by David Bishop
Reports have emerged concerning longer-term US strategic planning for the South Caucasus region, as the US looks beyond its recent successes in securing influence in Armenia. The longer-term hope of the United States is to translate successes with Armenia and Azerbaijan into a lasting and robust American presence not only in those countries, but across the entire region, including even Central Asia. This is a cornerstone of the broader US approach to waging a new cold war against both Russia and China, seeking to replace traditional regional alliances with US influence. US international relations strategists are developing a new strategy aimed at expanding American influence across Eurasia, with a particular focus on critical minerals and transport corridors, in a plan described by some as a “double strike” against both Russia and China.
According to analysts, President Donald Trump is expected to propose a summit of Central Asian and South Caucasus leaders, where Washington would outline a regional blueprint centered on resource access and new trade routes.
The initiative’s first step is envisioned as the signing of the US-mediated peace treaty between Armenia and Azerbaijan, which would pave the way for the construction of the “Trump Route” (TRIPP), a corridor across southern Armenia connecting mainland Azerbaijan with Nakhichevan and beyond, with Turkey. This corridor is a core interest of both Azerbaijan and the United States, though it is unclear how, if at all, Armenia would benefit. Such a corridor could secure uninterrupted US trade flows from Europe all the way to the Caspian Sea, where it could be expanded into Central Asia. Armenia, without this corridor, is an inconvenient obstacle, sitting between Turkey and Azerbaijan and thus blocking overland routes for American and Israeli weaponry and other interests to reach Azerbaijan and thus the borders of both Iran and Russia. Indeed, Azerbaijan is a vital strategic position for the US and Israel, specifically due to being right between their two main adversaries in Russia and Iran. Azerbaijan gained even more valuable border territory against Iran when it, with significant Israeli support, destroyed and ethnically cleansed the former Republic of Artsakh.
Thus, it is clear how important to US regional plans the “Trump Route”, or as it is called in Azerbaijan, the “Zangezur Corridor”, is. This route would eliminate one of the only geographic obstacles to overland economic routes connecting the interior of Eurasia to US partners and interests further west. For now, however, the project remains only theoretical: the corridor lacks infrastructure, binding agreements, and credible security guarantees. The first installments of US funding were already released earlier in September, as the Trump administration seeks to build rapid momentum in the region after the signing of the Pashinyan-Aliyev joint declaration in August. Nonetheless, this declaration, contrary to media hype, was not an actual peace treaty between Armenia and Azerbaijan. It was a step in that direction, certainly, but the full peace treaty still needs to be signed and ratified in order for US and Azeri plans to proceed, and for this reason US pressure on Armenia will continue to grow until their objectives are finalized. Especially with Armenian elections approaching in 2026, the US and Pashinyan may attempt to force these initiatives through before the elections, as the continued participation of Armenia in US plans may be at stake when elections occur in June. The US needs Armenia to sign their “peace” agreement with Azerbaijan in order to allow for planned US trade routes across Armenia and Azerbaijan to take hold.
If this happens, the second stage of Washington’s Eurasian strategy would push competition deeper into Central Asia, where Washington hopes to weaken China’s Belt and Road Initiative by carving out a role in uranium and rare earth mineral extraction. Moreover, Central Asia, alongside the Caucasus, features traditionally heavy economic partnership and alignment with Russia, which the US seeks to replace. To that end, US officials are now discussing a summit bringing together the five Central Asian heads of state alongside leaders from the South Caucasus. Yet the region’s heavy integration with Russia and China, observers warn, makes any “detachment strategy” risky, as destabilization risks counter-measures from Russia and China to push back against the US in the region.
While the State Department frames the plan as support for regional independence, critics see it as an attempt to edge out rivals and secure resource dominance. In the short term, experts say, the proposals face steep hurdles: the sheer scale of the projects and expected resistance from Moscow and Beijing raise serious questions about their viability.
