Unlocking the Zangezur Corridor: The 34-Year-Old US-Israeli Vision for Regional Connectivity

The recent international conference titled “Zangezur Corridor: Geopolitical Threats against Iran and the Perspectives of Various Actors” brought together prominent experts to discuss the implications of the Zangezur Corridor on regional geopolitics. Held on August 5 at the Mehr News Agency, this event highlighted the potential threats posed by the corridor for Iran, Armenia, and neighboring countries. The discussions were led by a panel of notable figures, including Shoaib Bahman, Dariush Safarnejad, Ehsan Mohahedian, Mohammad Mehdi Rahmati, and Mohammad Reza Moradi.

At the outset, Mohammad Reza Moradi provided essential context regarding the Zangezur Corridor and its historical significance:

“Since the disputes between Azerbaijan and Armenia began, the connection with ‘Nakhchivan’ has become one of the main challenges between the two countries. Also, ‘Nagorno-Karabakh,’ an Armenian-populated area in Azerbaijani territory connected to Armenia through the Lachin Corridor, maintained this link for years. This was at the heart of the wars between Azerbaijan and Armenia, as Azerbaijan sought to take control of this region. After several wars, Azerbaijan gained control and, under a trilateral agreement, pledged to ensure a safe connection between the people of this region and Armenia. However, due to the blockade of Karabakh and the pressure exerted on the Armenians, they were forced to migrate, leaving the region depopulated. In this way, Azerbaijan violated the most important clause of the 2020 trilateral agreement.

Based on Article 9 of the trilateral agreement, Azerbaijan claimed that Armenia had committed to creating a corridor from Azerbaijan to Nakhchivan. Since 2020, Azerbaijan has intensified its efforts, which have peaked in the past month. The ‘Zangezur Corridor’ is a security threat for the Islamic Republic of Iran, Armenia, and other actors in the region connected to the South Caucasus. For Iran, the most critical issue is that its land connection to Armenia will be cut off, and even its land access to European countries will be affected.”

### The Role of Media in Regional Dialogue

In his opening remarks, Mohammad Mehdi Rahmati emphasized the vital role of media in fostering dialogue on significant regional issues:

“Media dialogue on important regional issues is necessary. If we can create appropriate media discussions on shared issues in the region, we will certainly achieve significant national and international impact. Most of us possess knowledge, expertise, and experience in our fields, and sharing these—especially on matters like the Zangezur Corridor—can be valuable. One of our overlooked aspects is the lack of opportunities for sharing our knowledge, discussing it, and responding to questions to reach a mutually agreed-upon solution. The future of neighboring countries in a region cannot be shaped without one another. Media can drive understanding and shape a shared future among neighbors. Media dialogue can influence political futures and find its way into policymaking. As a country with a long historical presence in the region and for which the Zangezur Corridor is significant, Iran can take on the responsibility of sharing ideas and reaching a suitable conclusion.”

### Historical Context of the Zangezur Corridor

Dariush Safarnejad provided insights into the historical background of the Zangezur Corridor:

“The Zangezur Corridor is a 34-year-old American plan. The US has been nurturing this plan, called the ‘Goble Plan,’ for 34 years; ‘Zangezur’ is simply the modern name and updated version of that old plan. The Islamic Republic of Iran and Russia have resisted it from the outset, which is why it has not been implemented so far. NATO is the main supporter of the Zangezur Corridor, followed by the US, Europe, the Zionist regime, Turkey, and Takfiri groups.”

He further explained the geopolitical ramifications associated with the corridor:

The corridor involves significant international players, including NATO and the US.
Turkey plays a crucial role due to NATO’s Southeastern Command being based there.
Recent meetings in Turkey and the UAE, without Russian representation, have moved the project forward.

Safarnejad also mentioned that agreements from recent meetings indicate a shift in the political landscape:

“If they were merely after a road, it would only require 50–70 meters, or 100 meters with a railway. The allocation of a 6-kilometer-wide land and air corridor shows this is more than an economic project—it’s a strategic plan.”

### Implications for Iran’s Geography

Shoaib Bahman highlighted how the Zangezur Corridor could potentially suffocate Iran’s geographical significance:

“Major projects are forming around Iran, with the Zangezur Corridor being part of them. For years, there has been talk of the Lajevard Corridor in eastern Iran, connecting Pakistan and Afghanistan to Turkmenistan, and possibly to Baku via the Caspian Sea. For linking Afghanistan and Pakistan to Turkey and Europe, Iran is the cheapest and fastest route, yet they are willing to bypass Iran through a combination of rail, sea, and road transport, just to exclude it.”

He emphasized that the corridor could lead to Iran’s exclusion from critical transit routes:

Iran would be bypassed by major international trade and transit routes.
This exclusion could render Iran vulnerable to sanctions and geopolitical pressures.
The Zangezur Corridor is a component of a broader strategy to marginalize Iran regionally.

### The Economic vs. Strategic Nature of the Corridor

Ehsan Mohahedian questioned the narrative that presents the Zangezur Corridor solely as an economic initiative:

“Azerbaijan tries to present Zangezur as an economic corridor, but in reality, it targets the security and territorial integrity of the Islamic Republic of Iran. If you want a route, you’ve been traveling through Georgia for years—why insist on passing right next to Iran’s border in a completely rugged area?”

This sentiment underscores the complex interplay between economic aspirations and strategic considerations surrounding the Zangezur Corridor.

In conclusion, the discussions at the conference shed light on the multifaceted implications of the Zangezur Corridor, not only for the immediate countries involved but also for broader regional stability and security. The interplay of media, historical context, and geopolitical strategies underscores the need for vigilant engagement and dialogue among all stakeholders.