Azerbaijan–Armenia peace deal: Why is it more than just a treaty?
- Khoshnaw Rahmani
- Aug 15
- 7 min read
Khoshnaw Rahmani, Jadetimes Staff
K. Rahmani is a Jadetimes news reporter covering politics.
After nearly four decades of war, displacement, and diplomatic stalemate, Armenia and Azerbaijan unveiled a U.S.-brokered peace deal at the White House on August 8, 2025, pledging mutual recognition of territorial integrity, renouncing force, and launching a strategic transit corridor through southern Armenia that Washington will develop under exclusive rights. The text—initialed by both sides and published days later—frames a blueprint for normalization and a new economic geography across the South Caucasus.
The news: What was agreed in Washington
Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev stood alongside the U.S. president to announce a joint declaration that ends claims to each other’s territory, pledges non-use of force, and signals the dissolution of a legacy mediation format, the OSCE Minsk Group. The parties also agreed to bar third-party military deployments along their shared border, reflecting a marked turn from traditional external security arrangements in the region.
The agreement includes a high-stakes infrastructure component: the United States obtained exclusive development rights to a transit corridor in southern Armenia connecting mainland Azerbaijan to Nakhchivan, framed as the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP). The corridor is designed to unlock regional trade and energy flows while respecting Armenian sovereignty—a balance that resolved earlier deadlocks over control and legal jurisdiction.
Soon after the summit, both governments released the text of the initialed agreement, underscoring core obligations, political intent, and next steps for ratification and implementation. Azerbaijan reiterated that final signature would follow constitutional changes in Armenia to remove language Baku views as territorial claims, while Yerevan called the text a “solid foundation” for a reliable peace.
What the peace deal includes
Core commitments
Mutual recognition: Both states recognize each other’s territorial integrity and relinquish claims to each other’s territory.
Non-use of force: They pledge to refrain from threats or use of force and to respect international law in their relations.
No third-party forces on the border: The text bans deployment of foreign troops along the shared border, a clause widely read as limiting future Russian or other external military roles there.
Minsk Group dissolution: A joint request to dissolve the OSCE Minsk Group, the defunct framework that mediated the conflict for decades.
The TRIPP corridor and connectivity
Exclusive U.S. development rights: The U.S. secured sole development rights for a transit corridor through southern Armenia linking Azerbaijan and its Nakhchivan exclave, in service of wider Europe–Turkey–Caucasus–Central Asia connectivity. The corridor’s governance adheres to Armenian law, addressing sovereignty concerns that previously stalled progress.
Duration and scope (as reported): Reporting indicates a 99-year arrangement under which the U.S. may sublease to a consortium to build rail, road, pipelines, fiber optics, and potentially power transmission along roughly 27 miles of corridor—positioning the route as a multipurpose artery for trade and energy.
Regional sensitivities: Iran has voiced sharp concerns about any arrangement resembling an extraterritorial “Zangezur Corridor,” warning against geopolitical shifts that cut across its transit interests, even as Tehran publicly welcomed de-escalation between its northern neighbors.
Legal and political steps
Constitutional issue: Azerbaijan conditions final signature on Armenian constitutional amendments to remove language it interprets as claims on Azerbaijani territory; Armenia has signaled intent to pursue reform while stressing domestic process and timing.
Text publication and ratification path: The initialed text was published after the White House announcement; both sides acknowledged further actions are required to finalize and ratify the treaty in their respective systems.
Security and monitoring
Evolving roles: The deal’s border clause intersects with the EU civilian monitoring mission in Armenia and the drawdown of Russian roles post-2020—contexts that Baku has contested and Yerevan has relied on at different times during the crisis cycle.
Why this moment matters
The deal crystallizes a power shift since 2020–2023: Azerbaijan’s battlefield gains changed the strategic map; Russian influence receded amid its own wars and sanctions; and the U.S. stepped into a role that pairs diplomacy with infrastructure statecraft. Turkey stands to see enhanced overland connectivity to the Caspian, while the EU and energy markets gain a corridor that bypasses Russia and Iran. Iran, watching its transit leverage narrow, has warned against regional reconfiguration that sidelines its routes.
At the same time, the agreement’s strength lies in trade-offs: U.S. development rights to a corridor; legal constraints on foreign troops; and a mutual renunciation of claims. Its fragility lies in politics at home—Armenia’s constitutional reform debate, Azerbaijan’s expectations on pace and tone of normalization, and societal grievances on both sides after mass displacement in 2023.
The conflict’s long arc: From late Soviet tensions to a U.S.-brokered deal
The roots run deep. In the late 1980s, as the USSR loosened, Nagorno-Karabakh’s Armenian majority sought unification with Armenia, igniting pogroms, retaliation, and, after 1991 independence, full-scale war. By 1994, Armenian forces held Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding districts; a Russia-brokered ceasefire froze lines but not grievances. Hundreds of thousands were displaced, and a decades-long cold conflict set in.
Azerbaijan’s 2020 offensive reshaped the map, restoring control over the surrounding districts and parts of Nagorno-Karabakh under a Russia-brokered armistice. In September 2023, Baku’s lightning operation brought all of Nagorno-Karabakh under its control; over 100,000 ethnic Armenians fled to Armenia within days. The self-proclaimed Artsakh entity dissolved on January 1, 2024, marking a historic pivot away from the decades-old status quo.
By spring 2025, after EU monitoring deployments, sharper Russia–Armenia frictions, and reciprocal border moves (including Armenia’s return of four villages in May 2024), the governments said they were prepared to end the conflict. The White House summit on August 8, 2025, crowned months of tentative steps with a public peace announcement and a connectivity package to anchor it.
Timeline: Key moments in the Armenia–Azerbaijan conflict and diplomacy
1988–1994: From late Soviet unrest to first war and ceasefire
Nagorno-Karabakh seeks unification with Armenia; war follows independence. A 1994 Russia-brokered ceasefire freezes the front; Armenian forces control Karabakh and adjacent districts.
2016: Four-day war
A sharp escalation causes hundreds of casualties and foreshadows a more volatile decade ahead.
2020: The second Karabakh war
A 44-day conflict yields major Azerbaijani gains; a Russia-brokered armistice leads to Russian peacekeepers’ deployment and reopened transit discussions.
2022–2023: Blockade and collapse of the status quo
EU monitoring arrives on Armenia’s border; access via Lachin corridor is choked and then checkpointed. On September 19, 2023, Azerbaijan seizes full control of Karabakh; mass flight to Armenia ensues.
January 1, 2024: Artsakh dissolves
The de facto entity ceases to exist; the conflict’s core territorial dispute ends in Azerbaijan’s favor, but state-to-state normalization remains undone.
May 24, 2024: Border adjustments
Armenia returns four villages captured in the 1990s to Azerbaijan, signaling movement on delimitation principles.
March 2025: Text agreed in principle
Officials say the terms of a peace treaty are finalized, pending signature and domestic processes.
August 8, 2025: White House announcement
Leaders announce a peace deal and unveil the U.S.-developed TRIPP corridor; days later, the initialed text is published.
Stakeholders, reactions, and domestic politics
Washington framed the agreement as a historic de-escalation with economic upside; Baku and Yerevan cast it as a path to a “reliable and lasting peace,” even as both acknowledged remaining hurdles. Azerbaijan linked final signature to Armenian constitutional amendments; Armenia emphasized that sovereignty over the corridor remains intact under Armenian law. Russia welcomed peace but warned against crowding out regional players; Iran stressed sovereignty, connectivity, and transit concerns with the U.S.-led corridor.
Political pressure runs both ways. Armenian opposition groups and diaspora voices criticize the deal’s asymmetries and the trauma of 2023’s exodus; critical op-eds argue peace requires accountability for detainees and cultural heritage protections. Azerbaijani narratives highlight victory consolidation and strategic connectivity to Turkey, casting TRIPP as the linchpin of a new regional order.
How this deal compares to other peace settlements
Sources: Deal text and background as reported by Reuters (US News) and CFR.
Expert takeaway: Unlike Dayton’s heavy external enforcement or Good Friday’s deep power-sharing, the Azerbaijan–Armenia framework bets on state-to-state normalization and economic interdependence anchored by TRIPP—strong on sovereignty and connectivity, lighter on built-in reconciliation and accountability mechanisms. That puts more weight on domestic reforms, monitoring transparency, and corridor governance to deliver dividends that outpace spoilers.
Risks, verification, and scenarios
Implementation risk: Constitutional reform in Armenia can stall amid polarizing politics; border delimitation could trigger local protests; any incident along the frontier risks unraveling momentum.
Geopolitical friction: Iran’s objections to a U.S.-led corridor and Russia’s discomfort with diminished leverage could manifest as diplomatic or hybrid pressure, especially around transit and energy nodes.
Societal wounds: The 2023 exodus, detainee issues, and cultural heritage disputes feed mistrust. Without parallel humanitarian steps and confidence-building, “cold peace” could harden.
Monitoring opacity: The ban on foreign troops along the border puts a premium on civilian monitoring, satellite transparency, and crisis hotlines; absent trusted verification, narratives can escalate quickly.
Economic and strategic implications
Euro-Caspian connectivity: TRIPP complements East–West energy and trade corridors, enabling flows between Europe, Turkey, the Caucasus, and Central Asia without transiting Russia or Iran—an explicit geopolitical objective cited by U.S. officials and reflected in post-2022 diversification logic. Armenia gains a chance to reinsert itself into regional logistics and renewables value chains if it leverages corridor governance and adjacent projects wisely.
Armenia’s reorientation: A shift from isolation to integration—if paired with legal reform and investor protections—could attract capital for logistics, energy, and manufacturing. Sequencing matters: visible benefits can build domestic support for difficult compromises.
Azerbaijan’s hub strategy: A direct land bridge to Nakhchivan bolsters ties with Turkey and consolidates Baku’s role as a pivotal energy and transit hub in the wider Caspian–Black Sea space. Corridor performance will be the litmus test of sustainable normalization.
What to watch next
Ratification clock: Whether Yerevan tables constitutional amendments and how Baku sequences signature with those steps.
Corridor governance: Detailed statute for TRIPP under Armenian law—customs, transit guarantees, dispute resolution, and public–private financing structure.
Border delimitation: Technical demarcation milestones and local security arrangements; interaction with EU monitoring.
Humanitarian measures: Detainee releases, property and archival access, cultural heritage safeguards, and targeted confidence-building in border communities.
Regional signaling: Iran’s posture toward construction, Russia’s diplomatic countermoves, and Turkey–EU–U.S. coordination on trade and energy through the corridor.
Conclusion
The Azerbaijan–Armenia peace deal is more than a ceasefire document. It is a strategic wager: that sovereignty clarity, demilitarized borders, and a U.S.-developed corridor can convert hard-won battlefield realities into a durable peace dividend. Its success will depend less on ceremony than on law, logistics, and lived experience along the border—whether trucks and trains move on time, whether people feel safer, and whether politics can bend toward the future faster than history pulls them back.
Comments