Introduction
The Iran war, which began on 28 February 2026 with United States and Israeli strikes, has evolved into a multi-theater regional conflict without a clear end state. Militarily, the strikes have significantly degraded Iran’s conventional military capabilities and damaged parts of its nuclear infrastructure. However, it has not produced regime collapse or a clear strategic outcome as Iran retains the ability to retaliate across multiple fronts. The conflict has expanded beyond the Gulf, disrupted energy markets, exposed divisions within the West, and weakened collective security mechanisms, generating sustained instability. These dynamics are reshaping regional environments beyond the Middle East, with indirect but significant implications for the South Caucasus. Their impact on Armenia—particularly on the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP) and the Armenia–Azerbaijan peace process — is not primarily military but structural, influencing economic flows, geopolitical alignments, and the broader context in which normalization unfolds At this stage, the conflict has not generated immediate security risks for Armenia, but it has introduced new constraints and uncertainties that may affect both the pace and sustainability of the regional transformation.
Armenia: Relative Stability Amid Regional Disruption
Unlike the Iran-Israel war in June 2025, the current war has not created immediate risks of Azerbaijani military action against Armenia’s southern regions. Armenia remains the only direct neighbor of Iran not targeted in the conflict, reflecting its calibrated neutrality, balanced relations with both the U.S. and Iran, and the absence of a military infrastructure of Iran, the U.S. or its allies on its territory. This positioning has shaped perceptions of Armenia as a relatively stable and predictable environment within an increasingly volatile region. However, this relative stability does not shield Armenia from the broader economic and logistical consequences of the war, nor does it guarantee similar restraint if the conflict continues and escalates further.
Importance of Iran for Armenia
Iran remains an important regional partner for Armenia, and in 2025, the two countries announced plans to elevate their relationship through a forthcoming strategic partnership framework. Bilateral cooperation includes energy (gas - electricity) exchanges, cross-border trade, and transport connectivity that links Armenia to the Middle East, South Asia, and parts of East Asia. Armenia also serves as Iran’s potential gateway to Europe. These interactions support Armenia’s economic diversification and broader regional integration. In parallel, Armenia and Iran have also explored trilateral cooperation formats with other partners. Iran has also played an implicit role in Armenia’s security environment by firmly opposing any attempt to alter the Armenia–Iran border, particularly demands for an extraterritorial corridor across southern Armenia by Azerbaijan, supported by Turkey and Russia. This stance served as an indirect deterrent to a potential Azerbaijani military offensive in Armenia’s Syunik region. However, this dynamic has been partly reshaped by increased U.S. engagement in regional diplomacy and connectivity initiatives following the Washington summit of 8 August 2025, while simultaneously raising sensitivities in Tehran. Iranian officials have expressed concerns that the U.S.-supported TRIPP project could alter regional transit dynamics and diminish Iran’s geopolitical role in the South Caucasus.
Economic and Connectivity Pressures
The most immediate effects of the ongoing conflict between Iran and Israel-U.S. alliance are economic. Disruptions affecting Iran—Armenia’s key southern route— have impacted trade flows, energy exchanges, and broader connectivity with markets in the Middle East and South Asia, including India, a key defence and economic partner for Armenia. A prolonged conflict is likely to increase transport costs, reduce trade volumes, and create inflationary pressures, given Armenia’s structural reliance on its border with Iran. Regional instability has affected airspace and logistics, requiring rerouting and emergency responses. According to the Foreign Ministry of Armenia, Armenia has evacuated its citizens from countries in the Middle East, Asia and Africa, as well as helped evacuate foreign citizens through Armenia due to the crisis.
Foreign Policy Dilemma: Neutrality Under Pressure
Armenia therefore seeks to maintain stable, pragmatic relations with Iran while continuing to diversify its external partnerships through the strategy of multi-alignment. At the same time, Iran’s ongoing conflict and internal crisis introduce significant uncertainty into Armenia’s strategic environment. Major destabilization in Iran would not only disrupt economic and transit connections but could also alter the delicate regional balance in the South Caucasus, with potential implications for Armenia’s security. The war sharpens Armenia’s foreign policy dilemma as a country pursuing diversified strategic partnerships. As tensions rise between Armenia’s key partners - the U.S., European partners, and Iran, Armenia is maintaining a strictly neutral stance, but it is also sensitive and may become difficult to sustain. This neutrality reflects structural constraints, as decisions in one direction directly affect relations with other partners, exposing the limits of multi-alignment.
Domestic Political Dynamics and Hybrid Campaigns
Domestic polarisation and hybrid campaigns and their escalation in the period before elections in Armenia add another layer of complexity. Elements of the Armenian opposition have used the war to advance anti-Western narratives, portraying American engagement — and TRIPP in particular—as a source of insecurity and a potential erosion of sovereignty. This framing risks undermining public support for connectivity initiatives and the normalization agenda at a critical stage.
TRIPP: Between Strategic Opportunity and Delay
The Iran war has contradictory implications for Trump’s Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP). Structurally, it increases the importance of overland routes as part of broader Eurasian connectivity. At the same time, the conflict is likely to delay implementation by diverting U.S. political attention and operational resources. Moreover, TRIPP alters regional balance by reducing Iran’s transit role and expanding U.S. economic engagement, developments that have already generated concern in Tehran. If Iran emerges from the conflict with consolidated hardline leadership while retaining its regional position, it is likely to adopt a more assertive stance toward connectivity initiatives that bypass its territory, including TRIPP, as well as toward the presence of U.S. commercial interests close to its border. Conversely, Iran’s possible shift toward a reform-oriented trajectory, accompanied by improved relations with the West and sanctions relief, could open economic opportunities and enhance Armenia’s role as transit country. However, military intervention may lead to internal consolidation and make such a scenario less likely.
Potential Impact on Armenia-Azerbaijan Peace Process
The current war is unfolding against the backdrop of the U.S.-facilitated unfinished and therefore fragile peace process. The U.S. diplomacy has helped prevent and manage escalation risks between Armenia and Azerbaijan, particularly in southern Armenia, where renewed hostilities were widely feared during the period of the 12-day war between Iran and Israel in June 2025. While such immediate risk appears contained, the war nonetheless increases uncertainty in the peace process. Another factor is that U.S. military action without broad international endorsement, combined with the inconsistency between its stated emphasis on non-intervention in its recent National Security Strategy and intervention in Iran, risks undermining Washington’s credibility and posture as a peacemaker. The unilateral use of force also further deepens concerns about the erosion of the rules-based international order. At the same time, if the U.S. fails to achieve at least part of its objectives in Iran, and Tehran manages to gain leverage in shaping the terms of de-escalation, this may further weaken U.S. credibility. There is a possibility that the disruption of regional connectivity through Iran may incentivize pragmatic cooperation between Armenia and Azerbaijan, particularly in advancing alternative transit routes that reduce reliance on Iran. For Azerbaijan, this would involve establishing a transit link to Nakhichevan through Armenian territory, while for Armenia it could mean access to transit routes through Azerbaijan, reducing its dependence on Iranian connectivity. At the same time, shifting geopolitical dynamics risk reinforcing asymmetries between the parties. Azerbaijan’s growing importance as an energy supplier to Europe strengthens its geopolitical leverage, a dynamic reflected in recent high-level engagement, including the Aliyev–Costa meeting, which underscored Baku’s increasing relevance in Europe’s energy and connectivity agenda. Historically, increased energy revenues have supported Azerbaijan’s military modernization and a more assertive regional posture, creating structural asymmetries that may affect the sustainability of normalization.
Conclusion
At the current stage, the Iran war does not generate immediate security threats for Armenia, but it reshapes the economic, diplomatic, and geopolitical environment in which the Armenia– Azerbaijan peace process and TRIPP evolve. While some ongoing dynamics may encourage limited cooperation, increased asymmetries and external pressures risk complicating the sustainability of normalization. Uncertainty surrounding TRIPP—amid shifting U.S. priorities and potential Iranian opposition—may affect both the pace of its implementation and the broader regional balance around connectivity. If the conflict prolongs and escalates further, leading to greater destabilization in the region or hardening of Iran’s position, these pressures are likely to intensify, deepening economic disruptions, complicating Armenia’s multi-alignment and balancing strategy, and increasing the risk of spillover into the South Caucasus.
