The peace agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan, brokered by the United States, has faced criticism from various quarters, including Russia, Iran, and certain Armenian diaspora groups.
Russia’s Concerns
Russia has expressed dissatisfaction with the agreement, accusing the West of attempting to “usurp” the peace deal and align it with its own interests. This sentiment is reflected in the growing calls within Armenia to reconsider its military arrangements with Russia, particularly the Russian military base in Gyumri, which is scheduled to remain operational until 2044. Critics argue that the base’s continued presence is unnecessary, especially after Russia did not intervene during the 2023 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
Iran’s Apprehensions
Iran has also voiced strong opposition to the peace agreement, particularly due to the establishment of the Trump Route of Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP), a trade and transportation corridor connecting Azerbaijan to its Nakhchivan enclave through Armenia. The United States has been granted exclusive rights to develop this corridor for the next 99 years, raising concerns in Tehran about the potential encroachment of U.S. influence near its northwestern border. Iranian officials, including President Masoud Pezeshkian and Major General Abdolrahim Mousavi, have emphasized that the presence of foreign powers in the region is a matter of serious concern.
My latest article for @TheNatlInterest on the Armenian-Azerbaijan peace agreement looking at the losers of this taking place: Russia and Iran.https://t.co/dnbE7fwbYt
— Olivier Guitta (@OlivierGuitta) September 15, 2025
Criticism from the Armenian Diaspora
Certain elements within the Armenian diaspora, particularly those with pro-Iranian and pro-Russian leanings, have criticized the peace agreement. Hayk Khalatyan, a political observer, described the deal as a “complete failure for the Armenian side,” warning that it could threaten Armenia’s communications with Russia and Iran. Additionally, organizations like the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) have expressed concerns, with policy director Alex Galitsky voicing persistent criticism of Israeli-Azerbaijani cooperation.
Academic Perspectives
Some academics have also questioned the peace agreement. Jeffrey Sachs, a development economist and director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, has criticized the U.S. role in the deal, stating that the U.S. is not part of the South Caucasus region and that the governments of Azerbaijan and Armenia are being used by the U.S. and Europe for geopolitical purposes that do not suit their interests.
Conclusion
The opposition to the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace agreement highlights the complex geopolitical dynamics in the South Caucasus region. While the United States has positioned itself as a key mediator, the concerns raised by Russia, Iran, and certain Armenian diaspora groups underscore the challenges in achieving lasting peace and stability in the area.
Picture copyright: Monasterio de Haghpat, Armenia, 2016-09-30, DD 17.jpg – Haghpat Monastery, Armenia – Diego Delso – Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0