The organization of a pan-European summit in Yerevan earlier this month highlighted the diplomatic fruitfulness of the European Political Community, Armenia’s pivotal role, and the strength of transatlantic ties between the Old Continent and Canada, that emerging North American giant. On the other hand, the consequences of the Iran war for the South Caucasus and their impact on transportation issues between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea basin seem to be largely overlooked.
Between Russia to the north and Iran to the south, it is essential to consolidate and expand the transport corridor between Europe and Central Asia—this “heart of the empires” that holds resources crucial for the energy and mineral supply of European nations. Better yet, Europe, with or without the United States, needs to increase its influence in the former West Turkestan, where the spheres of influence of Russia and China overlap, as they are partners in the “Greater Eurasia” project intended to put an end to the West’s long-standing hegemony.
To develop this transport corridor, it is crucial that Russian ambitions in the Black Sea be thwarted, which implies continued and strengthened support for Ukraine, Europe’s shield and the primary guarantor of freedom of navigation in this sea that Vladimir Putin would like to appropriate. Beyond this lies the prospect of closer cooperation between Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria, and Turkey, backed by a Europeanized NATO. Indeed, the Black Sea, sometimes viewed as merely the “backyard” of the Mediterranean, controls access to the South Caucasus.
The Armenian Pivot
In the South Caucasus, an isthmus of about 1,200 kilometers between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea, Armenia is now the pivot of regional balances. If geopolitical conditions permit, it will be the key that unlocks a Transcaucasian corridor between Europe, Turkey, and the post-Soviet states of Central Asia, whose leaders are seeking a counterweight to the Russians and the Chinese. This role is all the more strategic as Russia, over the years, has increased its grip on Georgia, this Ultima Europa, territorially diminished and under the threat of new Sovietization (in the geopolitical sense of the term).
However, this would require that the negotiations between Yerevan and Baku, launched after the fall of Nagorno-Karabakh (2023), result in a peace treaty that establishes a geopolitical balance; this is, in fact, the purpose of the strategic partnership just signed between Paris and Yerevan (May 5, 2026). While the European Union as such is not absent from the Armenian-Azerbaijani negotiations, the United States is deeply involved in this major diplomatic and strategic game, the implications of which are also logistical and geoeconomic.
Given the Trump administration’s contempt for Europe, one might be surprised by its interest in the Caucasus periphery and the Eurasian hinterland of the Old Continent. But Washington’s mineral and energy diplomacy, obsessed with rare earth deposits, so-called “critical” minerals, and hydrocarbons, has reasons the heart does not know. Thus, the Trump administration has invested part of its political capital in this matter.
On August 8, 2025, the White House hosted the Armenian Prime Minister and the Azerbaijani President. They are committed to launching a “Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity” (TRIPP), a major logistics project intended to underpin peace between the two former belligerents. Since then, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has met with his Armenian counterpart to advance this project (January 8, 2026), and Vice President J. D. Vance has visited Armenia and Azerbaijan (February 9–11, 2026). This is therefore not merely a whim of Donald Trump.
In fact, the TRIPP project is an extension of the “Zangezur Corridor,” demanded by Baku to connect the Nakhchivan enclave and traverse the Syunik region (southern Armenia) for 35 km along its border with Iran. This project would give Turkey direct access to Azerbaijan, considered a “sister nation,” and thus to the Caspian Sea and the Turkic and Muslim states of Central Asia (see the Organization of Turkic States). The difference between the two projects lies in the United States’ concern to counter Turkish-Azerbaijani dominance over Armenia, or even the annexation of Syunik.
A Promethean Project
TRIPP only partially addresses our geopolitical challenge, that of a major Europe-Caucasus-Central Asia corridor. It is a component of the TITR (Trans-Caspian International Transport Route) project, more commonly known as the “Middle Corridor.” Supported by the European Union, this project encompasses a range of infrastructure (railways, gas pipelines, power lines across the Caucasian isthmus, digital networks, etc.) to be built or modernized, serving as the backbone of a vast system of energy, mineral, and trade cooperation between Europe and the heart of Eurasia. It is part of the Global Gateway Initiative (the European response to China’s New Silk Roads).
The obstacles that this ambitious project must overcome cannot be overlooked. First and foremost, it requires a free and sovereign Ukraine, capable of ensuring, together with its allies and partners, respect for the principle of freedom of navigation in the Black Sea. That said, Turkey must also be fully committed to peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan; progress in this process would allow for the reopening of its border with Armenia, which has been closed since 1993 in the name of Pan-Turkic solidarity (Azerbaijan had lost Nagorno-Karabakh at that time). Admittedly, economic rationality points in this direction, but nationalist passions are not soluble in the market. Moreover, Turkey’s motives and interests overlap with those of Europe, but they do not coincide.
Furthermore, Iran’s Islamic regime is hostile to TRIPP—the flow of goods between Turkey, Azerbaijan, and the Nakhchivan enclave would no longer pass through its territory—and it promotes a Russian-Iranian north-south corridor that would rival the major maritime routes between Europe and Asia (see the Suez route). The ongoing war in the Persian Gulf and its approaches (the Strait of Hormuz and the Gulf of Oman) has given it the opportunity to express its hostility militarily by sending drones into Turkish airspace and striking Azerbaijani territory (a warning). Finally, Russia and China view Central Asia as a Eurasian “backyard” that must be secured.
Unless one believes in the spontaneous harmony of the geopolitical interests of the various players involved, both Europeans and Americans will therefore come up against their schemes and maneuvers, from the Black Sea to the Caspian. The “Trump Route” and the TITR will therefore not see the light of day without political resolve, tenacity, and strategic patience. In particular, we need to consider how to ensure the viability and security of infrastructure within immediate range of Russian or Iranian strikes.
In conclusion
Donald Trump’s hesitations in the Strait of Hormuz—where the stakes are nevertheless considerable and immediate—give pause for thought: his mafia-like conception of physical violence, linked to greed, is not that of a warlord, much less that of a great statesman. In truth, Europe’s humanitarian-legal rhetoric is hardly more convincing. Can we really believe that the “ethics of discussion” will disarm the West’s enemies? Is it not merely a mask for a never-ending policy of appeasement? We are faced with a dilemma.
Yet we must think and act, developing a vision of a pan-European geopolitical entity, from Iceland to the Caucasus—a Greater Europe capable of embracing the West’s legacy and projecting itself into the future, in short, an imperial Europe open to the open seas that would open up its Eurasian hinterland. A grand strategy requires a global geopolitical framework comparable to a magnetic field, which allows us to set a course and stick to it.
Associate professor of history and geography and researcher at the French Institute of Geopolitics (University of Paris VIII). Author of several books, he works within the Thomas More Institute on geopolitical and defense issues in Europe. His research areas cover the Baltic-Black Sea region, post-Soviet Eurasia, and the Mediterranean.