Iran tells Armenia Trump-backed land corridor may be part of US ploy
In a phone call with Armenia's Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian 'warned against possible actions by the United States, which could pursue hegemonic goals in the Caucasus region under the guise of economic investments and peace guarantees,' according to a statement from Tehran.
The land corridor dubbed the 'Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity' is part of a deal signed last week in Washington between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
Under the deal, the United States will have the development rights of the proposed route, which would connect Azerbaijan to its Nakhichevan exclave, passing near the Iranian border.
Iran has long opposed the planned transit route, also known as the Zangezur corridor, fearing it would cut the country off from Armenia and the rest of the Caucasus, and bring potentially hostile foreign forces to near its borders.
Pezeshkian said Iran 'welcomes any agreement that promotes the strengthening of peace' among its neighbors, but emphasized the need to prevent the 'interference of any military or security force' in implementing the corridor project, according to the statement from his office.
Armenia's deputy foreign minister is due in Tehran on Tuesday for talks on the issue, Tehran has said.
On Saturday, a senior advisor to Iran's supreme leader said Tehran will not allow the creation of the planned corridor, warning that the area would become 'a graveyard for Trump's mercenaries.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
7 minutes ago
- Arab News
The story behind world court's landmark climate ruling
Although the International Court of Justice turned 80 this year, there is a sense in which it has never felt younger. In a David versus Goliath moment, the tiny Pacific Island state of Vanuatu recently changed international law forever by bringing the world's most important issue before its highest court. The result was last month's advisory opinion on 'the legal obligations of states in respect of climate change,' as requested — at Vanuatu's urging — by the UN General Assembly (with 132 states co-sponsoring the resolution). The questions posed to the court were as simple as they were seismic: What obligations, under international law, do states have to tackle climate change? And what are the legal consequences if they fail to do so? The answer was unequivocal. States have a duty to protect their citizens from climate change — a duty rooted not only in treaties like the Paris Agreement, but also in environmental law, human rights law and customary international law. 'Climate change,' said the court's president, Yuji Iwasawa, speaking from the Peace Palace in The Hague, 'is an urgent and existential threat of planetary proportions.' 'The science is clear,' noted John Silk, the Marshall Islands' representative to the UN, 'and now the law is, too.' The fact that this bold message was delivered unanimously by the highest court in the international system would have been extraordinary enough. But the path that led to this outcome is even more remarkable. The most significant climate case ever heard by the International Court of Justice began not in a ministry or a think tank, but in a classroom. It was conceived by a group of 27 Pacific Islands law students who formed the Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change, led initially by Solomon Yeo and then by Cynthia Houniuhi, both from the Solomon Islands, as well as Vishal Prasad from Fiji, Siosiua Veikune from Tonga and others. These were not seasoned diplomats, nor were they backed by billionaires. But they were determined. 'Whether you win or lose, some fights are worth fighting,' argued Justin Rose, a former lecturer at the University of the South Pacific in Fiji, whose classroom exercise first planted the seed of this unlikely revolution in 2019. The most significant climate case ever heard by the court began not in a ministry or a think tank, but in a classroom. Antara Haldar The ruling delivers a resounding victory for the climate justice movement, which has been gaining momentum ever since the Swedish activist Greta Thunberg staged her first solo protest. Now, for the first time, the movement's intergenerational demand for dignity and legal recognition has a concrete judicial imprimatur. It is also a triumph for the Global South. For decades, developing countries have called attention to the injustice of being exposed to the gravest consequences of a problem they did not cause. Now, the world court has acknowledged this asymmetry and taken the first step toward correcting it, vindicating, in particular, the countries most vulnerable to the effects of climate change: small island states with vanishing coastlines, salinizing freshwater and intensifying cyclones. Countries long treated as voiceless victims have become the protagonists in a world-spanning legal story. This was not the first attempt to bring climate justice to The Hague. Palau and the Marshall Islands made a similar effort in 2012, but it stalled for lack of political backing. The difference this time lay not just in the Pacific Islanders' persistence, but also in their strategy for building solidarity. Refusing to follow the usual, stodgy diplomatic script, they brought the warmth of the South Pacific to international law. Houniuhi always wore a rorodara (a seashell-studded ceremonial headdress) to address the UN and her group treated the courtroom drama as an occasion for song and dance. Hearings were celebrated as watch parties. The Pacific Islanders also built coalitions across oceans and generations — working with Vanuatu's then-Foreign Minister Ralph Regenvanu, Caribbean allies and youth activists worldwide. With some countries even calling for financial reparations, the court process became a movement in itself. The International Court of Justice's ruling comes at a time when other international courts are converging on similar conclusions. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea has just affirmed that states must curb marine pollution from greenhouse gas emissions; the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has, in an opinion on climate obligations, recognized the right to a healthy climate as a human right; and the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights is in the process of weighing in on the matter. Countries long treated as voiceless victims have become the protagonists in a world-spanning legal story. Antara Haldar The world court's opinion is not legally binding, but it is far from toothless. Its authority comes not from enforcement, but from amplification. It crystallizes a set of norms for courts, lawmakers and activists around the world and it sharpens the tools of transnational litigation. Hence, the decision is already expected to influence domestic cases, such as Greenpeace's suit against the Italian oil company Eni. It may also mean that countries can sue each other over climate change. The evolution of climate justice from a slogan into a legal standard may be the most important signal yet that a genuinely global legal system is emerging. By that I do not mean a world government, but rather a legal system defined by what the legal theorist H.L.A. Hart called 'the union of primary and secondary rules' recognized across jurisdictions. Climate law, once a patchwork of soft pledges and nonbinding resolutions, is being stitched into something more cohesive and robust. What the Pacific Islands students lacked in money and influence, they made up for in conviction. They worked on shoestring budgets, faced visa barriers and were repeatedly told that their campaign would go nowhere. But they kept going, proving that legal innovation does not have to come from men in suits; it can come from the margins and eventually change international law. 'We were there. And we were heard,' said Houniuhi in disbelief when the opinion was published, speaking for the two communities most impacted by climate change — Pacific Islanders and young people. The subaltern spoke and the world's highest court listened. Flawed and slow-moving though it may be, international law still holds transformative potential. As Rose told me, 'international law is itself a repository of stories.' The International Court of Justice's decision is a much-needed reminder that happy endings are still possible. • Antara Haldar, associate professor of Empirical Legal Studies at the University of Cambridge, is a visiting faculty member at Harvard University and the principal investigator on a European Research Council grant on law and cognition. Copyright: Project Syndicate
Arab News
33 minutes ago
- Arab News
How can we understand Hezbollah's intransigence over its weapons?
The fate of Hezbollah's arms is no longer a domestic dispute between advocates of sovereignty and supporters of the 'resistance.' Since the 2023-2024 war with Israel, this question has been distilling into an existential crisis facing the party. The slogan raised by the leader of Hezbollah's parliamentary bloc, Mohammed Raad — 'we will die before surrendering the weapons' — reflects his awareness that his camp has no other option but to cling to what remains of its arsenal. Abandoning its arms would break Hezbollah's political and ideological foundations. These actions are not mere reflections of political intransigence. Given its rigid ideology and uncompromising idealism, and because Iran's regional project is in its DNA, Hezbollah is not an agile actor with the capacity to fundamentally change in nature. Moreover, it has built its power around the notion that weapons are an identity, not merely a means to an end. In truth, the Lebanese have never associated Hezbollah with a domestic political or economic project. Its engagement in public affairs has always revolved around the 'resistance' and the imperatives of regional conflicts. Thus, surrendering its arms would entail redefining the party from scratch and sacrificing its raison d'etre. Operating within these restrictive parameters, Hezbollah has dragged its feet. Its bets verge on wishful thinking: that the Lebanese state will remain too weak to follow through on its commitment to disarm the party; that a new episode of regional chaos will destabilize Syria's emerging political authorities; and that the high-level assurances it has received from Tehran's top brass regarding its survival and armament will materialize. Hezbollah has built its power around the notion that weapons are an identity, not merely a means to an end. Nadim Koteich That is, Hezbollah is betting that it will get lucky — or even await miracles. The fate of these matters is totally beyond Hezbollah's control and external factors (that are consistently going against it) will determine how things play out. After years of collapse, Lebanon's state institutions are steadily, albeit slowly, consolidating and enhancing their credibility in the eyes of a broadening segment of the population. This trajectory undermines the slander and vilification of the state that Hezbollah has long used to challenge the state's legitimacy and justify its own existence. As for its wager on vacuums emerging in Syria that will grant it more room for maneuver, current developments point in the opposite direction. The political and military situation in Syria suggests that the weight of open-ended geopolitical conflicts and regional actors is declining, consolidating the new regime in Damascus. Even Iranian support, which constituted the cornerstone of Hezbollah's existence for decades, is increasingly constrained. Tehran is grappling with a severe economic crisis amid volatile shifts in the internal balance of power between the different wings of the regime. Iran is preparing for a new phase, all while trying to put the military and security apparatus (that was battered by deep Israeli strikes during the 12-day war in June) back together. These considerations have compelled Iran to prioritize its military and financial needs over coming to the aid of its allies, foremost among them Hezbollah. All this means the party is fighting for its very survival. However, while turning to politics has offered armed movements elsewhere in the world a lifeline, allowing them to maintain some influence, material conditions have left Hezbollah hostage to its weapons. The group has never pursued a genuine domestic cause that could underpin a shift toward politics. Nadim Koteich The Irish Republican Army, despite being deeply rooted in the conflict with Britain, pursued a clear, localized national cause: unifying Ireland and defending the rights of nationalist Catholics. That is why it managed to survive the shift from armed struggle to a political course that culminated in the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, which left Sinn Fein in a strong position politically. Colombia's Revolutionary Armed Forces, known as FARC, despite becoming involved in the drug trade and losing some of its legitimacy as result, was nonetheless pursuing a domestic agenda to a social and economic struggle in Colombia. FARC thereby managed to conclude a peace agreement that, despite only being partially implemented, granted it a political foothold. Hezbollah, in contrast, has never pursued a genuine domestic cause that could underpin a shift toward politics. Even its claims of defending Lebanon's sovereignty and confronting occupation were never presented as ultimate, final objectives. These goals were presented as a means to further its regional ambitions. Its ideological link to its axis, as well as its intrinsic role in the regional power struggle, make any fundamental change to its nature nearly impossible. To give up its arms would not be to adjust its strategy; it would be to abandon the reason for its existence. Thus, the party appears bound to keep behaving this way. It will continue to vie to maintain its weapons and transnational function. Even after being put out of action, it will continue to wait for gradual decline. Its intransigence could, in turn, perpetuate the decay of Lebanon's state institutions. If it does so, the country would go from being a political battleground to being home to a failed state, with the Lebanese people paying the price many times over. • Nadim Koteich is the general manager of Sky News Arabia. X: @NadimKoteich
Al Arabiya
2 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
Trump threatens ‘severe consequences' if Putin blocks Ukraine peace
US President Donald Trump threatened 'severe consequences' if Russia's Vladimir Putin blocked peace in Ukraine but also said on Wednesday that a meeting between the pair could swiftly be followed by a second that included the leader of Ukraine. Trump did not specify what the consequences could be, but he has warned of economic sanctions if a meeting between himself and President Putin in Alaska on Friday proved fruitless. The comments by Trump and the mood music after a virtual meeting of Trump, European leaders and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy could provide some hope for Kyiv after fears the Alaska meet could sell out Ukraine and carve up its territory. However, Russia is likely to resist Ukraine and Europe's demands strongly and previously said its stance had not changed since it was set out by Putin in June 2024. When asked if Russia would face any consequences if Putin does not agree to stop the war after Friday's meeting, Trump responded: 'Yes, they will.' Asked if those consequences would be sanctions or tariffs, Trump told reporters: 'I don't have to say, there will be very severe consequences.' But the president also described the aim of the meeting between the pair in Alaska as 'setting the table' for a quick follow-up that would include Zelenskyy. 'If the first one goes okay, we'll have a quick second one,' he said. 'I would like to do it almost immediately, and we'll have a quick second meeting between President Putin and President Zelenskyy and myself, if they'd like to have me there.' Trump did not provide a time frame for a second meeting. Red lines European leaders and Zelenskyy had earlier spoken with Trump in a last-ditch call hosted by Germany to lay out red lines ahead of the Alaska meeting. 'We had a very good call. He was on the call. President Zelenskyy was on the call. I would rate it a 10, very friendly,' Trump said. French President Emmanuel Macron said Trump agreed that Ukraine must be involved in any discussions about ceding land while Zelenskyy said Trump had supported the idea of security guarantees in a post-war settlement. 'President Trump was very clear that the United States wanted to achieve a ceasefire at this meeting in Alaska,' Macron said. 'The second point on which things were very clear, as expressed by President Trump, is that territories belonging to Ukraine cannot be negotiated and will only be negotiated by the Ukrainian president.' German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who hosted the virtual meeting, said the principle that borders could not be changed by force must continue to apply. 'If there is no movement on the Russian side in Alaska, then the United States and we Europeans should ... increase the pressure,' he said. 'President Trump knows this position, he shares it very extensively and therefore I can say: We have had a really exceptionally constructive and good conversation with each other.' Trump and Putin are due to discuss how to end the three-and-a-half-year-old conflict, the biggest in Europe since World War Two. Trump has previously said both sides will have to swap land to end fighting that has cost tens of thousands of lives and displaced millions. Russia makes sharp advance into Ukraine On a day of intense diplomacy, Zelenskyy flew into Berlin for virtual meetings with European leaders and then with Trump. He and the Europeans worry that a land swap could leave Russia with almost a fifth of Ukraine, rewarding it for almost 11 years of efforts to seize Ukrainian land, the last three in all-out war, and embolden Putin to expand further west in the future. Russian forces have made a sharp thrust into eastern Ukraine in recent days in what may be an attempt to increase the pressure on Kyiv to give up land. 'I told the US president and all our European colleagues that Putin is bluffing (about his stated wish to end the war),' Zelenskyy said. 'He is trying to apply pressure before the meeting in Alaska along all parts of the Ukrainian front. Russia is trying to show that it can occupy all of Ukraine ...' A source familiar with the matter said the call with Trump discussed possible cities that could host a three-way meeting, depending on the outcome of the talks in Alaska. Wary of angering Trump, European leaders have repeatedly said they welcome his efforts, while stressing that there should be no deal about Ukraine without Ukraine's participation. Trump's agreement last week to the summit was an abrupt shift after weeks of voicing frustration with Putin for resisting the US peace initiative. Trump said his envoy had made 'great progress' at talks in Moscow. A Gallup poll released last week found that 69 percent of Ukrainians favor a negotiated end to the war as soon as possible. But polls also indicate Ukrainians do not want peace at any cost if that means crushing concessions. Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Alexei Fadeev earlier said Moscow's stance had not changed since last year. As conditions for a ceasefire and the start of talks, the Kremlin leader had demanded that Ukraine withdraw its forces from four regions that Russia has claimed as its own but does not fully control, and formally renounce its plans to join NATO. Kyiv swiftly rejected the conditions as tantamount to surrender.
