Iran: “Nuclear Deal” in Exchange for Neutrality in the South Caucasus
Prague, August 11, Free Eurasia — Against the backdrop of escalating U.S.–Iran tensions and the destruction of key nuclear facilities, the Islamic Republic may be considering the South Caucasus as a bargaining chip in political negotiations with Washington.
Following the June 22 strikes on nuclear sites in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, Iran found itself in a difficult position. Rebuilding the infrastructure will take time, while economic pressure from sanctions continues to mount. In this situation, President Masud Pezeshkian publicly stated his readiness to negotiate with the United States, emphasizing that constant confrontation will bring Tehran no benefit.
One possible element of a behind-the-scenes diplomatic game could be Iran’s stance on the South Caucasus. On August 8 in Washington, the presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia, mediated by Donald Trump, signed a declaration on the creation of the “Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity” transport corridor. Under the agreement, Armenia granted the United States the right to manage this corridor for 99 years.
Without delay, the Iranian president told the press that U.S. economic projects in the South Caucasus could serve the purpose of strengthening and expanding American influence in the region.
“It is necessary to closely monitor the future steps of the American side, which, under the cover of investment projects and peaceful rhetoric, may be pursuing the goal of establishing its hegemony in the South Caucasus,” Pezeshkian said. His remarks were published on the president’s official Telegram channel.
At the same time, Pezeshkian criticized Iranian opponents of negotiations with Washington over Tehran’s nuclear program, stating that the United States would once again strike Iran’s nuclear facilities if they were rebuilt.
On June 22, the United States joined Israel’s aerial campaign against Iran, bombing the Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan facilities with B-2 bombers and Tomahawk missiles. U.S. President Donald Trump declared at the time that these strikes had “completely destroyed” the sites.
Pezeshkian stressed that, while “surrender is not in our nature,” endless conflict will not serve Tehran’s interests.
For Iran, the new U.S.-controlled corridor carries strategic significance: it lies in close proximity to Iranian borders and increases Washington’s presence in a region Tehran has traditionally regarded as part of its security zone.
Under these circumstances, there is a possibility that Iran’s leadership might propose an unspoken compromise: readiness for dialogue on the nuclear deal and sanctions in exchange for non-interference in the implementation of U.S. projects in the South Caucasus. This approach fits into Iran’s established foreign policy tactics, which have often involved using regional conflicts — from Syria to Yemen — as leverage against the West.
However, such a strategy carries risks. A refusal to actively oppose the American presence in the South Caucasus could draw criticism from security forces and conservative factions, who have already accused Pezeshkian of showing “weakness” in his calls for negotiations with the United States.
Nevertheless, in the face of losing a significant portion of its nuclear infrastructure and under mounting economic isolation, bargaining on the formula of “nuclear deal in exchange for neutrality in the South Caucasus” may appear to Tehran as a pragmatic choice.
Editor’s Comment
