How U.S. Involvement in the Iran-Israel War Can Impact Armenia

EVN Report

3 days ago

The Iran-Israel war, which escalated dramatically with U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, has come to a halt with a ceasefire. With the dust from the conflict still settling, this is a moment to take stock of how the conflict affects security relationships for Armenia. The U.S. involvement in the Iran-Israel war will have profound and multi-dimensional effects and risks for Armenia due to its geopolitical location, common border with Iran, energy projects, security concerns, and regional alliances. The current unpredictable foreign policy stance of the United States further complicates Yerevan's geopolitical strategy.
Geopolitical and Domestic Risks for Armenia
Armenia is located in a complex geopolitical environment. The nation borders Iran, Turkey, Azerbaijan and Georgia, and has an unsettled conflict and closed borders with its two neighbors. The South Caucasus region is deeply sensitive to any shifts in Middle Eastern power dynamics. U.S. military action against Iran in the midst of the Iran-Israel conflict could ripple into the South Caucasus, affecting Armenia's energy supplies, trade routes, security posture as well as diplomatic balancing act between East and West. While Armenia's regional policy aims to normalize relations with its neighbors , who are also sensitive to the escalation in the Middle East, the conflict may hinder stabilization of relations with Azerbaijan.
In the context of security and military implications there is a risk of spillover because Armenia shares a border with Iran, should the current ceasefire fail. Consequently, direct military operations (missile strikes, drone warfare, air raids) near the northern Iranian border could physically endanger Armenian border communities and create risks for locals, especially when Iranian nuclear facilities are targeted. Iran might increase its military deployments in northern provinces bordering Armenia, turning the area into a security hotspot. Retaliatory strikes by Israel, the U.S. or Iran near Armenian territory could cause civilian casualties or large refugee flows toward Armenia.
A lasting war on the territory of Iran could also destabilize the South Caucasus because Azerbaijan serves as a strategic partner of Israel and has deep military ties with Israel. Azerbaijan could provide logistical support or airspace for Israeli operations and receive advanced weaponry in return, tilting the regional military balance. Simultaneously, Azerbaijan might exploit the chaos to pressure Armenia over the Syunik region. While Azerbaijan has made public statements suggesting that third parties cannot use its territory for conflict, it could use the conflict as an opportunity to launch its own operations.
A prolonged war on Iranian territory with destruction of communications as well as trade route disruptions, could accelerate the unblocking of routes between Azerbaijan, Armenia and Turkey– an issue on the agenda since the end of the 2020 war in Nagorno-Karabakh. During Aliyev's recent visit to Turkey and one day after Pashinyan's meeting with Erdogan in Istanbul , alternative routes to Iranian ones were discussed as the Iranian routes would likely be blocked if military actions intensify and the situation escalates. But, if the U.S. partnership approach toward Armenia persists, this risk remains manageable and under control.
From an economic perspective, Armenia relies on Iran for overland access to the Persian Gulf and goods imports. The war will likely disrupt trade corridors like the North-South Transport Corridor, increasing costs and causing shortages of fuel, food, and consumer goods. As security risks from the Iran-Israel war emerge, the Armenian government might need to increase military spending, mobilize reserves, or strengthen border defenses—further straining the economy.
The risk of an energy crisis is also high since Armenia imports natural gas and oil products from Iran. If the ceasefire collapses and attacks on Iran continue, Armenia could face energy shortages and price spikes. Alternative routes through Georgia and Russia may become overburdened or geopolitically risky.
Considering Armenia's upcoming parliamentary elections in 2026, the ongoing Iran-Israel conflict and its external consequences could generate internal stability risks. Economic downturns, potential energy shortages, and security concerns might provide a pretext for the Russia-backed political opposition to foment public unrest, especially in border regions through orchestrated chaos. Such political instability could hamper Yerevan's reform agenda and governance, and lead to electoral fraud.
If the war persists, Armenia's current strategy of balancing between Russia, the West, and Iran could become untenable, forcing it to recalculate alliances. Armenia risks increased isolation from regional powers or realignment among them. On one hand, if Armenia maintains relations with Iran under U.S. pressure, it may face reduced aid and diplomatic support. On the other hand, cutting off ties with Iran would mean losing a critical southern trade and energy lifeline. Armenia may also become vulnerable to Russian, Azerbaijani and Turkish pressure, especially if the Zangezur Corridor issue escalates.
Considering Russia's posture and recent official statements on the Iranian issue, Armenia may face intense pressure to align its foreign policy. As a counteraction, the West may push Armenia to reduce ties with Iran, potentially offering economic incentives or military guarantees. If the conflict deepens, t here is no guarantee that Russia, though strained by its Ukraine war, will not pressure Armenia to remain neutral or join a broader anti-Western axis, even as Armenia strategically seeks to strengthen ties with Western partners.
In an alternative scenario, Armenia might find opportunities amid this crisis. A prolonged Israel-Iran conflict could allow Armenia to strengthen Western ties by presenting itself as a stable, democratic partner amid regional turmoil. However, this approach carries significant diplomatic risks , especia lly if U.S. objectives conflict with Armenian regional priorities. Nevertheless, it is highly likely the U.S. will maintain its current South Caucasus policy, where stability and peace remain priorities following the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war.
An Unrestrained and Unpredictable U.S. Foreign Policy
The U.S. military strike against Iran creates significant implications for resolving long-standing conflicts in the South Caucasus. U.S. concerns over Iran's nuclear program have consumed U.S. presidents since the 1979 revolution. Prior containment efforts took various forms: indirect and unconventional methods like the so-called Stuxnet cyberattack that disrupted the Iranian program in 2008, direct diplomacy that produced the short-lived Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2015, and the 'maximum pressure' campaign of economic and financial sanctions during Trump's first administration.
The U.S. and Iran were seemingly restarting negotiations over Tehran's nuclear program at the beginning of the second Trump administration. The negotiations failed to produce a settlement within the artificial 60-day deadline that President Trump proclaimed. Given the nuanced, complex details involved in nuclear accords, some have doubted whether the 60-day deadline was announced in good faith or whether the negotiations were structured to fail . Regardless, the U.S. attacks during ongoing negotiations undermine Washington's ability to serve as a credible interlocutor in resolving long-standing conflicts.
The weakened position of the U.S. as provider of global stability will have important implications for the South Caucasus, and Armenia in particular. The willingness of the U.S. president to launch a military strike against Iran without concrete evidence of Iranian intent to develop a nuclear weapon suggests a degree of impulsiveness and unpredictability in contemporary U.S. foreign policy. While the U.S. president may argue that unpredictability can be a strategic asset that keeps adversaries and allies on edge, it ultimately gives countries less reason to trust the U.S. as an honest broker on complex topics.
The U.S. actions also undermine the principle that diplomacy should take priority over using force to resolve problems. For most of the post-WWII period, the U.S. has served as a source of global stability through both its expansive military posture and its articulation of support for the norms of the liberal international order, including democracy, human rights, and multilateralism.[1] The U.S. attack on Iran weakens its ability to promote global norms, thereby providing cover for other countries that may seek to unilaterally resolve long-standing disputes.
As these observations relate to Armenia, they suggest that it cannot rely on U.S. support in the event of conflict, nor can it rely upon the restraining effect of global norms that the U.S. has historically supported. While Armenia cannot ignore U.S. interests, U.S. foreign policy under the current administration is too unpredictable to serve as the basis for the promotion of Armenia's national interests.
Conclusion
U.S. and Israeli intelligence suggests Iran's nuclear facilities were damaged but not destroyed. Should Iran choose to resume its program, the likelihood of a renewed conflict with Israel and the U.S. is high. It is therefore important to consider the likely impacts on Armenia of a renewed conflict between Israel, Iran, and the U.S. Even without the outbreak of another round of conflict, the direct involvement of the U.S. in the Iran-Israel war exposes Armenia to a strategic dilemma: Antagonizing Iran, a key neighbor and trade partner, is not a viable option for Armenia. Yerevan cannot ignore U.S. influence either , especially given America's rising role in Armenia's post-war security building and diplomatically deterring Azerbaijan which continues to claim Armenia's sovereign territories and uses the false narrative of 'Western Azerbaijan'. Should Armenia ignore U.S. interests, Azerbaijan may attempt to exploit the crisis.
In this respect, Armenia's best course would likely be careful neutrality—avoiding entanglement while diversifying energy and trade routes, strengthening border security, and maintaining active, balanced diplomacy with both Iran and the United States.
Footnotes : [1] I kenberry, G. John (2001). After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order after Major Wars . Princeton University Press