Which international guarantors alongside the U.S. were involved in the Armenia–Azerbaijan peace process and what roles do they play?
Executive summary
The United States acted as the high-profile mediator and anchor of the Washington talks, but several regional and international actors functioned as de facto guarantors or signalled guarantor-like roles: Russia (the traditional guarantor whose capacity and credibility have been diminished), Turkey (Azerbaijan’s principal backer), the EU and broader European institutions (political and normative support), and Iran (emerging as a potential security backstop for Armenia) — each bringing different levers, interests and limits to the pact’s durability [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. Russia — the classic guarantor whose authority is frayed
Moscow historically played the leading guarantor and deployed peacekeepers after the 2020 war, but its credibility and on-the-ground capacity were severely dented by its failures during the 2023 Azerbaijani operation and by distraction from the war in Ukraine, leaving a vacuum Russia now tries to fill only intermittently and with reduced leverage over Baku and Yerevan [5] [2] [4].
2. Turkey — Azerbaijan’s power broker and strategic backer
Ankara functions less as a neutral guarantor than as Azerbaijan’s primary regional patron: it backs Baku politically and sees connectivity projects like the TRIPP/Zangezur corridor as aligning with Turkish commercial and normalization goals with Armenia, giving Turkey influence over how corridor arrangements and broader normalization proceed [6] [7] [1].
3. The European Union and European institutions — normative guarantors and diplomatic pressure
The EU, European Parliament and related think-tanks have condemned force, hosted analysis and lent diplomatic weight to the process; their role is mainly political-diplomatic pressure, monitoring and conditional engagement rather than security guarantees, aiming to buttress a rules-based settlement while watching for human-rights and refugee consequences [4] [8] [9].
4. Iran — an emergent, conditional security guarantor for Armenia
Iran has been explicitly identified in reporting as a potential security guarantor for Armenia, a role grounded in proximity and regional calculation rather than formal multilateral architecture; however, analysts stress Tehran’s capabilities and willingness are uncertain and contingent on shifting regional alignments [3] [6].
5. The United States — mediator, economic anchor and architect of TRIPP
The U.S. hosted the Washington summit, brokered the joint declaration, anchored memoranda of economic and security incentives and proposed operating arrangements for the TRIPP corridor (including U.S.-backed international consortium concepts); Washington’s role is central but also politically contingent and criticized for placing operational control of the corridor outside a robust multilateral guarantor framework [1] [9] [10].
6. What “guarantor” means here — mechanisms, limits and competing agendas
In practice, guarantor roles differ: Russia provided troops and a formal peacekeeper presence earlier, Turkey provides political-military backing to Baku, the EU offers diplomatic and normative weight, Iran offers a potential bilateral security umbrella for Armenia, and the United States supplies mediation, economic incentives and an operational model for connectivity — yet none currently offers a single, enforceable multilateral security framework; each actor’s agenda (Moscow’s rivalry with the West, Ankara’s regional influence, Tehran’s hedging, Brussels’ norms and Washington’s corridor-centric design) can both stabilize and destabilize the deal depending on sequencing and domestic politics in Yerevan and Baku [5] [3] [10] [9].
7. Fragility, sequencing and the missing institutional guarantor
Observers warn that the agreement signed in Washington is a political framework that requires implementation support and durable guarantors; many of the declared or potential guarantors either lack capacity (Russia’s weakened position), impartiality (Turkey’s alignment with Azerbaijan) or a clear mandate (Iran’s informal role), and the EU/UN usually provide diplomacy rather than coercive enforcement — leaving the U.S. engagement, and domestic Armenian referendum politics, as the critical but insufficient fulcrum for final signature and implementation [9] [2] [4].
8. Stakes and follow-through — what to watch next
The treaty’s fate hinges on sequencing of constitutional change in Armenia, border delimitation, corridor implementation and whether international actors convert political commitments into enforceable mechanisms; analysts explicitly flag the risk that renewed Russian influence, Turkish interests, or insufficient U.S./EU follow-through could undo fragile gains even after the Washington text was initialed [2] [6] [8].