since then, leadership compounds, military infrastructure, and economic and energy locations, including the country’s oil production and storage facilities have been destroyed. Top Iranian political and military leaders have been killed in the strikes as have hundreds of civilians. The war has spread beyond Iran. Tehran retaliated to the U.S.-Israel attacks by hitting Israeli targets as well as U.S. bases and oil infrastructure in Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. South Asia was soon drawn into the war when the U.S. torpedoed an Iranian warship, IRIS Dena, 40 nautical miles off the Sri Lankan coast. On March 20, Iranian missiles reached deep into the Indian Ocean to target the U.S.-UK base in Diego Garcia. The war could draw in more countries, such as Pakistan. The destruction of production and refining infrastructure in the Gulf and Iran’s blocking of the Strait of Hormuz have led to fuel shortages and surging prices worldwide. What started as a war on Iran has set economies across continents ablaze. 

Among the countries that will be hit the hardest by the Iran war is Afghanistan. Several factors make it particularly vulnerable. It is Iran’s neighbor; the two countries share a 921 km-long border. Afghanistan is also a landlocked country, dependent on Iran and Pakistan for access to ports. Importantly, Afghanistan was ravaged by war for decades and internationally isolated since the Taliban captured power in August 2021. Its capacity to withstand the impact of the war in West Asia was limited to begin with. This capacity is being further weakened by Pakistan’s ongoing military strikes on Afghanistan.

IMPLICATIONS:

The Taliban regime strongly condemned the U.S.-Israeli airstrikes on Iran, describing them as an “act of aggression.” Following the assassination of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, it expressed its condolences to the Iranian government and people. Especially since the Taliban came to power in August 2021, relations between Iran and Afghanistan have grown, especially with regard to trade. Although there are several issues of conflict between the two, anti-Americanism serves as glue. The Taliban’s chief spokesperson, Zabihullah Mujahid, has said in the past that if Tehran requests assistance in the event of a U.S. attack, Afghanistan is ready and willing to extend help.

So far, Afghanistan has not been hit by Iranian or U.S/Israeli drones or missiles. Indeed, it is western and south-western Iran that has borne the brunt of U.S. and Israeli strikes. Eastern Iran, which borders Afghanistan, has escaped being hit so far. It is therefore an attractive safe haven for those fleeing western Iranian cities and towns. These internally displaced people can be expected to cross into Afghanistan and Iran’s other eastern neighbors should the war intensify, prolong or spread to eastern Iran. Afghanistan is already grappling with the economic burden imposed by the mass deportation of an estimated 5.4 million Afghan refugees from Iran and Pakistan since October 2023. The new refugee flows from Iran will substantially intensify the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan. Persecution of Afghan refugees in Iran is set to increase as Iranians have often suspected that they are spying for Israel. Such perceptions are likely to intensify. They will be hounded by Iranian police and people, forcing them to join the exodus into Afghanistan.

Afghanistan’s weak economy is poised to fray further amid fuel shortages and surging prices. Given its low capacity for manufacturing, Afghanistan has depended on Iran for consumer goods. Afghanistan’s landlocked status has made it dependent on Pakistan and Iran for access to the sea, however, as access to Pakistani ports has been shut off, Afghan dependence on Iranian markets and trade corridors to the sea have deepened. Although Iranian border posts remain open to Afghan goods, the trade corridor through Iran to the sea is insecure as it runs through the conflict zone. While it continues to function, it is vulnerable to missile strikes as the war in Iran intensifies. There is a risk that Chabahar port could be bombed. The closure of the Iranian trade corridor would bring the Afghan economy to its knees and shatter Afghan lives and livelihoods. Afghanistan will have to strengthen its trade and transit ties with other Central Asian states.

Notwithstanding its condemnation of the U.S and Israeli strikes on Iran, Pakistan has benefited somewhat from the war in Iran. As the international community is preoccupied with the West Asia crisis, it has ignored the Pakistani military strikes on Afghanistan. Pakistan has therefore escaped global opprobrium for the horrific suffering its strikes have caused to Afghan civilians. Meanwhile, the Taliban regime is watching how Pakistan is responding to the crisis in West Asia. Should the Saudis decide to join the war against Iran, Pakistan, which has a mutual defense pact with Riyadh, is obligated to join the Saudis. Drawn into the West Asian crisis, the Pakistani military would need to halt its ongoing “open war” against Afghanistan. A termination of ‘Operation Ghazab Lil Haq’ would be welcomed by Afghanistan.

Taliban leaders will also be watching Iran closely to see how pressure from outside in the form of military strikes and war impacts an authoritarian regime. Will decapitation and war trigger unrest and lead to regime change? Or will it strengthen national unity and see the population rally behind the regime against the foreign invader? In the event of regime change in Iran, its leaders could seek sanctuary in Afghanistan.

CONCLUSIONS:

The conflict involving Iran has arisen at a particularly challenging moment for Afghanistan, which is simultaneously facing missile and air strikes from Pakistan. As a landlocked state, Afghanistan is especially vulnerable to external disruptions; its economic difficulties are likely to intensify due to fuel shortages linked to the conflict in Iran and the resulting constraints on access to seaports. In addition to its geographic proximity to the West Asian conflict zone, Afghanistan’s already limited institutional and economic capacity is expected to come under severe strain. This pressure will be exacerbated by a further economic downturn and by the anticipated influx of refugees, including returning Afghan nationals, from Iran.

AUTHOR’S BIO: 

Dr Sudha Ramachandran is an independent South Asian political and security analyst. She is also South Asia editor at The Diplomat. Her articles have appeared in publications like The Diplomat, Asia Times, China Brief and Terrorism Monitor.

By Saima Afzal

The escalation of conflict in the Middle East following U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran is exposing the geopolitical vulnerability of Central Asia’s trade diversification strategy. Over the past decade, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan have invested significant political and financial capital in developing alternative transit corridors including southbound routes through Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan to reduce reliance on northern pathways historically oriented toward Russia and to secure access to global maritime markets.
The current crisis is rapidly testing their underlying assumptions. Instability across key transit regions now threatens emerging logistics networks, raising concerns about the reliability of corridors that were intended to enhance economic resilience.

BACKGROUND:

The latest escalation in the Middle East is reverberating well beyond the immediate theatre of conflict, disrupting energy markets, trade routes, and regional economic planning. Oil prices rose sharply following strikes on Iran and subsequent retaliation, reviving concerns about disruption in the Strait of Hormuz, a critical artery through which a significant share of global oil supplies transits daily. For energy-importing economies across Asia, the shock echoes earlier inflationary pressures experienced during previous geopolitical crises.

For Central Asia, the effects are both systemic and immediate. As landlocked economies, states such as Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan have long prioritized the diversification of trade routes as a strategic objective. This has involved developing southbound connectivity through Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, alongside east–west alternatives linking the region to China and Europe.

Iran has played a central role in these plans, offering access to maritime trade via ports such as Chabahar within the framework of the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC). Regional initiatives such as the proposed Uzbekistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan railway have likewise aimed to provide direct access to Pakistani ports and shorten transit times to global markets.

These initiatives were conceived well before the current crisis. What the escalation has done is bring into sharper focus the extent to which their viability depends on political stability across multiple transit regions.

At the same time, the conflict is already producing tangible disruptions. Airspace closures and security risks have forced flight cancellations and rerouting, reduced cargo capacity and raising transport costs. Border crossings that serve as key trade arteries are also under pressure, with increased congestion and tighter controls affecting both freight and passenger movement.

In several cases, these disruptions intersect directly with everyday economic activity. Iran’s temporary suspension of selected exports and interruptions in cross-border trade have affected the flow of food and consumer goods into neighbouring Central Asian markets, particularly in countries with strong import dependence. Localized shortages and price increases have already been reported in border regions reliant on Iranian supplies.

IMPLICATIONS:

The unfolding conflicts across Iran and the Afghanistan-Pakistan corridor highlight a structural feature of Central Asia’s connectivity strategy: diversification reduces dependence on any single route, but it also distributes exposure across multiple geopolitical environments.

Southern corridors illustrate this dynamic most clearly under current conditions. Routes passing through Iran now face heightened uncertainty linked to maritime disruption, rising insurance costs, and sanctions-related risks. Even without a formal closure of the Strait of Hormuz, security concerns have slowed tanker traffic and increased freight premiums, costs that are disproportionately borne by landlocked economies.

Overland connectivity through Afghanistan and Pakistan remains constrained by persistent insecurity and fragile political relations. Escalating tensions between Kabul and Islamabad further complicate both the implementation and long-term reliability of projects such as the Uzbekistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan railway. Existing road and rail links are vulnerable to disruption, while transit agreements risk suspension under political pressure, creating uncertainty for trade flows.

Energy and infrastructure initiatives are similarly affected. Projects such as the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) natural gas pipeline and the CASA-1000 electricity transmission line depend on stable transit conditions across regions that continue to experience volatility. These risks are not new, but they are in the current environment becoming more acute and more difficult for investors and policymakers to discount.

Beyond infrastructure, the economic transmission mechanisms are already visible. Rising fuel prices are feeding into inflation across import-dependent economies such as Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, increasing the cost of food, transport, and basic goods. Disruptions to supply chains-particularly for agricultural products and consumer goods imported via Iran are compounding these pressures. At the same time, any slowdown in major partner economies such as Russia or China would have secondary effects through trade, investment flows, and remittances.

Rather than triggering a shift in strategy, the crisis is reinforcing an existing trend toward hedging. Central Asian states are likely to deepen engagement with alternative corridors perceived as comparatively stable. The Trans-Caspian International Transport Route, linking the region to Europe via the South Caucasus, has gained prominence as an east-west option that avoids both Russian territory and southern conflict zones. Similarly, established rail connections to China provide access to global supply chains through more predictable logistical networks.

This does not signal a retreat from southern connectivity. Instead, it reflects a growing emphasis on redundancy-maintaining multiple routes to manage disruption rather than relying on any single corridor to deliver uninterrupted access.

CONCLUSIONS:

At the core of this challenge is a structural dilemma: while diversification reduces dependence on any single route, it also distributes exposure across multiple geopolitical environments. As a result, Central Asia’s broader transport strategy is increasingly shaped not only by infrastructure development, but by the political and security dynamics of regions far beyond its borders. The current Middle East conflict underscores the extent to which this impacts Central Asia’s economic integration. Connectivity initiatives designed to expand access to global markets are now being evaluated through the lens of geopolitical risk and operational resilience.

The immediate impact is not the abandonment of diversification strategies, but their recalibration. Policymakers are increasingly approaching connectivity not only as an economic objective, but also as a risk management tool, placing greater emphasis on flexibility, redundancy, and continuous reassessment of external exposure.

At the same time, the crisis highlights how quickly geopolitical shocks translate into everyday economic pressures-from rising food and fuel prices to disrupted transport links and constrained trade flows. Even without direct involvement in the conflict, Central Asian states are already absorbing its effects.

Ultimately, the resilience of Central Asia’s trade ambitions will depend not only on infrastructure investment, but on the capacity to navigate an increasingly complex and unpredictable geopolitical environment.

AUTHOR’S BIO: 

Saima Afzal is an independent and freelance researcher specializing in South Asian security, counter-terrorism, the Middle East, Afghanistan, and the Indo-Pacific region. Her work focuses on geopolitical developments, strategic affairs, and regional conflict dynamics. She holds an M. Phil in Peace and Conflict Studies from the National Defence University, Islamabad, Pakistan.

By Suren Sargsyan

On November 17, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State for Political Affairs Alison Hooker visited Yerevan and Baku to promote the U.S. president’s vision of regional peace and security. During the visit, she discussed the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP) project with the leadership of both countries. On November 18, Jonathan Asconas, Senior Advisor at the U.S. Department of State, visited Georgia to discuss the country’s possible participation in TRIPP. Beyond the economic implications of the route, these steps indicate an evolving regional U.S. approach toward the South Caucasus.

Credit: Diego Delso

BACKGROUND: The announcement regarding the construction of TRIPP and an increased U.S. activity in the South Caucasus has received significant political and analytical attention. However, five months after the announcement, it remains unclear what the timeline for implementation will be and which company will handle its operations. 

The announcement of the TRIPP project and the increase in U.S. activity in the South Caucasus have attracted significant political and analytical attention. However, five months after the announcement, it remains unclear what the implementation timeline will be and which company will be responsible for operating the project.

The central question is whether the U.S. is seeking a strategic foothold in the South Caucasus, a goal it has historically avoided, or whether its involvement remains primarily economic and business-oriented. Washington’s previous approaches towards the South Caucasus have fallen short of both a coherent strategy or ambitions to establish a lasting strategic presence in the region. In light of developments over recent months, it is therefore important to assess how U.S. policy toward the South Caucasus is evolving under the revitalized approach of the Trump administration.

TRIPP is primarily a business project, but it also has the potential to develop into a strategic asset by giving Washington a new presence in a region traditionally viewed as Russia’s sphere of influence. While it would first create a commercial foothold, the route could acquire broader strategic importance by connecting Asia and Europe while bypassing both Russia and Iran. The inclusion of pipelines, oil and gas corridors, and railway links would also allow Central Asian energy resources to reach Europe through the Caspian Sea, fully circumventing Russian territory.

On December 17, 2025, the Armenia–U.S. Bilateral Working Group, established to support the outcomes of the August 8, 2025, Peace Summit, held its inaugural meeting. 

IMPLICATIONS: To establish lasting influence in the South Caucasus, a global power must exert leverage over at least two of the region’s three states. At present, no external actor meets this condition, unlike Russia, which for years maintained decisive influence by using the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict to exert control over both Armenia and Azerbaijan. This conflict-based dependence shaped their political priorities, foreign policy orientations, and economic choices, while also preventing the development of effective regional cooperation mechanisms.

Russia deliberately relied on the continuation of conflict as a tool of influence, a well-established method of maintaining strategic presence. When conflicts end, however, influence weakens and a vacuum emerges, which is often filled by another power. By contrast, the U.S. is seeking influence through the promotion of peace, economic development, and mediation between Armenia and Azerbaijan, presenting itself as an arbiter seeking to maintain long-term engagement in the region. The possible inclusion of Georgia in discussions on TRIPP further increases the strategic importance of this approach.

While Moscow relied on managed instability, Washington is investing in regional consolidation based on shared economic interests. This approach inevitably conflicts with the interests of states that oppose both TRIPP and the expansion of U.S. influence. Given the deep historical, institutional, and economic links between the South Caucasus and Central Asia, through organizations such as the EAEU, CSTO, CIS, and the Organization of Turkic States, any change in the balance of influence in one region will directly affect the other.

Within this broader framework, the Trump administration has sought to extend the Abraham Accords beyond their original Middle Eastern context. By including economically important, Muslim-majority but secular states such as Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, both of which already have strong relations with Israel, the aim is not normalization, but the institutionalization of cooperation. This approach represents another U.S.-led multilateral mechanism designed to promote regional prosperity while expanding long-term strategic influence.

Judging from recent practical developments, it becomes clear that current U.S. policy toward the South Caucasus is growing more complex and nuanced. On November 30, 2024, the U.S. suspended its strategic partnership agreement with Georgia, a document it had been the first among South Caucasus states to sign in 2009. Shortly thereafter, in the final days of the Biden administration, the U.S. signed a strategic partnership agreement with Armenia on January 14, 2025. On November 8, 2025, the Trump administration signed a memorandum with Azerbaijan to establish a working group tasked with preparing a strategic partnership agreement. At the same time, President Trump waived Section 907, enabling expanded cooperation between Azerbaijan and the U.S. across a range of areas. 

These steps suggest that the Trump administration is prioritizing a regional approach toward the South Caucasus. In addition, the U.S. provided Armenia with US$ 145 million in assistance as part of the first tranche of funding for the TRIPP project and related agreements reached on August 8. This support is intended to finance investments in trade, infrastructure, critical mineral supply chains, and border security.

As for Georgia, despite tensions in bilateral relations, the country continues to play an important role in U.S. regional policy. Georgia has sought to align itself with Washington’s agenda of promoting peace in the South Caucasus, while also discussing possible participation in the TRIPP project and its implementation. This approach appears to correspond with U.S. expectations, as Washington moves toward deeper engagement with Georgia within this framework.

Current U.S. policy extends beyond the bilateral level and has regional ambitions, seeking to strengthen cooperation with South Caucasus states individually while emphasizing shared regional priorities. 

CONCLUSIONS: Despite the apparent principled agreement of all parties on the route, its timeline for implementation and the duration of the process remain unclear. If realized, the route would give the U.S. a unique opportunity to establish a presence in the South Caucasus, and this commercial presence could evolve into a strategically significant one, especially if the route’s scale and capacity become significant enough for Azerbaijan, Armenia, and the U.S. companies responsible for its operation and security. Whether the U.S. can counter the long-standing influence of Russia and Iran in the region, both of which may view the project as undermining their interests, will depend on the consistency of the Trump administration’s policy, its sustained commitment, and the broader competition among global actors in the South Caucasus.

According to Armenian authorities, Yerevan and Washington plan to establish a consortium that would act as the main company responsible for constructing and operating the railway. The consortium could also build, manage, and operate pipelines, power transmission lines, and other related infrastructure. In addition to road transport, rail capacity is crucial to sustain the transport of Chinese goods along this route in order to ensure its economic viability and maximize cargo volumes.

From this perspective, overall U.S.–China relations are also critical. As a result, the U.S. faces the compound challenge of promoting peace and stability in the region and limit potential spoilers, while simultaneously improving relations with China and resolving outstanding tariff issues, tasks that pose a particularly difficult test for the Trump administration.

AUTHOR’S BIO: Suren Sargsyan is a PhD candidate Political Science. He holds LLM degrees from Yerevan State University, the American University of Armenia, and Tufts University Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. He is the director of the Armenian Center for American Studies.