The Armenian government does not hide its desire to move to the practical implementation of the TRIPP project as soon as possible. It is clear from Nikol Pashinyan’s latest statements that Yerevan is counting on the readiness of the American side.
However, any major regional project is viable only if it takes into account the security interests and perceptions of not only the immediate participants, but also the key players in the region, Iran and Russia.
Just one day before Pashinyan’s announcement, Iran’s ambassador to Armenia, Khalil Shirgholami, clearly presented Tehran’s concerns. According to him, one of the agenda priorities of Armenian-Iranian relations is the management of risks arising from TRIPP and the prevention of possible challenges.
The ambassador emphasized that it is necessary to develop such mechanisms that, on the one hand, will enable Armenia to fully realize the potential of lifting the embargo, and on the other hand, will neutralize the risks arising from the strategic presence of the USA and exclude any threats to Iran’s security.
These wordings prove that Iran’s main concern is the security environment that can be formed as a result of the implementation of the project. This approach has clear geopolitical foundations. After the military operations of the USA and Israel, Tehran has become significantly sensitive to any expansion of American influence near its own borders. If TRIPP is perceived in Tehran as a tool of US strategic presence in the form of infrastructure with 99 years of rights, it will be difficult to expect the project to be accepted under the current parameters.
Russia’s position towards TRIPP also has clear security and geopolitical foundations, although it is expressed in a more cautious way. Moscow views the project as an expansion of the US’s strategic presence in the South Caucasus, in its traditional sphere of influence. Although Russia’s position in the region has weakened significantly after the events of 2020 and 2023, Moscow still has leverage to influence the course of the project. Russia maintains influence over the railway infrastructure of Armenia, which can become a serious factor during the implementation of the railway component of TRIPP. In addition, Russian border guard units continue to carry out service in some parts of the Armenia-Iran border, including in the vicinity of the possible TRIPP crossing zone. These factors allow Moscow, if necessary, to complicate or slow down the practical implementation of the project.
The official reaction is still cautious-sceptical. Russia avoids an open confrontation with the project named after Trump, but the statements of high-ranking officials already sound warnings about the dangers of Armenia going the “Ukrainian way”. Moscow threatens with economic consequences: increase in gas prices, restriction of market access and problems related to the Armenian diaspora.
Thus, the future of TRIPP does not depend only on the political will of Yerevan and Washington. As much as the Armenian authorities are interested in the quick start of the project, its implementation cannot be imagined without taking into account the regional power balance and security architecture. The important components of that balance are the security interests of Iran and Russia, which if ignored, any initiative will face serious political and practical resistance.
Therefore, the key issue of the upcoming negotiations should not be the quick implementation of TRIPP, but its political and security reformulation, taking into account the red lines of Tehran and Moscow. If it is possible to develop a model that will be accepted by Iran and Russia, the project can continue under new conditions. Otherwise, it may not turn into a platform for regional cooperation, but another hotbed of new geopolitical contradictions.
The impulses of the Iranian ambassador and the Russian side clearly show that the original logic of TRIPP is no longer sufficient. The new military-political realities formed in the region require editing of the project and a new balance of interests. Otherwise, the haste of the Armenian authorities may face not only technical, but also serious geopolitical opposition, both from the south and from the north.
Political scientist Suren Surenyants
—
Disclaimer: This article was contributed and translated into English by Karapet Navasardian. While we strive for quality, the views and accuracy of the content remain the responsibility of the contributor. Please verify all facts independently before reposting or citing.
Direct link to this article: https://www.armenianclub.com/2026/07/15/the-tripp-project-at-the-center-of-a-clash-between-tehran-and-moscows-red-lines/