Peace for Show: Armenia as a Proof Point in US Power Politics

by Melisa Gevorgyan and Manishak Baghdasaryan

U.S. involvement in Armenian affairs has visibly become more active following the 2025 Armenia-Azerbaijan peace agreement, marking a shift from diplomatic mediation to a sustained poաlitical engagement. The upcoming February 2026 visit of the U.S. Vice President J. D. Vance to Armenia shows how Washington is seeking to institutionalize its role in the South Caucasus.  Announced publicly by Donald Trump, the visit was described as a continuation of the US brokered peace process and a “reward” for compliance with the 2025 agreement.

And the real question remains unresolved. Does this engagement deliver genuine peace for Armenia, or is it a form of transactional geopolitics? One that prioritizes U.S. strategic optics over Armenian security and sovereignty.

Mediation or Ownership?

In August 2025, Armenia and Azerbaijan signed a US backed peace agreement at the White House. This agreement, named Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP), is one of the most visible examples of American activity that put the US in the center of both process and symbolism. TRIPP was developed to formalize ceasefire commitments and normalization steps, to put economic and political cooperation into the peace. On paper, this might mean trade corridors, Western diplomatic backing and a partial exit from isolation. In practice, however, Armenia assumes irreversible concessions and the enforcement mechanisms remain vague, externalized and mostly rhetorical.

Armenia’s Government and the Cost of Compliance

This “peace agreement” was repeatedly used as a pawn by Trump to show his ability to “stop wars” in his pursuit of the Nobel Peace Prize. The real truth is that Armenia is not diversifying its power centers so much as replacing one dependency with another, all of which it does without negotiating safeguards. The government has completely sidelined the public consensus and the parliament, and has treated strategic realignment as a crucial necessity rather than a sovereign choice.

Of course, Washington’s growing role offers Armenia leverage, but only if the Armenian leadership is willing to use it. However, Yerevan has positioned itself as a compliant partner, one that is eager to demonstrate its reliability to Western actors, all the while completely avoiding confrontation over unresolved security guarantees, border demarcation risk or humanitarian protections of its POWs.

Regional Fallout

The US involvement in Armenia affects the South Caucasus and beyond, especially for Iran and Russia. The former has publicly expressed its concern over the TRIPP corridor, seeing it as something that diminishes Iran’s traditional role as a transit partner. Iran has warned that America’s involvement and their elevated presence near the Armenian-Iranian border could be destabilizing and counter to Tehran’s strategic interest.

The US-Armenia security cooperation, including the Eagle Partner military exercises, is frequently the evidence of a shift away from Russian security dependence. These exercises are a matter of professional exchange and training, they do not replace the hard security guarantees Armenia has lost, nor do they compensate for the erosion of existing ones. The government’s presentation of this initiative as a security breakthrough misleads the public about their actual value. Russia’s role has diminished not through transition, but through neglect and frustration. So in practical terms, Armenia is caught between competing patrons with different priorities, and it’s at risk of being perceived as a geopolitical pawn, with no protections over national interests.

Peace that depends on transactional geopolitics is not peace. It is pause. And pauses, especially in the South Caucasus, have a habit of ending abruptly.

Melisa Gevorgyan is a second-year student at King’s College London, studying Culture, Media, and Creative Industries. Her research is grounded in sociology, with a specialization in cultural policy and cultural studies.

Manishak Baghdasaryan is a second-year undergraduate student in Political Science and International Relations at the University of California, San Diego, with minors in History and Middle East Studies. She serves as a research assistant in the Political Science Department at UC San Diego, focusing on conflict and rebel governance analysis.