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 Nargiza Umarova

In early June, Istanbul hosted a number of significant events reflecting Central Asia’s growing role in the east-west land transit system. Representatives of the railway administrations of Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Türkiye, Georgia, Azerbaijan and Kyrgyzstan signed an agreement to further develop the CASCA+ corridor (Central Asia–South Caucasus–Anatolia+). The aim is to increase the flow of goods, including transit traffic to the EU. This development aligns with the Middle Corridor extension strategy, the prospects of which was discussed at the 8th meeting of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe – Economic Cooperation Organization (UNECE-ECO) Coordination Committee. Participants at the Istanbul meeting also reviewed the formation dynamics of the Southern Railway Corridor through Central Asia, Iran and Türkiye. Although the five Central Asian republics are actively involved in international transport initiatives, they have not yet succeeded in consolidating projects of regional interest and mutual benefit, creating the potential for unhealthy competition.

BACKGROUND:

The war in Ukraine, which has become the main geopolitical upheaval in Eurasia, and subsequent regional crises have impacted the security of global maritime shipping, are making land logistics increasingly important in intercontinental transport. This presents an opportunity for Central Asian states to establish a new trade route architecture, turning their geographical position into a strategic asset. However, to achieve this, it is first necessary to address issues of intra-regional connectivity, as this could strengthen Central Asia’s position in its relations with major powers.

Following the launch of a mechanism for regular consultative meetings in 2018, Central Asian countries prioritized the convergence of their national transport systems. This would strengthen the region’s connectivity, facilitate its integration into global supply chains, and accelerate economic growth.

This approach is based on data from authoritative international organizations, including the World Bank, which publishes the Logistics Performance Index (LPI) every two years, reflecting the current state of transport and communications at national and regional levels. 

The geographical remoteness of Central Asia from the open seas puts the region at a disadvantage in terms of achieving logistical efficiency. Landlocked countries must transit through coastal nations and cross multiple borders, which significantly increases the time required to transport goods. An additional day of transit leads to a seven percent reduction in exports. This illustrates the substantial effect that delivery times have on the volume and value of foreign trade. Due to high transport costs combined with the lack of direct access to the sea, the Central Asian region loses up to 2 percent of its GDP annually.

In the context of Central Asian connectivity, geography undoubtedly constrains foreign trade growth. However, this factor is generally manageable. Global experience shows that direct access to maritime trade does not guarantee a country a competitive advantage in logistics connectivity. Even within the same region, coastal economies have access to different numbers of markets with which they can trade without relying on intermediary countries. Morocco, for example, has the highest connectivity of all the North African countries, whereas Malaysia and Sri Lanka have achieved similar positions in Southeast and South Asia. All three of these developing economies are recognized regional transport and logistics hubs in their respective regions, and this has helped them raise their logistics efficiency to the required level. Since 2017, the Central Asian republics have been striving for a similar outcome, working to consolidate extended transport links between countries, with a particular focus on increasing the region’s transit potential. Proximity to open seas is in this case less important than an intraregional strategy enabling Central Asian countries to manage their geographic location and improve transport logistics.

IMPLICATIONS:

From the outset, the five Central Asian states agreed to integrate into the global transport network as a single entity, rather than individually. This would pave the way for the region’s strategic autonomy, which, through implementing a coordinated policy to develop and promote promising transit corridors crossing Central Asia, could align relations with major powers, prioritizing pan-regional interests and thereby enhancing the region’s geopolitical significance. The primary task of this approach is to strengthen intra-regional connectivity, which requires collective action to remove administrative, legal and technical barriers. To this end, the establishment of a Regional Center for Transport and Communications Connectivity under the auspices of the UN has been proposed.

Although this initiative has yet to be implemented, certain positive developments in Central Asia’s transport connectivity have already been achieved. These include the restoration and modernization of key transport routes between countries in the region, the opening of new trade routes and an increase in transit freight traffic. However, urgent solutions are needed to address issues such as unifying tariff policies, harmonizing transport legislation, introducing standardized permit forms and electronic document management practices, reducing customs duties, increasing the throughput capacity of border crossings and simplifying customs procedures. Attracting investment in transport infrastructure and digitalizing the transportation process is also crucial. While there is a general understanding of the urgency of these issues, there is no consolidated effort to address them. 

There is a growing trend towards developing new interregional transit corridors rather than local transport routes. A focus on self-interest and a lack of proper coordination in the implementation of such projects risks fueling rivalry between regional states. This could potentially deprive them of the opportunity to influence the geopolitics of transport corridors in Central Asia.

Globally rising geopolitical tensions are creating growing uncertainty in the maritime shipping industry, which is making Central Asian trade routes increasingly important. This, in turn, is stimulating investment interest in the regional transport services market. The main investors are China and the EU, who are implementing their own global initiatives: the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the Global Gateway. Japan, South Korea and the Gulf states are also contributing to the development of Central Asia’s transport sector to varying degrees.

CONCLUSIONS:

With limited mutual coordination, the involvement of Central Asian states in infrastructure projects funded by external actors creates an incentive for unhealthy competition. Paradoxically, despite having overlapping interests in transport logistics and the potential to establish mutually beneficial cooperation based on shared priorities, the countries in the region act in isolation, often resorting to foreign aid or support. This is evident in the development of westward transport, for example.

Kazakhstan participates in the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route (TITR), connecting China and Europe and institutionalized by Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Georgia in 2014. In 2019, meanwhile, Uzbekistan launched the alternative CASCA+ corridor to Europe via the Caspian Sea in partnership with Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Türkiye. 

A similar situation is unfolding along the southern transit route. Uzbekistan is speeding up construction of the Trans-Afghan Railway (the Kabul Corridor), which runs from Termez to Naibabad, Maidanshahr, Logar and Kharlachi. The railway will provide access to Pakistani ports on the Indian Ocean. Meanwhile, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan are working to create another railway corridor through Afghanistan's western provinces. These initiatives have attracted the attention of influential countries such as Russia, China, Iran and Türkiye, who view them in the context of their own geopolitical interests. This could influence the implementation of each route and fuel regional competition.

In order to avoid the duplication of infrastructure projects, the Central Asian republics should adopt a regional strategy for developing transport corridors and establish a single coordinating body with legal entity status. This would be an important step towards strengthening regional connectivity.

AUTHOR’S BIO: 

Nargiza Umarova is a Head of the Center for Strategic Connectivity at the Institute for Advanced International Studies (IAIS), University of World Economy and Diplomacy (UWED), and an analyst at the Non-governmental Research Institution ‘Knowledge Caravan’, Tashkent, Uzbekistan. Her research activities focus on developments in Central Asia, trends in regional integration, and the influence of great powers on this process. She also explores Uzbekistan’s current policy on the creation and development of international transport corridors. She can be contacted at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .

By Irakli Kiknavelidze and Tomáš Baranec

Ilia II of the Georgian Orthodox Church (GeOC) died on 17 March. Over nearly five decades, he consolidated the Church’s position as one of Georgia’s most influential and trusted institutions. His tenure was characterized by a dominant patriarchate, a relatively constrained Holy Synod, and a cautious approach to partisan politics and foreign policy alignment. The accession of Shio III marks the beginning of a new era for the GeOC, bringing expectations of a redefined balance between the patriarch and the synod, as well as potential consequences arising from the Church’s increased engagement in domestic and international politics.

BACKGROUND:

Under the 1995 Statute of Administration of the GeOC, the Holy Synod plays the central role in the election of the Patriarch. It is responsible for nominating three candidates and is the only body granted voting rights within the Extended Council, which selects the final candidate. All other participants, unlike under the pre-1995 system, serve solely in an advisory capacity.

Ideologically, the Holy Synod can currently be divided into three principal blocs. The conservative bloc is characterised by a dogmatic stance on cultural and ethical issues, scepticism towards Western integration, and, to varying degrees, openness to cooperation with the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC).

The national-conservative bloc often adopts an even more dogmatic position on cultural and ethical issues than the conservative bloc, while remaining strongly anti-Russian. Consequently, it is particularly sceptical of both the influence of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) and Georgia’s integration with Western institutions.

The liberal bloc, the smallest of the three, advocates more moderate positions on socio-ethical issues and is broadly supportive of Georgia’s political integration with Western institutions.

A heterogeneous yet numerically significant group within the Holy Synod consists of centrists, whose members are generally less ideologically committed and more pragmatic in their outlook than those belonging to the principal ideological blocs.

At its session on April 28, the Holy Synod nominated three candidates for the patriarchate, broadly reflecting the three principal ideological currents within the Church. Metropolitan Shio Mujiri, backed by the conservative wing, received 20 votes. The national-conservative bloc nominated Iob Akiashvili, who secured 7 votes, while the liberal wing put forward Grigol Berbichashvili, who also received 7 votes.

In the final vote held on 11 May, Metropolitan Shio Mujiri was elected head of the GeOC with 22 votes. Metropolitan Iob received nine votes, while Metropolitan Grigol secured seven. Mujiri was enthroned the following day, assuming the title Shio III.

IMPLICATIONS:

As one of the few senior figures within the GeOC to have received theological education in Russia, Shio has frequently been portrayed in the media as “Moscow’s candidate,” a characterisation openly used by Archbishop Zenon Iarajuli, among others. Critics have also pointed to his close relationship with Georgia’s ruling party. In contrast, Patriarch Ilia II maintained close ties with the Georgian state as an institution while generally avoiding overt alignment with any particular political party.

The accession of Shio III can be regarded as a significant success for the ROC, particularly with respect to the question of recognising the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU), which is a fully independent, autocephalous national church. Both of Shio’s rivals, Iob and Grigol, stated that they would support recognition of the OCU’s independence if elected. Shio, by contrast, avoided taking a public position on the issue during the election process. Given his longstanding ties to the ROC, it appears unlikely that he will endorse recognition of the OCU and will instead support the Moscow-affiliated Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC). As a result, the ROC can expect continued support from the GeOC on an issue of major strategic importance to Moscow, potentially for decades to come.

To an extent that remains uncertain, Shio’s accession is also likely to ensure the continuation of relatively close relations between the two Churches and to preserve a degree of ROC influence within the GeOC, at least intellectually and ideologically. 

Compared with Ilia II, the new Patriarch’s initial public statements and appearances indicate that he may adopt a more uncompromisingly conservative stance, which will be difficult to reconcile with Georgia’s integration with Western institutions.

In this way, Shio may contribute to the strengthening of anti-Western attitudes among segments of the Georgian population. Such a development would align with Russia’s broader geopolitical interests while simultaneously reinforcing the legitimacy of the ruling Georgian Dream party among parts of its domestic constituency.

Even before his accession, Shio departed from Ilia II’s principle of supporting state institutions rather than specific political parties. Moreover, unlike Ilia II, Shio III is likely to enter his relationship with Bidzina Ivanishvili, the de facto leader of the ruling party, as a junior partner, at least initially.

An important factor in assessing the outlook of the new Patriarch is his background as a black (monastic) priest. Orthodox monasticism has traditionally been closer to the ROC (which is based on monasticism) than to the Greek Orthodox Church, which relies more heavily on white (married parish) clergy. As a result, Shio’s affinity with the Russian Orthodox world extends beyond his education in Russia. Whereas Ilia II’s faith was based on "Georgian Orthodoxy;" a faith with regard to the interests of the state, Shio III emphasizes Orthodoxy as a superior and supranational religious identity.

Shio III’s ties to Russia and support for the government appear to stem from deeply held personal convictions rather than political expediency. Consequently, a significant shift in these positions during his patriarchate is unlikely.

Nevertheless, the impact of Shio’s enthronement is likely to remain limited, at least during the initial years of his patriarchate. The fact that, after the first round of voting, when his victory had become virtually certain, there was no significant shift of centrist support in his favour (his tally increased by only two votes) suggests that members of the Holy Synod are not subservient to the new Patriarch and are prepared to oppose him if necessary.

Shio III has yet to display the political acumen that characterised Ilia II. His leadership is constrained by dogmatism and introversion, although he has shown an ability to rely on politically skilled allies and possesses some political instinct. The first major challenges of his patriarchate will reveal which of these traits proves more influential.

The GeOC will soon face several important internal challenges, including the appointment of seven vacant episcopal positions and the reform of the 1995 Statute of Administration. While there is broad agreement within the Holy Synod that the current statute requires revision, opinions differ sharply regarding its replacement. In addition, some bishops are actively advocating for the Church to publicly call for the release of political prisoners.

None of these issues falls within Shio III’s formal authority to decide unilaterally. To advance his preferred policies, he will need to secure the support of the Holy Synod. His handling of these challenges will provide an indication of his ability to shape the Church in accordance with his worldview.

CONCLUSIONS:

If Shio III consolidates his position, he could enable greater Russian influence within the GeOC and bolster the legitimacy of Georgian Dream among conservative voters. In the long term, however, this may weaken the Church’s broader social authority and deepen political polarization in Georgia.

In an alternative scenario, the Holy Synod could gain influence at the expense of the Patriarch. Even so, a major shift in the Church’s domestic or foreign policy positions is unlikely, as the recent patriarchal election demonstrated the continued dominance of the conservative wing within the Synod.

AUTHOR’S BIO: 

Tomáš Baranec is a Research Fellow and Head of the Caucasus Program of the Slovak think tank Strategic Analysis. He worked for several years as a field researcher on the Georgian-Ossetian ABL. Tomas studied Balkan, Central European and Eurasian Studies at Charles University in Prague. 

Irakli Kiknavelidze is a Georgian journalist, television host, political commentator, and media professional specializing in Georgian politics, democracy, religion, and South Caucasus affairs. He has worked in television, print, and digital media, producing interviews, analysis, and public affairs programming. Throughout his career, Kiknavelidze has focused on political developments, international relations, and the intersection of religion and public life in Georgia.