Suren Surenyants wrote on his Facebook page:
"TRIPP at the Intersection of Tehran and Moscow's 'Red Lines'
The Armenian government does not hide its desire to move as quickly as possible towards the practical implementation of the TRIPP project. Recent statements by Nikol Pashinyan indicate that Yerevan is counting on the readiness of the American side.
However, any major regional project is only viable if it takes into account not only the immediate participants but also the security interests and perceptions of key regional players — Iran and Russia.
Just a day before Pashinyan's statement, the Iranian ambassador to Armenia, Khalil Shirgolami, clearly articulated Tehran's concerns. According to him, among the priority issues on the agenda of Armenian-Iranian relations are the management of risks arising from TRIPP and the prevention of potential challenges.
The ambassador emphasized that it is necessary to develop mechanisms that, on the one hand, will allow Armenia to fully realize its potential for unblocking, while on the other hand, neutralize the risks arising from the strategic presence of the United States and exclude any threats to Iran's security.
These formulations indicate that Iran's main concern is the security environment that may arise as a result of the project's implementation. This approach has clear geopolitical foundations. Following the military actions of the U.S. and Israel, Tehran has become significantly sensitive to any expansion of American influence near its borders. If TRIPP is perceived in Tehran as a tool of U.S. strategic presence in the form of infrastructure with 99-year rights, it will be difficult to expect that the project will be accepted under the current parameters.
Russia's position on TRIPP also has clear security and geopolitical foundations, although it is expressed more cautiously. Moscow views the project as an expansion of U.S. strategic presence in the South Caucasus — its traditional sphere of influence. Despite the significant weakening of Russia's positions in the region following the events of 2020 and 2023, Moscow still has levers that can influence the course of the project. Russia maintains influence over Armenia's railway infrastructure, which could become a serious factor in the implementation of TRIPP's railway component. Additionally, Russian border units continue to serve in certain sections of the Armenia-Iran border, including near the potential crossing zone of TRIPP. These factors allow Moscow, if necessary, to complicate or slow down the practical implementation of the project.
The official response is still cautiously skeptical. Russia avoids open confrontation with the project but high-ranking officials' statements already contain warnings about the risks of Armenia following the "Ukrainian path." Moscow threatens economic consequences — rising gas prices, market access restrictions, and issues related to the Armenian diaspora.
Thus, the future of TRIPP does not depend solely on the political will of Yerevan and Washington. No matter how interested the Armenian authorities are in a rapid start to the project, its implementation cannot be imagined without considering the regional balance of power and security architecture. Key components of this balance are the security interests of Iran and Russia, which, if ignored, will face serious political and practical resistance to any initiative.
Therefore, the key question for upcoming negotiations should not be so much the rapid launch of TRIPP as its political and security reform, taking into account Tehran's and Moscow's red lines. If a model can be developed that is also accepted by Iran and Russia, the project may continue under new conditions. Otherwise, it may turn into not a platform for regional cooperation but another hotspot of geopolitical contradictions.
Signals from the Iranian ambassador and the Russian side clearly indicate that the initial logic of TRIPP is no longer sufficient. The new geopolitical realities in the region require editing the project and establishing a new balance of interests. Otherwise, the Armenian authorities' haste may face not only technical but also serious geopolitical backlash from both the south and the north.
