The Armenia Project convenes high-level panel on Iran war and regional implications.
Experts assess risks of instability, possible regime change, and impact on Armenia and the South Caucasus
YEREVAN, Armenia_March 25, 2026_The Armenia Project (TAP) hosted a high-level panel discussion on the Iran war and its consequences for the South Caucasus and the wider region, bringing together leading analysts, journalists, and policy experts to examine scenarios ranging from regime survival to internal collapse — and what each could mean for Armenia’s security, economic future, and geopolitical positioning.
At a moment of profound uncertainty in the Middle East, the March 25 webinar grappled with the implications for the countries on Iran's northern border- a region largely ignored in the daily coverage of the war. Moderated by veteran international journalist Dan Perry, the discussion quickly made clear that the stakes are not merely regional.
Perry noted that the war between Iran, the United States, and Israel is already reshaping global energy markets, great-power competition, and the strategic calculus of countries from Russia to China, while for Armenia and the South Caucasus, the implications are immediate and potentially significant.
The one-hour discussionhighlighted the strategic stakes surrounding the U.S.-backed TRIPP corridor, framed by its proponents as a generational opportunity to anchor Armenia within a new architecture of regional connectivity and ensure peace with longtime regional rival Azerbaijan.
Yet as Robert Hamilton, president of the Delphi Global Research Center, noted, the initiative rests on a longstanding American assumption that “economic integration can lead to peace and stability,” one now directly exposed to the uncertainties of the Iran war. A spillover of instability could deter investment and delay construction, he warned, while a more paradoxical risk lies at the other extreme: a stable, post-Islamic Republic Iran could render the South Caucasus route less essential, since “the best routes, frankly, are through Iran and not through the South Caucasus.”
From a regional perspective, Sergei Melkonian, PhD Research Fellow at Yerevan's Applied Policy Research Institute of Armenia (APRI), offered a similarly sobering assessment. Even without outright collapse, he said that instability “close to Iran or inside Iran” could undercut TRIPP’s viability as an international corridor, reducing its role in “connecting Central Asia with Europe” as companies avoid routes shadowed by conflict.
A Regime Focused on Survival
Nazenin Ansari, Managing Editor of the Iranian-focused publication Kayhan London, said that a future democratic Iran might actually be "a South Caucasus country," suggesting that the country's future was tied up with that of its neighbors to the north. Is such a future possible? She argued that while an immediate uprising may not be visible, she suggested that the conditions for renewed unrest remain present.
Maneli Mirkhan, founder of the Paris-based pro-democracy association Dorna Iran, framed the Islamic Republic’s posture as survival above all else. The regime, she argued, is mainly buying time — raising the cost of confrontation externally while suppressing dissent internally. “Every single day of survival is a win for their side,” she said.
Mirkhan suggested that meaningful concessions on nuclear or missile programs would ultimately threaten the regime’s core identity, making compromise unlikely without deeper structural change. At the same time, she pointed to the resilience of the Iranian state — its institutions, bureaucracy, and national cohesion — as a potential foundation for a managed transition.
Ansari said that while the Islamic Republic attempts to project strength — through military activity, state media, and a visible security presence — this actually masks deeper structural fragility. “This is a system that has entered into a collapse management plan,” she said.
Armenia’s Strategic Dilemma: Stability vs. Transformation
Melkonian highlighted the potential implications of the war for Armenia, including increased refugee flows, disrupted supply chains, possible security threats along Armenia’s southern border, and balancing Armenia’s foreign policy interests with the West and its bordering neighbors.
Panelists discussed how a democratic Iran could transform regional connectivity — potentially opening new trade routes linking Central Asia to Europe, and acknowledging such a development could also reduce Armenia’s strategic importance if transit routes shift southward through Iran.
A Shifting Geopolitical Landscape
Marc Champion, Global Affairs Columnist for Bloomberg News, widened the lens to the global stage. For Russia, he argued, the war presents unexpected advantages — diverting Western attention and resources away from Ukraine while placing strain on U.S. military capacity.
He pointed in particular to the rapid consumption of advanced air-defense systems, suggesting that the scale of usage in the Iran conflict could have implications for other theaters. China, meanwhile, is closely monitoring developments, particularly given its dependence on energy flows through the Strait of Hormuz.
At the same time, Champion emphasized a fundamental uncertainty: the internal dynamics of Iran itself, where leadership appears prepared for a prolonged confrontation.
Limits of Military Power
Hamilton, a former professor at the U.S. Army War College, offered a cautious assessment of what military action can achieve. “Air power alone has never won a war that has expansive ends like this one does,” he said. Drawing on historical precedents, Hamilton argued that without forces on the ground, even sustained campaigns are unlikely to produce decisive political outcomes such as regime change.
The United States, he suggested, now faces a narrowing set of choices: escalate further, potentially at significant cost, or declare victory and disengage — each carrying its own risks for the conflict and for broader perceptions of American credibility.
A Region Watching — and Waiting
What emerged from the discussion was less a consensus than a shared recognition of uncertainty. Iran could stabilize, fracture, or transform — and each outcome would reverberate across the South Caucasus in different ways.
For Armenia, the overriding priority remains clear: stability along its borders. Yet the region may have limited control over the forces now in motion – and there is certainly much to be gained from neighborly relations with a stable, prosperous and democratic Iran.
As the panel made clear, the Iran war is not a distant conflict for the South Caucasus. It is a developing reality—one that could reshape trade routes, security dynamics, and political alignments for years to come.
In that sense, the question is not whether the region will be affected, but how—and how prepared it is to respond.
About The Armenia Project (TAP):
The Armenia Project is a nonprofit educational organization dedicated to advancing Armenia’s democratic and economic development by enhancing its communications ecosystem. Through storytelling, media engagement, and global partnerships, TAP brings international attention to urgent challenges while empowering civil society.
