Pashinyan-Aliev-Trump Meeting in Washington: A Diplomatic Milestone or a Showpiece?

Iran also reacted strongly. Tehran is very sensitive to any foreign military or political presence near its borders and contacted Armenian officials directly to express concern. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and National Security Council Secretary Ali Akbar Ahmadian made it clear that any external control or influence in the Syunik region would be seen as a threat to the stability of the region.

Ali Akbar Velayati, the senior advisor to Iran’s Supreme Leader on international affairs, also commented on X (formerly Twitter), saying: “Once again, certain countries who present themselves as stakeholders but ignore the interests of both their own nations and the region are pushing the so called “Zangezur Corridor” and trying to advance their illegal goals in the South Caucasus. I remind everyone: any government, whether from within or outside the region, that tries to repeat this already failed attempt will face a strong response from Iran.”

Armenia’s Position: Sovereignty, Jurisdiction, Reciprocity

Yerevan has made it clear that while it is open to unlocking regional transportation routes, it will only do so under the principles of its Crossroads of Peace initiative: sovereignty, jurisdiction, reciprocity, and equality. This stands in stark contrast to Baku’s demand for exclusive, uninterrupted access to Nakhichevan, coupled with its rejection of any Armenian or foreign oversight of the route.

In recent statements, Armenian lawmakers like Arman Yeghoyan have suggested that international operator models – common in logistics, airport, or railway management, could offer a compromise. These models would preserve Armenian sovereignty while allowing for neutral third-party involvement in technical operations. But this is a far cry from leasing land or allowing US jurisdiction over Armenian soil.

Azerbaijan’s Calculus

President Aliyev remains unyielding in his rhetoric. He has rejected foreign operators, Armenian border control, and any interpretation of the corridor that does not grant Azerbaijan de facto extraterritorial access. For Baku, the “corridor” logic is both a strategic objective and a political litmus test. The outcome of the talks may determine whether Azerbaijan pivots further toward the West or doubles down on a transactional relationship with Russia and Turkey.

Conclusion: Real Peace or Just Another PR Exercise?

The upcoming Washington summit has the potential to mark a serious shift in the South Caucasus peace process, or end up as just another well-rehearsed photo opportunity for headlines. The difference will depend entirely on whether real political substance is prioritized over diplomatic theater.

With US Secretary of State Marco Rubio taking an active role in this stage of the talks, expectations are understandably high. Rubio has spoken publicly about the strategic importance of the South Caucasus, and now his credibility, and Washington’s, rests on delivering tangible outcomes. This is not just about handshakes and joint statements. It’s about creating a peace mechanism that is balanced, mutually accepted, and enforceable in practice, not only on paper.

One issue that must not be ignored at this summit is the fate of Armenian prisoners of war and civilians still held in Azerbaijani custody. Despite repeated international calls, including from European institutions and human rights bodies, Baku continues to use detainees as political leverage. Their continued imprisonment is not just a legal or humanitarian matter, it is a direct obstacle to trust, reconciliation, and any sustainable peace. Washington, with its political influence over both Baku and Yerevan, could and should play a decisive role in bringing these people home. Releasing detainees would send a powerful signal that this process is not just about borders and maps, but about real human lives.

Moreover, if Washington wants to be seen as a serious and neutral mediator, it must avoid giving space to controversial or provocative ideas, such as corridor rhetoric, which directly threatens Armenia’s sovereignty and only deepens mistrust. Real peace can’t be built on unilateral demands or geopolitical bargaining at Armenia’s expense.

In short, this is the moment of truth. If the Washington summit produces a clear roadmap backed by mutual guarantees, confidence-building steps, and the political courage to solve sensitive issues like detainees and territorial rhetoric, then it may be remembered as a turning point. If not, it risks being seen, both in the region and internationally, as a missed opportunity dressed up in good PR.

The time for symbolic gestures has long passed and the people of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and the wider region deserve real peace – based on justice, dignity, and genuine security.

(Johnny Melikyan is political scientist and Senior Fellow at the Yerevan-based Orbeli Cent