Trump’s “everlasting friendship” in the South Caucasus: safety net for Armenia—or a selfie with history?

US President Donald Trump says he’s forged an “everlasting friendship” with Armenia and Azerbaijan and helped “settle the war.” Armenia’s Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev dutifully amplified the moment, thanking him for brokering a White House deal on August 8 that initialed a peace treaty and blessed a new corridor across Armenia — the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP).

Great photo. But does it make Armenia safer — especially as concessions stack up at home and a no-confidence bid circles Pashinyan? Short answer: not yet.

The summit yielded two big headlines:

• A peace treaty initialed, not signed. Baku still conditions a final signature on changes to Armenia’s constitution, which would require a referendum.
• A US-administered transit corridor (TRIPP) across Armenia linking Azerbaijan with Nakhchivan — reportedly with exclusive US rights over the route.

Those are consequential, but they don’t by themselves lock in security. The draft deal, opponents note, doesn’t spell out the long, militarized border or embed a concrete mechanism for border delimitation — the very nuts-and-bolts that prevent “accidents” from becoming crises.

Even Yerevan’s own messaging has been split screen: Pashinyan insists “peace has been established,” while his foreign minister concedes the agreements don’t fully resolve the conflict.

Meanwhile, the US State Department’s Sept. 5 travel advisory still warns Americans to avoid Armenia’s border with Azerbaijan because there’s “potential for armed conflict.” That’s not what airtight peace looks like.

Pashinyan is pushing a strategic reset: normalization with Turkey, hard recognition of Azerbaijan’s sovereignty over Nagorno-Karabakh, and a symbolic scrub of triggers — most controversially removing Mount Ararat from border stamps, with speculation the coat of arms could be next. The argument: dial down the symbolism that keeps neighbors on edge.

The backlash is fierce. The opposition’s no-confidence motion accuses the government of making unilateral concessions, mishandling POWs, and eroding national identity. If you’re trying to implement a fragile peace while your legitimacy is under fire, your margin for security risk shrinks to near zero.

Baku has signaled more defense spending ahead, and it wants that Armenian constitutional change. Even if the treaty is signed, skeptics warn border pressure can still resume unless monitoring and red lines are explicit.

Iran dislikes a US-administered corridor running along its northern neighbor; that’s a structural tension baked into the route.

High-profile cases like Ruben Vardanyan keep emotions raw and politics brittle.

Brussels isn’t just clapping from the sidelines. The EU’s enlargement chief is making the rounds in Baku and Yerevan, tying peace to connectivity, demining, and investment. That’s a real-world complement to Washington’s big-bang diplomacy — and potentially a hedge if US attention drifts.

If “everlasting friendship” is going to be more than a caption, the peace needs infrastructure and guardrails:

1. Border mechanics on paper
   An agreed, mapped, and phased delimitation/demarcation plan with timelines, joint posts, and an incident-hotline protocol. “We’ll figure it out later” invites trouble.
2. Third-party eyes
   Light but credible monitoring—OSCE/EU observers or a hybrid cell—to verify movement near the border and along TRIPP. The mere presence changes incentives.
3. Corridor governance that calms neighbors
   Clear rules of the road for TRIPP (customs, security, dispute settlement), plus transparent US stewardship that reassures not just Baku and Yerevan but Tehran as well. Without buy-in, a road becomes a pressure point.
4. Sequencing with politics in mind
   If the treaty hinges on an Armenian constitutional referendum, build domestic consent before the vote: POW steps, border de-escalation, and visible economic dividends tied to each stage.
5. Prisoners and humanitarian deliverables
   Early POW releases and missing-persons progress are trust multipliers. They also lower the political temperature for Pashinyan at home.
6. Snap-back consequences
   A lean enforcement annex: if either side violates designated zones or the corridor regime, aid or access pauses automatically. Soft assurances rarely outlive a crisis.
7. Economic ballast
   Pair the treaty with front-loaded investment — US/EU funds for roads, grids, and border communities — so local stakeholders have something tangible to lose if peace wobbles.

It helps — diplomatic gravity matters — but friendship is not a security architecture. Right now the deal is heavy on symbolism and light on binding procedures, landing in a polarized Armenian political arena that could yet veto its own peace. Add regional veto players and a testy border, and the glide path is anything but smooth.

The formula that could work is familiar: Washington’s headline + Brussels’ scaffolding + local legitimacy. If the treaty gains teeth (maps, monitors, mechanisms), if TRIPP is governed to reassure neighbors, and if Pashinyan converts concessions into visible wins before a no-confidence tide swells, the “everlasting” label might start to look earned.

If not, the photo will age faster than the friendship — and Armenia’s security will still be living month-to-month.