U.S. Envoy Barrack Proposes 100-Year Lease of Armenian Road; Trump Backs Idea; Armenian Government Rejects Plan

In a controversial statement that has caused outrage in Armenia and its diaspora, U.S. Ambassador to Turkey Thomas Barrack confirmed that Washington is considering a plan to lease a key road in Armenia’s Syunik region. The proposal, according to Barrack, is meant to help normalize relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan. But for many Armenians, it represents a serious threat to national sovereignty.

The road in question connects mainland Azerbaijan to Nakhijevan exclave. Azerbaijan has long demanded control of this route, often referring to it as the “Zangezur corridor,” a term Armenia rejects. The idea of creating a land link through Armenian territory has been pushed by Baku since the 2020 war and backed by Turkey. Until now, the United States had not openly supported any plan involving third-party control over Armenian land.

During a press briefing in New York, Barrack proposed that the U.S. could lease the 32-kilometer stretch of road for 100 years, suggesting it could serve as a neutral solution to ease tensions. However, his language raised serious concerns. He referred to regional perspectives as “tribal points of view,” dismissing the deeply rooted cultural and historical concerns Armenians have about their territory.

“Azerbaijan and Armenia are arguing over 32 km of road for over a decade. So, what happens if America comes and says: ‘O.K., we’ll take it over. Give us the 32 km road on a hundred-year lease. And you can all share it,’” Barrack said. “But these tribal points of view do not fade. E pluribus unum – what does that mean? It means ‘give up the masses for one’. It exists in America – it does not exist there. [There] it’s individual, family, tribe, and then the nation.”

His remarks were immediately condemned in Armenia, where the idea of giving away any piece of sovereign land—temporarily or permanently—is a national red line. While Barrack did not use the phrase “Zangezur corridor,” this was the first time a U.S. official publicly acknowledged a concrete plan involving the lease of Armenian land.

Following Barrack’s comments, former U.S. President Donald Trump added fuel to the fire. Speaking from the White House during a meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, Trump said, “It looks like that’s going to come to a conclusion — a successful conclusion,” referring to the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace talks. While vague, his statement was seen as an endorsement of the proposal.

The Armenian government quickly rejected the idea. Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s spokesperson, Nazeli Baghdasaryan, made it clear that Armenia has never considered giving up control over its territory.

“Armenia has never discussed and is not discussing the transfer of control over its sovereign territory to any third party,” Baghdasaryan told state news agency Armenpress.

She emphasized that all regional negotiations are conducted under Armenia’s laws, which only allow land leases for agricultural purposes. In other words, the idea of a foreign government leasing a transit corridor is both politically and legally unacceptable under Armenian law.

Turkey also distanced itself from the proposal. A spokesperson for the Turkish presidential administration said they had no knowledge of any such U.S. plan involving Armenian land.

The roots of this issue go back decades. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Azerbaijan has sought a direct route to the exclave of Nakhijevan. Several proposals over the years have tied this corridor to broader peace deals involving Nagorno-Karabakh. However, none have succeeded.

The most recent push came after the 2020 war, when a Russian-brokered ceasefire included a clause saying Armenia would guarantee safe transit for Azerbaijani cargo through Syunik. Russian forces were initially expected to oversee this route. But since then, Yerevan has repeatedly resisted any version of the plan that removes Armenian control over the road.

For Armenia, this is not just a matter of logistics—it is about sovereignty, security, and survival. The Syunik region is a narrow strip of land that borders both Iran and Azerbaijan. Losing control over this corridor, even under a lease agreement, could open the door to greater foreign influence and pressure.

Many in Armenia fear that this proposal, if accepted, would set a dangerous precedent. It would reward Azerbaijan’s aggression with a land link and create a strategic vulnerability in Armenia’s southern provinces. The strong reaction from Yerevan signals that the government sees this as more than a diplomatic misunderstanding—it sees it as a direct threat to the country’s independence.

As peace talks between Armenia and Azerbaijan continue, it remains to be seen whether this proposal will be formally submitted or quietly dropped. But for now, Armenia has drawn a clear line: its territory is not for lease.

—

Support independent reporting from the region by subscribing to The Armenian Report. Our team is funded solely by readers like you.