Zangezur and the Attempt to Encircle Iran
WANA (Jul 21) – The idea of establishing the Zangezur Corridor is not new. It dates back even to the Ottoman Caliphate, which sought a strategic foothold in the South Caucasus and frequently clashed with both Russia and Britain over influence in the region.
Later, during Atatürk’s era, Turkey made further attempts in this direction, though they failed. However, the disintegration of the Soviet Union revived interest in the corridor project. Its implementation would turn Turkey into a regional hub for energy and transportation, thereby granting it significant political leverage. Economically, it would drastically diminish the importance of the North-South Corridor and, by routing the East-West Corridor through Armenia and Baku, would bypass Russia entirely.
The rise of Ilham Aliyev’s government in Azerbaijan—one that has forged close ties with Israel due to its strongly pro-Western orientation—poses a potential threat to the legitimate interests of both Iran and Russia. Under Aliyev’s rule, Baku’s confrontations are not limited to Iran; in recent weeks, tensions with Russia have escalated. Azerbaijani networks, some with mafia-like operations, were active inside Russia and allegedly sought to influence Putin and key Russian infrastructures—economic, intelligence, and political. This led Moscow to crack down on these groups.
Recent Developments Surrounding the U.S. Proposal to Control the Zangezur Corridor
WANA (Jul 18) – The United States has proposed taking control of the disputed route known as the “Zangezur Corridor” between Armenia and Azerbaijan, framing it as a plan for “peace mediation.” This proposal was met with a negative response from Yerevan, with the Armenian government stating it would not hand over control of its […]
The establishment of the Zangezur Corridor would effectively strip Armenia of its sovereignty over a significant portion of its territory, turning it into a geopolitical playground for Turkey, Baku, and the United States (via NATO). This could potentially lead to Armenia’s fragmentation and collapse.
Furthermore, with NATO’s strengthened presence in the South Caucasus, Turkish and NATO forces could block Iranian access to Europe through the Black Sea. This would create an anti-Iranian “rainbow coalition” made up of NATO forces, Salafist extremists, ethnic separatists, pan-Turkists, and Zionists—all aiming to encircle Iran.
Given that Israeli aerial assaults on Iran have not achieved their objectives, this encirclement is seen as a prelude to a potential Israeli ground invasion via Azerbaijan. Let us not forget that Yoav Gallant, Israel’s former Defense Minister, recently visited Baku and met with President Aliyev. Aliyev himself has traveled to Albania several times and reportedly met with members of the MEK (Mojahedin-e-Khalq), an Iranian opposition group. This points to the formation of an anti-Iranian network.
When these developments are viewed alongside Israel’s efforts to establish a land route into Iran from Iraqi Kurdistan and the recent attacks on southern Syria and Damascus, a clear picture emerges: the Zionist regime is working to create a direct land corridor from its borders all the way to Iran. In effect, the Zangezur Corridor could pave the way for Israel to share a direct border with Iran along its northern, northwestern, and western flanks.
Israeli Attack on Syria. Social media/ WANA News Agency
This strategy aligns with longstanding efforts to destabilize Iran and undermine its national unity—especially by fomenting crises in its Azeri and Kurdish regions. Israeli media outlets have openly acknowledged these goals and even suggested that after Iran, similar plans should be applied to Turkey and Pakistan.
This is reminiscent of the American “Greater Middle East” plan, which seeks to ensure that no state in West Asia—regardless of its political system—is large or powerful enough to threaten Israel. In this context, the Zangezur Corridor is one puzzle piece in a broader geopolitical design.
Some analysts refer to this as the “Sykes-Picot of the 21st century”—a reference to the secret Anglo-French agreement that partitioned the Ottoman Empire a century ago. In this new version, Iran is the target, intended to be weakened to a point where it can no longer pose a strategic threat to Israel.
For Israel, the Zangezur Corridor would serve as a critical logistical lifeline, helping it break out of regional isolation. Meanwhile, Russia—isolated by Western sanctions over the war in Ukraine—has also considered this corridor as a potential transit alternative. Turkey has complicated matters for Russia by tightening control over the Bosporus Strait, making the situation even more pressing for Moscow.
However, Iran must actively engage Russia and present concrete evidence that this corridor is not being built for Russian benefit. Rather, it will become a logistical route for NATO and separatist forces, threatening the territorial integrity of both Russia and Iran. Russia should be persuaded that any future gas pipeline into Iran should run through Armenia and Georgia—not Azerbaijan.
the U.S. Proposal to Control the Zangezur Corridor – WANA News Agency
Likewise, Iran must engage China in high-level talks and warn that this transit route will not serve China’s long-term interests. Moreover, China’s own territorial integrity could be endangered by the spread of pan-Turkist ideologies and the incitement of its Uyghur population.
In addition to collaboration, Iran should demonstrate to China that the proposed Aras Corridor—which would pass through Iranian territory and connect Nakhchivan to Baku—is a more viable alternative. If the Aliyev government and its allies harbor no hostile intentions, they could make use of this route instead.
Simultaneously, Iran must deepen its political, economic, and security ties with Armenia. It is strategically unwise to spend four years hesitating over a simple Armenian request to build a refinery. Such delays only cede opportunities to the UAE or Azerbaijan. Moreover, Iran should invest in public diplomacy, media campaigns, and academic or technical institutions—particularly in southern Armenia. Farsi-language education and the establishment of a joint free-trade zone between Iran and Armenia should also be on the agenda.
Finally, Iran must clearly and unambiguously declare to all parties involved in this project that any attempt to alter the borders of neighboring countries in a way that threatens Iran’s geopolitical interests is unacceptable—and that Iran will take all necessary measures to defend its national interests.
