Iran's Supreme Leader reiterates stern opposition to Zangazur Corridor Amid Azerbaijan high hopes for peace deal with Armenia

The intricate geopolitical dynamics of the South Caucasus continue to evolve as Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Iran engage in a complex power play. Recent developments once again highlight the contrasting positions of Azerbaijan and Iran concerning the Zangazur Corridor, a proposed land route that would connect mainland Azerbaijan to its Nakhchivan exclave through Armenian territory. This corridor has become a focal point of contention, with Iran expressing strong opposition to the project, raising questions about its broader geopolitical motives.

Iran's opposition to the Zangazur Corridor

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on July 30, 2024, reaffirmed Tehran’s strong opposition to Azerbaijan’s efforts to establish the Zangazur Corridor. During a meeting with Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, who visited Tehran to attend the inauguration of Iran’s new president, Masoud Pezeshkian, Khamenei emphasized the importance of maintaining Armenia’s territorial integrity. He asserted that the Zangazur Corridor would be detrimental to Armenia, a stance that aligns with Iran's broader regional strategy.

The Supreme Leader “once again stressed the importance of preserving the territorial integrity of Armenia, saying that the Islamic Republic of Iran considers the Zangazur Corridor is not to the benefit of Armenia”.

The Zangazur Corridor, envisioned as a vital link between Azerbaijan and its exclave Nakhchivan, traversing Armenia’s Zangazur (Syunik) province, has been a point of contention since its proposal. For Iran, the corridor allegedly poses a significant threat to its strategic interests, as it alleges that the potential establishment of this route would not only enhance Azerbaijan’s connectivity with Türkiye but also diminish Iran’s regional influence by reducing its direct land access to Armenia. This, by extension, is wide off the mark, and in no way, hinders connectivity between the two neighbors since it existed until recently when the Armenian aggression against Azerbaijani lands in the early 1980s.

Azerbaijan’s diplomatic push: Progress amidst tensions

While Iran keeps reiterating its staunch opposition to the Zangazur Corridor, Azerbaijan has made substantial progress in its peace talks with Armenia. Elcin Amirbayov, the Azerbaijani president’s representative for special assignments, highlighted this progress during an online seminar at the US-based Hudson Institute. He stated that both countries are closer than ever to finalizing a peace agreement, emphasizing the historic opportunity to end decades of enmity and foster stability in the South Caucasus.

Amirbayov’s remarks indirectly counter Iran’s concerns by focusing on the broader benefits of regional connectivity and peace. He pointed out that Azerbaijan is committed to fulfilling the expectations of the international community and resolving the core issues of the conflict, particularly Armenia’s territorial claims against Azerbaijan. The Zangazur Corridor, in this context, is seen by Azerbaijan as a crucial element of the peace process, aimed at ensuring long-term stability and prosperity for the region.

Iran’s historical stance: A double standard?

Iran’s opposition to the Zangazur Corridor contrasts sharply with its historical stance during the nearly three-decade-long Armenian occupation of Azerbaijani territories. Throughout this period, Iran remained largely indifferent to the plight of Azerbaijani lands under Armenian control, refraining from any significant condemnation or action.

This passive approach has led to accusations of a double standard, as Iran now vocally opposes a project that would benefit Azerbaijan while maintaining close ties with Armenia, a country that has sought military cooperation with Paris and New Delhi.

Iran’s reluctance to support Azerbaijan during the occupation period raises questions about its current motivations. Critics argue that Tehran’s opposition to the Zangazur Corridor is not about protecting Armenia’s territorial integrity but rather about preserving its own strategic interests. By blocking the corridor, Iran aims to prevent Azerbaijan and Türkiye from enhancing their regional influence, thereby maintaining its own leverage in the South Caucasus.

The broader geopolitical implications

The ongoing developments around the Zangazur Corridor are not just about regional connectivity; they reflect a broader geopolitical struggle involving multiple players. Iran’s concern over the corridor is tied to its fear of losing influence in a region where it has historically played a significant role. The corridor, if established, would strengthen the Türkiye-Azerbaijan axis, potentially sidelining Iran in the process.

Moreover, the potential military cooperation between Armenia and countries like France and India adds another layer of complexity to the situation. Despite Iran’s vocal opposition to the Zangazur Corridor, it has remained silent on Armenia’s military partnerships, suggesting a selective approach to its regional policy. This inconsistency further complicates the narrative, highlighting Iran’s primary focus on countering Azerbaijan’s ambitions rather than addressing broader regional security concerns.

Azerbaijan’s strategic calculations

From Azerbaijan’s perspective, the Zangazur Corridor represents a strategic lifeline to Nakhchivan and a critical component of its broader geopolitical strategy. The corridor would facilitate greater economic and political integration with Türkiye, enhancing Azerbaijan’s position in the South Caucasus and beyond. This strategic calculation is evident in Azerbaijan’s diplomatic efforts to finalize a peace agreement with Armenia, with the corridor being a key element of the negotiations.

Azerbaijan’s insistence on the corridor is also rooted in its desire to secure long-term peace and stability in the region. By establishing a direct land route to Nakhchivan, Azerbaijan aims to reduce its reliance on potentially hostile neighbors and ensure uninterrupted access to its exclave. This strategic priority has driven Azerbaijan’s push for the corridor, despite Iran’s objections.

Conclusion

As the South Caucasus navigates this complex geopolitical landscape, the Zangazur Corridor remains a contentious issue with far-reaching implications. Iran’s opposition, rooted in its desire to maintain regional influence, stands in stark contrast to Azerbaijan’s strategic aspirations. As Azerbaijan and Armenia inch closer to a peace agreement, the fate of the Zangazur Corridor will likely play a decisive role in shaping the future of the region.

Ultimately, the resolution of this issue will depend on the ability of the involved parties to balance their strategic interests with the broader goal of regional stability. For Azerbaijan, the corridor represents a path to peace and prosperity; for Iran, it is a challenge to its long-standing influence in the South Caucasus. How this geopolitical tug-of-war unfolds will determine the future trajectory of the region, with significant implications for all stakeholders involved.