From Past War to Washington Negotiating A Table

The conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan has it’s roots spanning more than three decades. The struggle over Nagorno-Karabakh since the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s triggered two major wars1988–1994 and 2020that claimed thousands of lives and forced hundreds of thousands of people to flee their homes. Although ceasefires were reached multiple times, tensions continued to simmer, including clashes in 2022 that worsened the humanitarian crisis. External factors further complicated matters: Turkiye leaned toward Azerbaijan, while Armenia historically aligned with Russia. Within this geopolitical setting, Washington eventually emerged as a key mediator.

Photo From Bahador on Unsplash

On August 9, 2025, Reuters reported that the United States successfully facilitated a peace agreement in Washington, D.C., widely hailed as a “historic turning point” after three decades of conflict (Reuters, 2025a). The agreement was ambitious: both countries agreed to recognize official Soviet-era borders, halt new territorial claims, and establish full diplomatic relations after ratification. In addition, the deal introduced a strategic transport corridor called TRIPP (Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity), linking Azerbaijan with its exclave Nakhchivan through Armenia. The project would be co-managed with the United States for 99 yearsviewed by some as an attempt to balance the influence of Russia, Turkiye, and Iran (The Washington Post, 2025).

Shortly thereafter, on August 11, 2025, the initial text of the agreement was published, reaffirming commitments to respect territorial integrity, guarantee humanitarian access, and prevent the use of force (Reuters, 2025b). However, public reactions were mixed. According to Associated Press reporting, many Azerbaijanis welcomed the news with optimism, while Armenians responded more cautiously, with a significant degree of skepticism regarding its long-term implications (AP News, 2025).

Yet, behind this optimism lie several critical points. First, the issues of ethnic identity and historical claims over Nagorno-Karabakh were not truly resolved; they were merely “frozen” under the recognition of formal borders. Second, the near-century-long U.S. management of TRIPP could be perceived as a new form of dominanceor even neo-imperialismlikely to spark domestic and regional resistance. Third, Armenia–Azerbaijan’s long history shows that peace imposed by external mediation often proves fragile, particularly when the collective memory of war remains vivid in society.

Photo From Husqqqy on Unsplash

The Pattern of U.S. Diplomacy and the Shadows Ahead

Such dynamics are not new to American diplomacy. During Bill Clinton’s presidency, the Camp David Accord was touted as a milestone toward a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. Yet only a few years later, the intifada erupted and the peace process collapsed. Similarly, Barack Obama’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was initially praised as a triumph of multilateral diplomacy. In reality, a change of administration in Washington and resistance from Tehran caused the deal’s downfall in 2018, leaving deeper mistrust in its wake.

This reflects a recurring pattern: the United States excels at building diplomatic stages and sparking global hope but often struggles to ensure long-term sustainability. An analogy often used is Wall Street: euphoria can drive stock prices soaring, but when the hype fades, the crash can cut even deeper than the starting point.

Regionally, the Washington agreement also touches on the interests of other major powers. Russia, long a patron of Armenia, now faces challenges in preserving its influence. Turkiye may feel sidelined if the TRIPP corridor falls under Washington’s greater control. Iran, too, could perceive the project as a threat to its trade routes in the Caucasus. In other words, a peace that looks simple on paper may open the door to a new chapter of geopolitical rivalry, ultimately determining whether the agreement endures or collapses under competing interests.

Photo From David Trinks on Unsplash

The Washington-mediated Armenia–Azerbaijan deal is undoubtedly a significant achievementone that cannot be dismissed outright. Yet, looking at the historical trail from Camp David to JCPOA, there are strong reasons to remain skeptical. The pressing question is whether this agreement will genuinely pave the way for lasting peace, or simply become another chapter in the long list of U.S. diplomatic efforts ending in disappointment.

References

• AP News. (2025, August). Armenians and Azerbaijanis greet US-brokered peace deal with hope but also caution. Associated Press. https://apnews.com/article/187833bead280ee0c9ace5ea1fa246a2
• Reuters. (2025a, August 9). Trump announces peace agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-announces-peace-agreement-between-azerbaijan-armenia-2025-08-08
• Reuters. (2025b, August 11). Azerbaijan, Armenia publish text of initialed peace agreement. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/azerbaijan-armenia-publish-text-initialed-peace-agreement-2025-08-11
• The Washington Post. (2025, August 8). Trump presides over Armenia-Azerbaijan peace framework, upstaging Russia. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/08/08/azerbaijan-armenia-nagorno-karabakh-trump