Expert: The corridors being formed today will determine not just  trade, but who stands with whom and against whom

ArmInfo. The corridors being formed today will determine not only trade—they will determine who stands with whom, against whom, and under what conditions they will exist in the coming decades. This opinion was expressed by Garegin Manukyan, Chairman of the Armenian Center for Civil Initiatives (SPARAPET) and former UN Secretariat official, during an Armenian-Kazakh expert roundtable held the previous day.

According to him, the war in Iran has effectively nullified many  previous assumptions, including those related to the TRIPP  project—the so-called regional infrastructure and transport project  associated with the Trump administration's initiatives. He noted that  "the stakes have risen beyond the regional level— they have reached a  continental scale, affecting major projects like 'One Belt, One  Road'.

The expert noted that a redivision of the transport and economic map  of Eurasia is occurring before our eyes—rapidly, harshly, and with no  guarantee of a return to previous models. The war in Iran is not a  local conflict; it is a systemic blow to the entire architecture of  transit. It has demonstrated that the stability of these routes was  vastly overestimated. "If speed and price were previously the key  parameters, the new priorities are vulnerability, control, and the  capacity to withstand crises," Manukyan noted.  Southern routes  through Iran and the Persian Gulf have effectively dropped out of the  game or, at the very least, have become associated with prohibitive  risks. This means that relying on "default stability" no longer  works.

In this context, the Middle Corridor (Trans-Caspian International  Transport Route) has gained critical importance. It is no longer  perceived as an "alternative"; it is transforming—regardless of its  current readiness—into one of the most vital arteries of the Eurasian  transport architecture. The fundamental problem, however, is that  while demand for the Trans-Caspian corridor grows, its infrastructure  base, management mechanisms, and coordination systems remain  incomplete. Without rapid and coordinated decisions, there is a risk  that instead of a sustainable solution, a new structural "bottleneck"  will emerge within the Eurasian transport system.

The expert emphasized that the consequences of the military conflict  in Iran extend far beyond simple logistical disruptions. They affect  the very foundation of the Belt and Road Initiative. Iran's weakening  role as a transit hub removes a critical important link from the  system, one of the most ambitious modern projects for global  connectivity. However, according to Manukyan, this does not signal  the end of the project. Instead, the current situation serves as a  rigorous stress test. "We are witnessing not a retreat, but a  fundamental reconfiguration," the expert noted. "This is a transition  from boundless expansion to expansion under constraints—from linear,  singular corridors to diversified, resilient networks. The era of  pure optimism has been replaced by strategic caution and cold risk  calculation."

According to the expert, it is precisely this recalibration that will  determine the next stage of Eurasian connectivity. China is  essentially forced to restructure its strategy: diversification,  backup routes, and reduced dependence on problem areas. In this  context, the role of countries like Kazakhstan is sharply increasing.  It is no longer just a transit territory; it is becoming a key hub.  This presents significant opportunities, but also poses significant  challenges: rapidly expanding infrastructure, ensuring manageability,  and ensuring predictability. In this context, the  China-Kyrgyzstan-Uzbekistan railway project—a planned railway  corridor connecting Western China (Kashgar, Xinjiang) with Kyrgyzstan  and Uzbekistan—takes on particular significance.  

Essentially, this is one of the key missing links in the Eurasian  transport network, capable of significantly reconfiguring the  connections between China and the West via Central Asia. Its  implementation will create a more direct and flexible route, reducing  reliance on traditional northern corridors controlled by Russia, as  well as potentially unstable southern routes. Undoubtedly, this  corridor will strengthen Central Asia's role as an independent  transit hub. At the same time, the project intensifies competition  between corridors and further sharpens the question: who will be  integrated into these new routes, and who will be left on the  sidelines?

For the South Caucasus, the stakes are equally high. The region is  gaining strategic weight; however, this does not mean it is  automatically a participant in these processes. Connectivity can  integrate—but it can also bypass. For Armenia, this is not a  theoretical question. It is a strategic crossroads. The issue is not  whether new corridors will emerge—they are already forming. The  question is whether Armenia will become a part of them or find itself  out of the game. This requires more than discussion for the sake of  discussion; it demands concrete decisions—rapid, pragmatic, and often  politically complex.  'In a system where economics no longer  dominates politics but is instead subordinated to it, neutrality  becomes a weak strategy, and political dependencies become glaringly  apparent,' the political analyst concluded.