When Donald Trump began his second term, his foreign-policy goals were presented as a framework for pursuing peace and defusing wars and violence across the globe.
While it may be fair to describe the administration’s efforts thus far as a work in progress, even the most ardent Trump supporters may be compelled to concede that a clear-eyed appraisal of the White House’s performance would, at best, be deemed “chequered.”
Indeed, from the Congo to Cambodia, informed opinion appears divided on the effectiveness of U.S. initiatives. Despite bombastic proclamations of unprecedented peace-making achievements, unequivocally durable results remain lamentably few and far between.
For Israel, America’s closest ally in the Middle East, some of Trump’s recent decisions—from Gaza and Lebanon to Iran—appear both perplexing and perturbing. By halting fighting across these fronts prematurely, from an Israeli perspective, Trump may have snatched an imminent defeat from the jaws of what seemed certain victory.
However, there does appear to be one region of growing strategic importance where Trump administration initiatives have gained traction and could yield far-reaching results while placing Washington’s major rivals on the back foot.
End of a decades-long conflict?
That region is the Caucasus, where Armenia and Azerbaijan have fought intermittent wars for decades in a conflict whose roots stretch back to the pre-Soviet era.
A recent Carnegie analysis outlined the rationale behind the initiative, noting that the long-running conflict “has exerted human, economic, and political tolls on both countries. In 2026, thanks to direct dialogue between Baku and Yerevan and agreements brokered in Washington, [a] peace accord … [might] be in sight.”
The report continued: “The key breakthrough came in a meeting at the White House on August 8, 2025, hosted by U.S. President Donald Trump with Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev.”
The joint declaration announced a resolution to the vexed issue of connecting mainland Azerbaijan to its Nakhchivan exclave via southern Armenia. The proposed corridor was named the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP).
Trump and TRIPP
Reinforcing the initiative’s significance, Reuters reported that the TRIPP corridor would improve connectivity between Asia and Europe while bypassing both Russia and Iran, at a time when Trump has expressed interest in critical mineral agreements with resource-rich Central Asian nations east of the South Caucasus.
In numerous previous articles, I have urged greater U.S. recognition of the strategic and economic importance of Central Asia and the Caucasus—regions long relegated to the periphery of American attention.
Yet despite the compelling logic of the initiative and its potentially significant strategic and economic benefits, hardline anti-Baku elements, particularly within segments of the American Armenian diaspora, appear determined to thwart it, still smarting over the loss of Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023.
Arguably one of the more surprising sources of support for this rejectionist perspective is former International Criminal Court prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo, who maintains extensive ties with elite American universities, including Stanford, Harvard and Yale.
Recently, a video surfaced in several countries, including Greece, Lithuania and Bulgaria, showing Ocampo and his son, Tomas, openly discussing ways to increase political and legal pressure on Azerbaijan through European institutions.
Contorted, contradictory and corrupt?
Their proposals reportedly included lobbying within the European Parliament, using human-rights litigation against EU-Azerbaijan agreements, and even exploring ways to remove Armenia’s pro-Western Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan from office.
Ocampo claimed he could “raise questions” and “apply pressure on European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen” through contacts associated with former EU foreign-policy chief Josep Borrell. The pair also discussed legal challenges in the European Court of Justice and mobilizing Armenian lobbying networks in both Europe and the United States.
Most strikingly, Ocampo stated that his activities were funded by Russian-Armenian oligarchs.
Given that the success of the TRIPP initiative depends heavily on EU political support, Western investment confidence and stable Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, Ocampo’s campaign appears not only to be an effort to manipulate European institutions but one that would likely be welcomed by both Russia and China—neither of which can reasonably be described as bastions of the human-rights values Ocampo professes to champion.
Paradoxical and perturbing
Ironically, much of the economic benefit generated by TRIPP would accrue to Armenia and its citizens, with significant associated economic activity taking place within Armenian territory.
Yet opponents appear willing to forgo those gains in pursuit of objectives that have little realistic chance of being achieved. Beyond damaging political rivals, there seems scant justification for efforts to sabotage the project—by fair means or foul.
From an Israeli perspective, the lesson is both blunt and bleak.
No matter how beneficial a policy initiative may appear, there will always be domestic and foreign actors willing to undermine the national interest in pursuit of dubious short-term political advantage.
