Armenian Advocate: Why the Iran-US War Could Be a Turning Point for Armenia

Scenes of Armenians publicly expressing solidarity with Iran amid the war might surprise outside observers. Armenia is a predominantly Christian nation that has endured centuries of conflict and persecution from Muslim powers in the region. Yet geopolitics has produced unlikely alignments.

Facing pressure from its traditional rivals — Sunni-majority Azerbaijan and Turkey — the world’s oldest Christian kingdom has long relied on Shiite Iran as a strategic counterweight and key economic partner. The war between Iran, Israel, and the US could therefore have profound consequences for the South Caucasus.

According to Lebanese-born Armenian activist Jirair Sefilian, the shifting balance of power brings both serious risks and potential strategic opportunities.

A former military commander and leading figure in the pro-Western National Democratic Alliance (NDA) and the Sasna Tsrer Pan-Armenian Party, Sefilian has spent years advocating for Armenia to pivot away from reliance on Russia and instead deepen its strategic relationship with the U.S.

“Our natural place is with the Western world,” he told the Register. His movement also calls for the recovery of Nagorno-Karabakh, lost to Azerbaijan in 2023, through diplomatic and military means. In this interview, he assesses how the Iran-U.S. war could deeply reshape Armenia’s strategic landscape.

 

The ongoing Iran-U.S. war is transforming the strategic environment of the Middle East. What impact could this conflict have on the country that has been a long-time economic partner of Iran?

The war between the U.S. and Israel on one side and Iran on the other fundamentally reshapes the security assumptions of the entire South Caucasus. For Armenia, this moment represents a potential turning point — both dangerous and transformative.

For many years, Iran played the role of a silent strategic counterweight to the ambitions of Turkey and Azerbaijan. Even without formal alliances, Tehran’s presence helped prevent a direct military push against Armenia’s southern Syunik province. With Iran now weakened and internally focused because of the war, that deterrent effect is greatly reduced.

At the same time, however, we may see a stronger presence of the U.S. in the region, both in the security domain and in economic initiatives such as the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP). This could eventually create new strategic opportunities for Armenia, but in the immediate term, the risks are significant.

 

What are the main risks?

The southern Armenian province of Syunik could become extremely vulnerable if instability spreads across the Iranian border.

One possible scenario is the arrival of tens of thousands of Iranian refugees fleeing the conflict. At the same time, if Iran is destabilized, the deterrent that prevented Azerbaijan from attempting military action against Armenia may weaken.

The second risk is economic. Armenia depends heavily on its border crossing with Iran at Meghri-Norduz, which is one of the country’s most important economic lifelines. Up to 40% of Armenia’s imports pass through that route. If that corridor is disrupted, Armenia could face serious supply shortages.

Moreover, Armenia currently relies on a delicate gas-for-electricity exchange with Iran. If Iranian energy infrastructure is damaged during the war, Armenia could lose this source of supply and become entirely dependent on Russian gas via Georgia.

 

How could this conflict reshape the regional balance of power?

In the immediate term, the weakening of Iran shifts the regional balance of power in favor of Azerbaijan and Turkey. However, this situation may not last.

The strategic alliance between India and Israel could help limit Turkish-Azerbaijani ambitions against Armenia. At the same time, tensions between Israel and Turkey are increasing and could reshape regional alignments in unexpected ways.

If stability eventually returns and a north-south economic corridor develops from India through Iran, Armenia and Georgia toward Europe, Armenia could gain a new geopolitical role as a transit country. In that scenario, Armenia’s strategic importance — and therefore its security — could increase significantly.

 

What should be Armenia’s diplomatic strategy while the war continues?

In the short term, Armenia must maintain strategic ambiguity. The country should avoid becoming a platform for either side in the conflict so that it does not become a direct target.

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s recent policies, which many see as excessively accommodating toward Turkey, could place Armenia in a difficult position if tensions grow between Israel and Turkey — a scenario that many observers consider increasingly plausible.

Armenia must therefore work to build stronger and more meaningful relations with the Western world, including with Israel and India. In my view, the current government is not well prepared to manage this strategic realignment.

With NDA, we have been advocating in D.C. for Armenia to obtain the status of a major non-NATO Ally of the U.S. This would allow Armenia to acquire modern weapons and strengthen its defense capabilities.

The recent war in the region demonstrated how dangerous the technological imbalance has become. Azerbaijan has been purchasing advanced weapons systems from Israel and other countries. Without modernizing our military, Armenia cannot defend itself.

 

You have been active in Armenian politics for decades. What has been the central thread of your political commitment?

For me, the central issue has always been the absence of a truly independent Armenian state. During the past 30 years, we have not been allowed to build a fully sovereign state.

Armenia formally exists as a state, but in reality our sovereignty has been constantly limited by external powers. My political engagement has always been driven by the belief that Armenia must finally achieve real independence and the capacity to defend its own national interests.

 

You have often criticized Russia’s role in the region. Why?

Today, we are witnessing a major geopolitical shift in the region. Russia is gradually withdrawing from the South Caucasus, while other powers — including Turkey, Armenia’s historic enemy — are trying to fill that space. At the same time, Turkey’s position in the region is becoming stronger.

In the current international system, there is only one power capable of containing Turkey, and that is the U.S. Armenia has often been trapped between Russia and Turkey, but culturally and historically, we belong much more to the Western world.

Russia and Turkey operate within a system increasingly connected to China’s influence. For Armenia, remaining neutral between these centers of power is no longer realistic. We must make a strategic choice, and our natural place is with the U.S. and the Western world.

 

You are also a strong critic of the Armenian government’s approach to Nagorno-Karabakh…

In NDA’s view, the Armenian government shares responsibility for what happened in the war. Russia and Turkey both supported Azerbaijan, and Armenian forces were severely constrained in their ability to respond. There were decisions taken by the leadership that limited Armenia’s ability to defend itself.

The government’s strategy was based on the belief that if Armenia gave up Karabakh, peace would follow. But we now see that even after the loss of Karabakh, Azerbaijan continues to make new demands: territorial claims, demands regarding the Armenian constitution, and pressure to abandon the campaign of recognition of the Armenian genocide. This shows that the problem goes much deeper.

 

Is there any diplomatic way to restore Artsakh to Armenia’s political horizon?

First, we must understand that the policy of separating Artsakh from Armenia was originally encouraged by Moscow in the early 1990s. Russia wanted the conflict to remain unresolved because it allowed Moscow to maintain influence in the region.

Instead of formally unifying Artsakh with Armenia, it was kept formally independent, an ambiguous status that allowed external powers to intervene continuously and eventually take over the enclave.

There were decisions by the League of Nations in 1920 — approved by major powers including France, Britain, Italy, and Japan – that defined borders in the region [whereby] Artsakh was part of Armenia. If Armenia had truly independent leadership, it could pursue diplomatic avenues through international courts to restore Armenia’s legal claim.

 

Armenia is often called the world’s oldest Christian nation. What role should Christianity play in the country’s revival?

Christianity is an essential part of Armenian identity. Without adopting Christianity as a national religion in 301, Armenia would not have survived in this region.

Today, we may be facing another civilizational moment. We are encouraged to see signs of a revival of Christian values in the West. These values are also the foundation of the Western understanding of individual freedom and rights. In NDA’s view, only Christianity can save Western civilization.

Solène Tadié is the Europe Correspondent for the National Catholic Register. She is French-Swiss and grew up in Paris. After graduating from Roma III University with a degree in journalism, she began reporting on Rome and the Vatican for Aleteia. She joined L’Osservatore Romano in 2015, where she successively worked for the French section and the Cultural pages of the Italian daily newspaper. She has also collaborated with several French-speaking Catholic media organizations. Solène has a bachelor’s degree in philosophy from the Pontifical University of Saint Thomas Aquinas, and recently translated in French (for Editions Salvator) Defending the Free Market: The Moral Case for a Free Economy by the Acton Institute’s Fr. Robert Sirico.

This article was originally published at National Catholic Register.