US getting creative in search for Armenia-Azerbaijan peace deal
US President Donald Trump's Oval Office meeting with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte on Monday drew considerable attention for what appeared to be a shift in tone on Ukraine. But amid the headlines, another noteworthy — yet underreported — statement emerged. During a media Q&A, Trump declared that his administration was now close to finalizing a long-term peace agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
This is no small claim. Armenia and Azerbaijan have been in some form of conflict since the collapse of the Soviet Union. What began as fighting in the early 1990s led to a frozen conflict and an Armenian occupation of a sizable chunk of Azerbaijani territory. This conflict exploded into a full-scale war in 2020, which ended in an Azerbaijani victory and the deployment of Russian peacekeepers to the region. By 2023, Azerbaijan had completed the liberation of all its territory taken by Armenia in the 1990s, Russian peacekeepers departed, and Baku and Yerevan started peace talks.
However, a major sticking point remains. As part of the ceasefire agreement brokered in November 2020, Armenia committed to 'guarantee the security of transport connections' between Azerbaijan proper and its Nakhchivan exclave via Armenia's Syunik Province. However, no progress has been made on implementing this pledge.
For Baku, the so-called Zangezur Corridor is a strategic priority. There is no direct land route connecting Azerbaijan to Nakhchivan and access through Armenia would resolve this logistical challenge. Baku has consistently stated that it does not seek Armenian territory, but merely a secure transport link.
Domestic Armenian concerns, coupled with broader regional anxieties, have complicated any effort at compromise
Luke Coffey
Similar arrangements exist elsewhere in the world without raising sovereignty concerns. For instance, the US relies on transit through Canadian territory to access Alaska from the American mainland via the Alaska Highway. Likewise, Oman maintains a transit route through the UAE to connect with its Musandam exclave on the Strait of Hormuz — without infringing on Emirati sovereignty. In both cases, sovereignty remains respected, while practical transit needs are met.
For Yerevan, however, the proposal has become politically toxic. Many Armenians fear that implementing the corridor would weaken their sovereignty or lead to the perception of territorial compromise. These domestic concerns, coupled with broader regional anxieties, have complicated any effort at compromise. Iran, in particular, has pressured Armenia against accepting such an agreement, driven by its long-standing geopolitical rivalry with Azerbaijan.
So, what gives the Trump administration confidence that a final peace is within reach?
To be fair, the Biden administration deserves credit for bringing both sides to the negotiating table in recent years. Trump has largely continued this process. Around the time of Trump's comments, the US ambassador to Turkiye floated an unusual idea: America could lease and manage the 43km stretch of road in Syunik for 100 years to guarantee its neutrality and security.
Although Yerevan quickly rejected the suggestion, the fact that such creative proposals are being considered reflects an active American diplomatic effort behind the scenes. It also illustrates how this seemingly small strip of land has become symbolic of broader regional dynamics.
Russia, long the dominant powerbroker in the South Caucasus, has been largely sidelined in the current talks. This reflects Moscow's diminishing influence, which stems from several factors: its overreach in Armenia, intervening in that country's domestic affairs; recent tensions with Baku over the arrest of Azerbaijani nationals in Russia; and the downing of an Azerbaijan Airlines plane over the North Caucasus earlier this year by Russian air defense missiles. Russia's faltering war effort in Ukraine has further diminished its credibility across the region.
Iran strongly opposes the Zangezur Corridor. There are two key reasons for this. First, such a route would facilitate greater connectivity between Turkiye and Central Asia — reducing Iran's own relevance as a transit country. Second, it would diminish Tehran's influence over Azerbaijan. Currently, Baku relies on Iranian airspace and infrastructure to reach Nakhchivan. If the Zangezur Corridor were to become operational, Iran would lose this leverage.
Russia, long the dominant powerbroker in the South Caucasus, has been largely sidelined in the current talks
Luke Coffey
Turkiye, meanwhile, sees the corridor not just as a logistical link but as a manifestation of a larger geopolitical and ideological vision. The road and rail connections through Armenia would link Anatolia to the Turkic states of Central Asia — Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and beyond. This would physically tie together a broader Turkic world, which Ankara seeks to strengthen through forums like the Organization of Turkic States.
For the US, the Zangezur Corridor reflects a broader dilemma: how to engage effectively in a strategically important but geographically distant and complex region like the South Caucasus. While Trump touts his record of avoiding new wars, it is worth remembering that the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War erupted during his first term in 2020. That conflict, and the ceasefire it produced, laid the foundation for today's geopolitical situation in the region.
Still, Trump's administration has invested considerable diplomatic energy into peacemaking — from Ukraine to the Middle East to Africa. The Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict offers another opportunity to 'make a deal.' But like most issues in the South Caucasus, the reality is far more complicated than it may first appear.
That is why the US leasing a corridor through Armenia, while innovative, is unlikely to gain traction. It faces domestic resistance in Yerevan, legal and sovereignty concerns, and geopolitical opposition from Russia and Iran. Yet the broader goal — peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan — is both worthwhile and achievable.
Normalization between these two neighbors would have cascading benefits. It would pave the way for diplomatic ties between Turkiye and Armenia, which would open new trade, energy and transportation opportunities across the South Caucasus. Armenia, long excluded from regional infrastructure projects due to its conflict with Azerbaijan, would stand to gain significantly. This comes at a time when Armenia's economy is under pressure and its foreign policy orientation is slowly drifting away from Russia and toward Europe.
For Washington, a stable South Caucasus aligns with US interests. It would enhance regional connectivity and reduce vulnerabilities in NATO's energy security — especially important given Europe's increasing reliance on Caspian energy resources as an alternative to Russian supplies.
Whether the Trump administration can ultimately broker a lasting peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan remains uncertain. But it deserves recognition for trying. With sustained effort, strategic creativity and regional buy-in, the US has a real chance to help end one of the post-Soviet world's longest unresolved conflicts.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
5 hours ago
- Arab News
Why the Nile dam crisis demands action and accountability
The dispute over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam has become one of the world's major water conflicts. In recent weeks, it has gained renewed international attention, particularly after remarks from US President Donald Trump and a declaration by Ethiopia. As Ethiopia celebrates the 'completion' of the dam, Egypt views the announcement as a direct challenge to international law and a threat to the foundation of its national security. With its inauguration set for September, the question remains: will diplomacy prevail or will unilateralism triumph over cooperation? The GERD is Africa's largest hydroelectric power project, constructed by Ethiopia on the Blue Nile, the main tributary of the Nile River. Launched in 2011, the dam is expected to generate more than 6,000 megawatts of electricity. While it promises much-needed energy for Ethiopia's population, the project has been controversial from the start. Egypt depends on the Nile for 97 percent of its freshwater needs. For more than a century, its water rights were guaranteed by treaties and its downstream position. But the GERD, located just a few kilometers from the Sudanese border, threatens to disrupt that balance. In Cairo, the concern is existential. Despite years of negotiations and a 2015 Declaration of Principles signed by Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan, Addis Ababa has pressed ahead with construction and the phased filling of the dam's reservoir without a binding legal agreement on its operation. Cairo has repeatedly warned that such actions violate international norms governing transboundary watercourses. Ethiopia, however, has largely ignored these warnings, framing the GERD as a sovereign project. Trump this month broke the American diplomatic silence that had defined the Biden years, issuing frank statements about the dam. Speaking at a press conference, Trump described the Nile as the 'lifeline' of the Egyptian people, a description that aligns precisely with Cairo's long-standing argument. He also criticized the American role in having, as he put it, 'stupidly funded' the dam without adequately addressing its consequences. 'I do not know why they didn't solve the problem before they built the dam,' Trump said. For Egypt, these remarks were not only long overdue, but they were also a validation. President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi welcomed the comments, praising Trump's stance. Egyptian diplomats saw the US president's statements as a diplomatic turning point, bringing renewed pressure to bear on Ethiopia's unilateralism. From Ethiopia's side, the response was defensive and dismissive. Officials said the dam was funded domestically and some even portrayed Trump's comments as an insult to Ethiopia's sovereignty. But the broader reality is hard to ignore: the GERD has become a global concern and Ethiopia's dismissiveness only reinforces the perception that it is acting outside the bounds of international consensus. Days before Trump's remarks, Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed announced that all construction on the GERD had been completed. He declared that the dam would be officially inaugurated in September, calling it a victory for Ethiopia and inviting neighboring countries to join in the celebration. Trump this month broke the American diplomatic silence, issuing frank statements about the dam. Dr. Abdellatif El-Menawy But in Egypt, this announcement was met with alarm. Cairo immediately condemned the move as a 'flagrant violation of international law' and an act of provocation. The Egyptian Ministry of Water Resources issued a statement calling Ethiopia's behavior 'destabilizing,' arguing that the move to operate the dam unilaterally undermines every principle of cooperation and trust in international water governance. The Ethiopian government claims that the dam will not reduce water flow downstream and that Egypt's concerns are exaggerated. But these assurances ring hollow, as experts note that the GERD's reservoir can hold 74 billion cubic meters of water, almost the entire annual flow of the Blue Nile. Egypt, already below the global water poverty line, cannot gamble on goodwill. Ethiopia has repeatedly rejected calls to sign a legally binding agreement governing how the dam is filled and managed during droughts. This refusal alone should cause alarm in the international community. What nation would accept such unilateral control over its primary source of life? Sudan, Egypt's southern neighbor and fellow downstream country, has long had an ambivalent position on the GERD. At times, it saw possible benefits, such as regulated water flow and access to cheap electricity. But in recent years, Khartoum has leaned closer to Cairo's position, especially after experiencing erratic water releases and infrastructure concerns. Today, Sudan is wracked by internal conflict and thus largely sidelined in the GERD diplomacy. However, the interim leadership has reaffirmed its opposition to any unilateral action by Ethiopia. In a meeting with El-Sisi last month, Gen. Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan stressed the need for a coordinated solution and joint safeguards. More broadly, the GERD dispute could destabilize the region. It threatens to fracture regional relations, provoke proxy conflicts and fuel instability in a region already grappling with conflict, economic crisis and foreign intervention. Under international law, the use of shared rivers is governed by two core principles: equitable and reasonable use, and the obligation not to cause significant harm. Egypt has abided by these rules and has called, again and again, for negotiations to reach a fair agreement. Ethiopia has adopted a narrow definition of sovereignty that places its national interests above regional stability. While no one denies Ethiopia's right to development, that right must be exercised within a framework of shared responsibility. It cannot come at the expense of 100 million Egyptians and the security of an entire region. The GERD is not a local dam. It is a regional project with continental consequences. Its success or failure will signal whether powerful upstream states can impose their will on downstream neighbors without consequence, or whether diplomacy, legality and fairness can still shape international outcomes. With the dam's inauguration looming and the US now taking a more decisive tone, the coming months will determine the future of one of the most important rivers on Earth. Trump's words, if backed by action, could revive negotiations and pressure Ethiopia to concede. But the international community must act decisively. Ethiopia's unilateralism cannot become the new norm. Letting one country control another's lifeline — without oversight, agreement or accountability — sets a dangerous precedent not just for Africa but for all transboundary river systems around the world.
Al Arabiya
6 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
Trump's latest demand: Washington football and Cleveland baseball teams should change names back
President Donald Trump wants Washington's football franchise and Cleveland's baseball team to revert to their former names. Trump said Sunday on his Truth Social site that 'The Washington Whatevers' should 'IMMEDIATELY change their name back to the Washington Redskins Football Team.' 'There is a big clamoring for this. Likewise the Cleveland Indians, one of the six original baseball teams with a storied past. Our great Indian people in massive numbers want this to happen. Their heritage and prestige is systematically being taken away from them. Times are different now than they were three or four years ago. We are a Country of passion and common sense. OWNERS GET IT DONE!!!' For all the latest headlines, follow our Google News channel online or via the app. Josh Harris, whose group bought the Commanders from former owner Dan Snyder in 2023, said earlier this year the name was here to stay. Not long after taking over, Harris quieted speculation about going back to Redskins, saying that would not happen. Guardians president of baseball operations Chris Antonetti indicated before Sunday's game against the Athletics that there weren't any plans to revisit the name change. 'We understand there are different perspectives on the decision we made a few years ago but obviously it's a decision we made. We've got the opportunity to build a brand as the Guardians over the last four years and are excited about the future that's in front of us,' he said. Both teams have had their current names since the 2022 seasons. Washington dropped Redskins after the 2019 season and was known as the Washington Football Team for two years before moving to Commanders. Cleveland announced in December 2020 it would drop Indians. It announced the switch to Guardians in July 2021. In 2018, the team phased out Chief Wahoo as its primary logo. The name changes had their share of supporters and critics as part of national discussions about institutions and teams to drop logos and names considered racist. The Guardians are the fifth name for Cleveland's baseball franchise. It joined the American League in 1901 as one of the eight charter franchises as the Blues. It switched to the Bronchos a year later and used the Naps from 1903 through 1914 before moving to the Indians in 1915. Washington started in Boston as the Redskins in 1933 before moving to the nation's capital four years later. Washington and Cleveland share another thing in common. David Blitzer is a member of Harris' ownership group with the Commanders and holds a minority stake in the Guardians.
Arab News
7 hours ago
- Arab News
America's AI energy revolution has global stakes
The next great American industrial revolution is not being shaped in think tanks; it is being built in real time. In Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, once a powerhouse of steel and smoke, the US has launched a future rooted in artificial intelligence, energy innovation and industrial revival. What unfolded at the Pennsylvania Energy and Innovation Summit last week was not just a domestic policy pivot. It was a global declaration. With more than $90 billion in private sector commitments, this initiative, spearheaded by the President Donald Trump-aligned state administration and welcomed by leaders on both sides of the aisle, sends a clear message to the world: the US intends to lead the AI era with power, precision and pragmatism. That message matters far beyond American borders. For leaders across the Middle East, this moment is worth watching, not just because of its scale but because of what it signals: the future of AI will be forged by the nations that control the energy, infrastructure and values that guide its use. AI is not an abstract Western luxury. It will soon define everything from national security and energy management to education, agriculture and healthcare. AI is already reshaping global trade, defense and diplomacy. In the Middle East, governments are investing heavily in smart cities, surveillance systems, digital health and fintech, all of which are powered by AI. But AI is not magic; it demands enormous amounts of energy to train, deploy and sustain. The summit in Pennsylvania highlighted this reality with refreshing honesty. Rather than chasing slogans or downplaying the environmental and industrial demands of AI, American leaders there did something rare: they confronted the energy challenge head-on. Their answer? Build data centers adjacent to power plants, particularly those utilizing natural gas and nuclear energy. This strategy, known as co-location, dramatically improves efficiency and allows for rapid expansion. It offers a potential model for energy-rich nations worldwide to consider as they scale up their own AI ambitions. Many global commentators will ask: is this American model just a return to fossil fuels? Is it an environmental rollback? The answer is not that simple. Washington is not abandoning its climate goals. However, it acknowledges a simple truth: wind and solar are essential, but they cannot yet deliver the reliable, large-scale power that AI systems need. For now, only natural gas and nuclear energy can provide that kind of steady and scalable supply. This is not about giving up on renewables; it is a practical step. A way to keep innovation moving forward while the clean energy future catches up. For Middle Eastern countries, especially those investing in AI through sovereign wealth funds and national tech strategies, this approach resonates. Gulf states like Saudi Arabia and the UAE are threading this same needle: investing in renewables while recognizing the transitional role of hydrocarbons and nuclear energy. What the US is doing in Pennsylvania may not just inspire them but also offer a playbook. At its core, the summit's announcements promise more than megawatts and microchips. They offer a blueprint for economic dignity. America's heartland, often overlooked by globalization, is being revitalized through high-skilled, future-focused jobs in energy, cybersecurity, engineering and data science. This is a model the world can learn from. Instead of viewing AI as a threat to traditional labor, the US is building an industrial policy that connects digital growth to human opportunity. The lesson is clear: if AI is built in a vacuum, it will deepen inequality. If it is built alongside energy, training and infrastructure, it can be a ladder. A new partnership model could emerge, in which US AI expertise is combined with Middle Eastern energy foresight. Dalia Al-Aqidi For Middle Eastern countries investing in youth-driven economies, that distinction is crucial. The AI revolution must be both technological and human. There is a bigger reason the summit matters: it proves that who builds AI, and the values behind it, matter. By leading with clean energy and private sector strength, America is doing more than securing its own future — it is offering a better option for others. The global market now has a choice: work with a democratic AI system built on trust and cooperation or risk getting locked into one built for control, not collaboration. Washington is not looking to go it alone. At the summit, Trump and others emphasized the importance of international cooperation, especially with energy producers and tech innovators abroad. That is where the Middle East comes in. The region is home to some of the world's most ambitious AI visions, from Saudi Arabia's NEOM to the UAE's national AI strategy. It is also home to some of the world's most valuable energy assets. A new partnership model could emerge, in which American AI expertise is combined with Middle Eastern energy foresight, leading to shared leadership in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. This is not science fiction. It is strategic alignment. Of course, no policy is perfect. Environmental concerns must be addressed and the digital divide must be bridged, not just within nations but between them. However, what is clear is that a vacuum of leadership is no longer an option. The world needs bold ideas and, more importantly, the courage to act on them. What happened in Pennsylvania is not a solution for every country. But it is a signal to all: the AI energy era has arrived and the stakes are global. What happens in places like Pittsburgh will shape how AI develops, how energy is used and how the world moves forward. This is not a threat, it is an opportunity for several nations to work together on a smarter, safer and more connected future. As we enter a new industrial age, the real questions are: who will lead it and what values will shape the path ahead?
