The Russian and Iranian elites alike can be described as ‘westernists’. Through their history, both Russia and Iran have experienced the West as a source of modernity to ‘upgrade’ their civilisation states. In such a paradigm, Trump is holding a stick in one hand and a carrot on the other, offering reconciliation or retribution depending on their choice. Is that a wise approach? Isn’t a reset without coercion possible at all? 

In the Russian perception, the threat from the US has significantly eased lately, as the Trump administration unambiguously signalled a strategy to engage with Russia and normalise the relationship — even holding out the prospects for a mutually beneficial economic cooperation. 

So far, Russia has had a roller coaster ride with Trump (who even threatened Russia with more sanctions) whose prescriptions of a ceasefire to bring the conflict in Ukraine to an end creates unease in the Russian mind. However, Trump also slammed the door shut on Ukraine’s NATO membership; rejected altogether any US military deployment in Ukraine; absolved Russia of responsibility for triggering the Ukraine conflict and instead placed the blame squarely on the Biden administration; openly acknowledged Russia’s desire for an end to the conflict; and took note of Moscow’s willingness to enter into negotiations — even conceded that the conflict itself is indeed a proxy war. 

At a practical level, Trump signalled readiness to restore the normal functioning of the Russian embassy.  If reports are to be believed, the two countries have frozen their offensive intelligence activities in cyber space. 

Again, during the recent voting on a UN Security Council resolution on Ukraine, the US and Russia found themselves arrayed against Washington’s European allies who joined hands with Kiev. Presumably, Russian and American diplomats in New York made coordinated moves. 

It comes as no surprise that there is panic in the European capitals and Kiev that Washington and Moscow are directly in contact and they are not in the loop. Even as the comfort level in Moscow has perceptively risen, the gloom in the European mind is only thickening, embodying the confusion and foreboding that permeated significant moments of their struggle. 

All in all, Trump has conceded the legitimacy of the Russian position even before negotiations have commenced. Is an out-of-the-box thinking conceivable with regard to Iran as well?  

In substantive terms, from the Russian perspective, the remaining ‘loose ends’ are: first, a regime change in Kiev that ensures the emergence of a neutral friendly neighbour; second, removal of US sanctions; and, third, talks on arms control and disarmament attuned to present-day conditions for ensuring European and global balance and stability. 

As regards Iran, these are early days but a far less demanding situation prevails. True, the two countries have been locked in an adversarial relationship for decades. But it can be attributed entirely to the American interference in Iran’s politics, economy, society and culture; an  unremitting mutual hostility was never the lodestar, historically. 

A constituency of ‘westernists’ exists within Iran who root for normalisation with the US as the pathway leading to the country’s economic recovery. Of course, like in Russia, super hawks and dogmatists in Iran also have vested interests in the status quo. The military-industrial complex in both countries are an influential voice. 

The big difference today is that the external environment in Eurasia  thrives on US-Russia tensions whereas, the intra-regional alignments in the Gulf region are conducive to US-Iran detente. he Saudi-Iranian rapprochement, a steady and largely mellowing of Iran’s politics of resistance, Saudi Arabia’s abandonment of of jihadi groups as geopolitical tool and its refocus on development and reform as national strategies — all these mould the zeitgeist, which abhors US-Iran confrontation. 

This historic transformation renders the old US strategy to isolate and ‘contain’ Iran rather obsolete. Meanwhile, there is a growing realisation within the US itself that American interests in West Asia no longer overlap Israel’s. Trump cannot but be conscious of it.   

Equally, Iran’s deterrence capability today is a compelling reality. By attacking Iran, the US can at best score a pyrrhic victory at the cost of Israel’s destruction. Trump will find it impossible to extricate the US from the ensuing quagmire during his presidency, which, in fact, may define his legacy. 

The US-Russia negotiations are likely to be protracted. Having come this far, Russia is in no mood to freeze the conflict till it takes full control of Donbass region — and, possibly, the eastern side of Dniepr river (including Odessa, Kharkhov, etc.) But in Iran’s case, time is running out. Something has to give way in another six months when the hourglass empties and the October deadline arrives for the snapback mechanism of the 2015 JCPOA to reimpose UN resolutions to “suspend all reprocessing, heavy water-related, and enrichment-related activities” by Tehran. 

Trump will be called upon to take a momentous decision on Iran. Make no mistake, if push comes to shove, Tehran may quit the NPT altogether. Trump said Wednesday that he sent a letter to Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, calling for an agreement to replace the JCPOA. He suggested, without specifics, that the issue could quickly lead to conflict with Iran, but also signalled that a nuclear deal with Iran could emerge in the near future.

Later on Friday, Trump told reporters in the Oval Office that the US is “down to the final moments” negotiating with Iran, and he hoped military intervention would prove unnecessary. As he put it, “It’s an interesting time in the history of the world. But we have a situation with Iran that something is going to happen very soon, very, very soon. 

“You’ll be talking about that pretty soon, I guess. Hopefully, we can have a peace deal. I’m not speaking out of strength or weakness, I’m just saying I’d rather see a peace deal than the other. But the other will solve the problem. We’re at final moments. We can’t let them have a nuclear weapon.”

Trump aims at generating peace dividends out of any normalisation with Russia and Iran, two energy superpowers, that could give momentum to his MAGA project. But cobwebs must be swept away first. Myths and misconceptions have shaped contemporary Western thinking on Russia and Iran. Trump should not fall for the phobia of Russia’s ‘imperialistic’ ambitions or Iran’s ‘clandestine’ nuclear programme.

If the first one was the narrative of the liberal-globalist neocon camp, the second one is a fabrication by the Israeli lobby. Both are self-serving narratives. In the process, the difference between westernisation and modernisation got lost. Westernisation is the adoption of western culture and society, whereas, modernisation is the development of one’s own culture and society . Westernisation can at best be only a subprocess of modernisation in countries such as Russia and Iran.

Trump’s ingenuity, therefore, lies in ending the US’ proxy wars with Russia and Iran by creating synergy out of the Russian-Iranian strategic partnership. If the US’ proxy wars only has drawn Russia and Iran closer than ever in their turbulent history as quasi-allies lately, their common interest today also lies in Trump’s ingenuity to take help from Putin to normalise the US-Iran ties. If anyone can pull off such an audacious, magical rope trick, it is only Trump who can.

The Russian side can also potentially share its experience engaging with the Trump administration and increase the odds of any prospective US-Iranian talks succeeding, possibly birthing their own mutually beneficial “New Detente.”

For as close as Russia is with Iran, however, it’s also on good terms with Israel, in contrast to certain false perceptions that have proliferated about their ties in recent years.

Russia dodged a bullet by wisely choosing not to ally with the now-defeated, Iran-led “Resistance Axis” during the latest regional war, for which it was just rewarded by Israel reportedly lobbying the US to let Russia keep its bases in Syria.

Israel is, therefore, likely pleased that the US has apparently asked Russia to mediate between it and Iran, particularly since Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu is believed to trust Putin.

Some Israeli elites and media might loudly oppose the development, but they’re likely powerless to drive a wedge between Russia and the US, not to mention between Russia and Iran.

As such, Russian-mediated US-Iranian talks will likely proceed without external interference and might thus be more successful than many would expect.

Importantly, Russia invited Israel to attend its Victory Day parade at Red Square on May 9 so Netanyahu will probably meet with Putin around that time for a detailed briefing on the talks.

The Russian leader is expected to explain his interests in wanting to broker an Iranian-US “New Detente,” which could include the need to maintain transit along the North-South Transport Corridor with India as well as execute their energy plans as explained here.

The top obstacle is Trump’s reinstated “maximum pressure” policy against Iran, which relevantly involves the threat of secondary sanctions against third countries like India. As for Trump’s motives, he wants to reach a comprehensive agreement with Iran that could then facilitate his planned “Pivot (back) to Asia” policy of more muscularly containing China, which Putin can potentially help with.

The US’ goals are to get Iran to agree to a new nuclear deal, curtail its ballistic missile program and distance itself from the “Resistance Axis” in exchange for phased sanctions relief, all of which can alleviate Israel and Saudi Arabia’s security concerns and reduce the chances of another regional war.

Trump can’t fully focus on China as long as that sword of Damocles continues to hang over his head. But he also likely has no realistic possibility of convincing Iran to agree to his terms without Putin’s help.

To be sure, the US is asking for quite a lot from Iran and it will be a bitter pill for Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian to swallow if he agrees to even part of what Washington is demanding.

But his country’s greatly weakened regional position after the latest Middle East war improves the likelihood that he might.

Pezeshkian could also be incentivized by the hypothetical possibility of either allowing US energy companies back into Iran under strict conditions and/or forming a “gas OPEC” with Russia, the US and maybe also Qatar.

From Israel’s perspective, it might not approve of any partnership between Iran and the US no matter what form it takes. But this could also create leverage for the US to ensure Iranian compliance with whatever deal they agree to under the pain of withdrawing as punishment.

If Iran’s economic interests became partially dependent on the US, whether directly via investments and/or indirectly via sanctions relief, then Tehran will be more inclined to abide by any deal.

If an Iranian-US “New Detente” follows the nascent Russian-US one, brokered as it might be by Putin as a reciprocal favor to Trump for what he’s now boldly doing on Ukraine, then it would completely transform Western Eurasian geopolitics and unlock exciting new geo-economic opportunities – not to mention accelerate the global systemic transition to multipolarity.

White House officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Neither Russia nor Iran have publicly confirmed or denied the request.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said in response to questions sent by Bloomberg that “Russia believes that the United States and Iran should resolve all problems through negotiations” and that Moscow “is ready to do everything in its power to achieve this.”

A spokesman for Iran’s foreign ministry, when asked if Russia had offered to mediate between Tehran and Washington, said only it was “natural” for countries to offer their assistance.

“Given the significance of these matters, it’s possible that many parties will show good will and readiness to help with various problems,” the spokesman, Esmaeil Baghaei, said during a televised press conference Monday in Tehran. “From this perspective, it’s natural that countries will present an offer of help if it’s needed.” The ministry didn’t respond to questions from Bloomberg News.

Since taking office about six weeks ago, Trump has tried to restore relations with President Vladimir Putin, which the US severed after Russia’s 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine. As Trump seeks to broker an end to that war directly with Putin — including a Feb. 12 phone call between the two leaders — both sides have signaled they’re open to cooperating on other geopolitical interests, including trade routes and resources in the Arctic.

Top US and Russian officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, discussed Washington’s interest in Moscow helping with Iranian issues, during a Feb. 18 meeting in Riyadh, according to people with knowledge of the situation, asking not to be identified as not all details of those talks have been made public.

Russia’s Lavrov later shared details about the US meeting with his Iranian counterpart Abbas Araghchi when they met in Tehran, Araghchi said in a televised press conference after the meeting.

Trump has sent mixed signals over Iran since returning to the White House. He said he aims to return to the “maximum pressure” policy of his first term, such as reimposing sanctions and targeting its security forces, including killing a top general in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. But Trump’s also said he wants to “immediately” start working on a “verified nuclear peace agreement with Iran.”

As two countries both heavily sanctioned by the US, Russia and Iran have deepened cooperation on trade and energy, as well as security, including Russia utilizing large numbers of Iranian drones in its war against Ukraine.

But it’s unclear how receptive Tehran will be to any US overture delivered via Russia. Many hardliners, who dominate Iran’s powerful institutions such as the IRGC and the judiciary, have publicly opposed engagement with Washington.

Last month, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Trump can’t be trusted — since he withdrew from an Obama-era nuclear agreement during his first term — and that Iran wouldn’t be bullied into negotiations.

Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian, a reformist who supports reviving the nuclear deal, said last week that he would set aside his personal belief in the need for US engagement and back Khamenei’s opposition to talks while Washington continues to sanction Iran’s economy.

Despite the public posture, “both the United States and Iran are trying to find channels of communication, productive ones which would mark the start of a dialogue,” Nikolay Kozhanov, an associate professor at Qatar University’s Gulf Studies Center, said. Any understanding between the US and Iran would be a “complex” one with the US offering sanctions relief and Iran agreeing to contain its regional ambitions, Kozhanov added.

The US has long suspected the Islamic Republic of using a decades-old civilian nuclear sector to shield a covert military dimension. Iran has repeatedly denied it wants weapons and insists its atomic work is for peaceful means including power stations that are partly financed by Russia.

The United Nation’s nuclear watchdog on Monday said the US and Iran should begin talks, and that it was holding high-level discussions with the White House on the issue. That follows its warning last week that Tehran’s stockpile of near-bomb-grade fissile material had surged more than 50% since Trump’s election.

Iranian officials are also under intense pressure to deliver economic relief to a population exhausted by an acute cost-of-living crisis that’s been compounded by US sanctions under both Trump and President Joe Biden’s administration.

Iran is also locked in a bitter shadow war with top US ally Israel and has vowed to keep fighting despite Israel having severely weakened Tehran’s key proxies Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Both groups are designated terrorist organizations by the US and other countries.

Netanyahu’s top priority is the destruction of Iran before Russia wraps up its victory in Ukraine and Syria becomes a new battleground for Turks and Israelis. It’s not simply the end of Washington’s “rules-based international order.” It’s the onset of chaos. Israeli forces and Turkish auxiliaries (i.e. the Islamist terrorists who sacked Syria) are already staring at each other across a demarcation line that runs east–west just south of Damascus. Netanyahu harbors no illusions about the conflict between Ankara’s long-term strategic aims in the region and Jerusalem’s determination to claim the Syrian spoils of war. 

In addition to serious financial trouble and societal discontent on the home front, President-elect Donald Trump now confronts the dangerous distraction of wars he did not start, wars that will bring his administration and his country no strategic benefit. America’s underwriting of Netanyahu’s expanding war in the Middle East will endanger U.S. national security and guarantee that Washington, its armed forces, and the U.S. economy will be hostage to whatever strategic direction Netanyahu decides to take. 

Starting the war sooner, rather than later, is critical for Netanyahu. War with Iran presents Trump with a strategic fait accompli. In case Trump decides to distance the United States from another bloodbath in the Middle East, Israel’s ongoing conflict with Iran and Turkey’s potential confrontation with Israel will make disengagement impossible.

American policy planners need to understand the larger context in which this is all unfolding—and why a war on Iran will ultimately bring us and our alleged Israeli friends to grief. The principal aim of U.S. foreign policy planners ought to be the adaptation of the American economy and military establishment to the multipolar world and the development of new markets, not new enemies. Washington’s refusal to acknowledge the fundamental shifts in power and wealth lie at the heart of much of the Biden administration’s foreign policy failure.

A successful management of change would avoid a conflict with Iran; it would peacefully reconcile competing claims to regional hegemony, as the Chinese recently did with their brokering of the historic rapprochement between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic of Iran. It would revitalize such multilateral organizations as the UN Security Council and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. These actions would cultivate the emergence of new constellations of power along the lines of Metternich and Castlereagh’s 1815 Concert of Europe. Just as no question of strategic security in Europe can be solved without Russian participation, Washington cannot create stability in the Middle East by unconditionally backing Israel’s territorial ambitions.

An American failure to manage its own transition to multipolarity will create more chaos and ignite a major war in the Middle East, not to mention a full blown war with Russia, and, eventually, China. An outlook that prioritizes avoiding conflict, not starting new conflicts, must replace nearly three decades of feckless leadership in foreign affairs. New thinking in defense and foreign policy should rank diplomacy and peaceful cooperation first over the use of military power.

Bonaparte quipped that in war, truth is the first casualty. Nothing has changed since then. Washington is a veritable fountainhead of lies feeding an unending stream of false narratives regarding the true character of the jihadist hordes raging across Syria. For our purposes, however, it is important to note the alignment of powers behind the Islamist factions now pillaging and terrorizing Syria.

Washington seems blithely oblivious to Syria’s destruction and the emergence of joint Israeli-Turkish hegemony across the Near East. The disintegration of Syria does, however, open up a short window of opportunity for Tel Aviv to attack Iran. As the Times of Israel report noted, while previously the “IAF would not fly directly over Damascus when carrying out strikes on Iran-linked targets in the capital, it now can.”

Netanyahu believes he has the wind at his back: Emboldened by the collapse of the Assad regime, he will turn his attention to Lebanon, southern Syria, and the West Bank. One predictable consequence of an attack on Iran will be a solidifying of the Chinese-brokered Iran-Saudi rapprochement—and a hardening of the blocs in the Greater Middle East, which will see Iran, backed by Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, set against a temporary Israel-Turkish bloc backed by Washington and its European vassals. 

Iran is not Iraq: At 90 million people, it is double Iraq’s population, has a more developed economy, and has more powerful allies than Saddam Hussein ever did. Contrary to neoconservative expectations, there are no cake-walks in the greater Middle East.

The only certainty amid the chaos is that, thanks to the connivance of Biden, Netanyahu, and Erdogan, a wider war in the greater Middle East is only just beginning. It is one we will come to regret.

Douglas Macgregor, Col. (ret.) is a senior fellow with The American Conservative, the former advisor to the Secretary of Defense in the Trump administration, CEO of Our Country Our Choice, a decorated combat veteran, and the author of five books.

Will Schryver, a technical engineer and security commentator, wrote on X: “I don’t understand how anyone who has seen the many video clips of the Iranian missile strikes on Israel cannot recognise and acknowledge that it was a stunningdemonstration of Iranian capabilities. Iran’s ballistic missiles smashed through US/Israeli air defences and delivered several large-warhead strikes to Israeli military targets.”

Evidently, in the ensuing panic situation in Israel, as the US president Joe Biden put it, as of October 4, there had been no decision yet on what type of response Israel should mount against Iran. “If I were in their [Israeli] shoes, I’d be thinking about other alternatives than striking oil fields,” Biden said in a rare appearance in the White House briefing room a day after Israeli officials were saying that a “significant retaliation” was imminent.  

Biden added that Israelis “have not concluded how they’re — what they’re going to do” in retaliation. Biden also told reporters that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should remember US support for Israel when deciding on next steps. He claimed that he was trying to rally the world to avoid all-out war in West Asia. 

In this pantomime, it is safer to believe Biden, as the honest truth is that without US inputs and practical help, and money — and direct intervention — Israel simply lacks the stamina to take on Iran. Israel’s regional dominance narrows down to executing assassination plots and attacking unarmed civilians.  

But here too, it is debatable how self-sufficient Israel is vis-a-vis Iran. Reports have appeared that the US’ new technological intel  pinpointed Hezbollah leader Sayyed Nasrallah’s whereabouts, which were passed on to Israel, leading to his assassination.

Interestingly, CIA Director William Burns stepped in to refute the rumours that Iran conducted a nuclear test on Saturday. Speaking at a security conference on Monday, Burns stated that the US has closely monitored Iran’s nuclear activity for any sign of rushing toward a nuclear bomb. 

“We don’t see evidence today that such a decision has been made. We watch it very carefully,” he said. Burns gently erased another alibi to attack Iran. 

One critical factor that has compelled Israel / US to defer any attack on Iran is the stern warning by Tehran that any attack on its infrastructure by Israel will be met with an even harsher response. “In responding, we neither hesitate nor rush,” to quote Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, who, by the way, made a trip to Lebanon and Syria over the weekend by way of giving Israel a defiant “message” — as he put it — that “Iran has strongly backed the resistance and will always support it.” 

Earlier on October 4, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had used a rare public sermon to defend Iran’s missile attack against Israel, saying it was “legitimate and legal” and that “if needed,” Tehran will do it again. Speaking in both Persian and Arabic during Friday Prayers in Tehran, Khamenei said Iran and the Axis of Resistance won’t back down from Israel. Iran will not “procrastinate nor act hastily to carry out its duty” in confronting Israel, Khamenei declared.

However, what deters the Israelis and causes uneasiness in the American mind is something else — Russia’s lengthening shadows on the West Asian tapestry.

American military analysts have disclosed that certain highly advanced Russian weaponry have been transferred to Iran in the recent weeks backed up by the deployment of Russian military personnel to operate these systems, including S-400 missiles. There is speculation that the secretary of Russia’s Security Council (former Defence Minister) Sergei Shoigu paid two secret visits to Iran in the recent period. 

Apparently, Moscow also responded to the Iranian request for satellite data on Israeli targets for its missile strike on October 1. Russia also supplied Iran with the long-range electronic warfare system “Murmansk-BN”. 

The “Murmansk-BN” system is a powerful EW system, which can jam and intercept enemy radio signals, GPS, communications, satellites, and other electronic systems up to 5,000 kms away and  neutralise “smart” munitions and drone systems — and is capable of disrupting high-frequency satellite communication systems owned by the US and NATO. 

To be sure, the Russian involvement in Iran’s standoff with Israel is potentially a game changer. From the US perspective, it raises the worrisome spectre of a direct confrontation with Russia, which it doesn’t want. 

It is in this scenario that official Russian news agencies have quoted presidential aide Yury Ushakov on Sunday that Putin plans to meet with his Iranian counterpart, Masud Pezeshkian in the Turkmen capital, Ashgabat, on October 11. 

Ushakov did not elaborate on the meeting. Indeed, this comes as a surprise since the two leaders are scheduled to meet again at the BRICS summit in the Russian city of Kazan that runs on October 22-24. 

Of course, Iranians are also playing coy. Both Moscow and Tehran announced that their presidents were visiting Ashgabat on October 11 to attend a ceremony marking the 300th birth anniversary of the Turkmen poet and thinker Magtymguly Pyragy. Smoke and mirrors! (here and here) 

It is entirely conceivable that amidst the cascading regional tensions, Moscow and Tehran may have thought of bringing forward the formal signing of the Russian-Iranian defence pact, which was originally scheduled to take place in Kazan. 

If so, the event on Thursday will be reminiscent of the unscheduled visit by the then Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko to New Delhi for the signing of the historic Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Cooperation Between India and the USSR on 9th August 1971. 

Interestingly, Ushakov added that Putin has no plans to meet Netanyahu. Putin is yet to respond to a request by Netanyahu for a phone conversation, made five days ago. A legend that Netanyahu created, typically, in the recent years to impress his domestic audience (and confuse the Arab street) — that he had a special relationship with Putin — is falling apart.

On the other hand, by chalking up an urgent meeting in Ashgabat — in fact, Turkmen president Serdar Berdimuhamedov was in Moscow only on Monday/Tuesday on a working visit — Kremlin is making it clear to Washington and Tel Aviv that Moscow is irrevocably aligned with Tehran and will help the latter no matter what it takes. (See my blog West Asian crisis prompts Biden to break ice with Putin, Indian Punchline, October 5, 2024) 

Isn’t history repeating? The 1971 Indo-Soviet Treaty was the most consequential international treaty entered into by India since Independence. It was not a military alliance. But the Soviet Union boosted India’s military capability for an upcoming war and created space for India to strengthen the basis for its strategic autonomy, and its capacity for independent action. 

Biden and Putin have a lot to talk about but what adds up is that Biden signalled his interest in a conversation just a day after the massive Iranian missile strike against Israel, which came as a bolt from the blue and dramatically upended the legacy of his presidency. 

Don’t be surprised if the Middle East crisis dominates a Biden-Putin summit in Rio de Janeiro — that is, if such a meeting takes place. The Ukraine war is coasting inexorably toward a Russian victory. Biden’s interest lies in making sure somehow that Ukraine’s capitulation — and NATO’s humiliation — get carried over to January 20. But Putin must cooperate. This is one thing.  

Meanwhile, what causes sleepless nights for Biden is the situation in the Middle East, which may cascade uncontrollably toward a regional war. Here, Putin is not the problem but can be the solution. This needs some explaining. 

To be sure, policy differences have arisen between Biden and Netanyahu which is only to be expected given their sense of priorities respectively as politicians. It may seem the current crisis in the US-Israeli relationship is rather severe but how much of it is for the optics or, how little of it is for real is the moot point. Certainly, even a transition from war to a new diplomatic order is currently not in the cards. 

However, the US and Israel are also joined at the hips. There is no question that Biden is allowing seamless assistance to flow to Israel in its war effort and for keeping its economy afloat. And the US is blocking all moves in the UN Security Council calling for a ceasefire, which means that peacemaking efforts cannot even begin. 

Iran’s missile attack on Israel, in this context, needs to be put in perspective. Rather than an act of belligerence, it can be seen as a coercive measure to force Israel to abandon its ground operation in Lebanon. President Masoud Pezeshkian has disclosed that Iran exercised utmost restraint so far to stop Israeli atrocities only because of pleas by Western leaders that negotiations leading to a potential ceasefire in Gaza were at a crucial stage. But the West didn’t keep its promise leaving Iran no option but to act. 

Passivity or inaction in the face of Israel’s relentless rampage against the Palestinian population aimed at ethnic cleansing created a distressing situation for Iran as the saviour of oppressed Muslims. Besides, Iran’s entire strategy of deterrence came under challenge too. 

Biden is today like a cat on a hot tin roof. A Middle Eastern war is the last thing he wants. But he has no control over Netanyahu who is already plotting the next move on the escalation ladder. As for Iran, its sense of exasperation over western perfidy and moral bankruptcy is palpable. The US’ credibility has suffered a severe beating all across the West Asian region. 

Enter Putin. On the Middle Eastern chessboard, Russia’s role assumes great importance. Russia-Iran relations touch an unprecedented level today. Russian statements have become highly critical of Israel in recent years. Russia has openly kept contacts with the groups constituting the Axis of Resistance. 

Russian diplomacy is moving with a ‘big picture’ in mind to bring the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the centre stage of international politics. In the past year, security consultations between Moscow and Tehran notably intensified. Some reports have appeared about Russia transferring advanced military equipment to strengthen Iran’s air defence capabilities. 

Significantly, Russia was the only country that Iran informed in advance about its missile strike against Israel. According to the well-known US podcast Judge Napolitano: Judging Freedom (below),  the Russian naval fleet in the East Mediterranean downed 13 Israeli missiles last week near Lebanon. 

Apparently, a frantic Netanyahu has been trying to reach Putin on phone for the past few days but the call is yet to materialise. On the diplomatic track too, Russia has underscored the highest importance it attaches to the relations with Iran. 

Clearly, the US senses the imperative to engage with Russia. What may be acceptable can be proportional strikes by the two West Asian protagonists, couched in carefully calibrated media campaigns. For example, targeted attacks on individual military installations, which would save face for Israel and avoid a major war — it’s a preferable scenario for Iran too, because it avoids unnecessary risks and preserves the trump cards for a game that promises to be long drawn out. 

In the final analysis, what matters is the US-Israeli intentions. The Financial Times cited Israeli sources to the effect that the game plan is to inflict maximum damage to Iran’s economy so as to trigger the latent ‘protest potential’ of Iranian society. The Israeli hope is apparently that a credible regime change agenda will find resonance in Washington and attract US intervention. 

Anyway, Biden’s move to engage with Putin suggests that a US military intervention is to be ruled out. On the other hand, the historic Russian—Iranian security pact, which is expected to be signed during the forthcoming BRICS summit in Kazan, Russia, on October 20-22, gives Iran vastly more strategic depth to negotiate with the West.

Russia’s own interest lies in boosting Iran’s defence capability and pressing ahead with broad-based bilateral cooperation anchored on the economic agenda in the conditions under sanctions while on a parallel track advancing Iran’s integration into Moscow’s Greater Eurasia project. In short, Russia is uniquely placed today as a stakeholder in a stable and predictable Iran at peace with itself and the region. 

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov told reporters in Moscow Thursday, “We are in the closest contact with Iran on the current situation. We share a wonderful experience of cooperation in various fields. I think this is the moment when our relations are particularly important.” By the way, President Pezeshkian received the visiting  Prime Minister of Russia Mikhail Mishustin on Monday, September 30 in Tehran just hours ahead of the launch of the Iranian ballistic missiles against Israel.   

At a meeting of the UN Security Council dedicated to West Asian developments, Russia’s Permanent Representative to the UN Vasily Nebenzya stated on Wednesday, “As part of its mandate to maintain international peace and security, the UN Security Council must compel Israel to immediately cease hostilities. You and I also should make every effort to create conditions for a political and diplomatic settlement. In this context, we take note of Tehran’s signal that it is not willing to whip up confrontation any further.” 

Interestingly, the Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov lost no time to pick up the threads of Biden’s remark on a meeting with Putin. He said on Friday, “There have been no talks on this issue and as of today, at this moment, there are no prerequisites for it. However, the president has repeatedly stated that he remained open for all contacts.” 

The letter was hand-delivered by Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, who arrived in Tehran on Monday.

Shoigu is slated to meet the Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council of Iran, Ali Akbar Ahmadian, and the Chief of the General Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, Mohammad Bagheri.

He also will meet new Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, the news agency Interfax reported.

Iran has declared that it will retaliate against Israel for the July 31 assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, widely attributed to the intelligence services of the Jewish State. Israel has made no official comment on the killing.

Haniyeh and one of his bodyguards died in an explosion at a secure guesthouse for foreign dignitaries, under circumstances that remain unexplained. Haniyeh was attending the inauguration of President Pezeshkian.

Hours earlier, an Israeli airstrike killed Hezbollah commander Fuad Shukr, a close Iranian ally. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps declared that it would inflict a “severe punishment” on Israel “at the appropriate time, place and manner.”

According to the New York Times, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, directed Iran’s armed forces to attack Israel in retaliation for the assassination of Haniyeh.

There is widespread speculation about possible Iranian actions as well as Israel’s potential response. On April 13, Iran launched over 300 projectiles at Israel. Almost all were shot down by a combination of Israeli and American air defenses.

Russia’s possible role in an Israel-Iran conflict remains an open question. Reuters reported August 6 that Putin asked Iran to avoid civilian casualties in any prospective military action on Israel.

The news agency said that Shoigu delivered this message in Tehran. It also reported that Iran asked Russia to sell it Su-35 fighters, one of Russia’s most advanced airframes. There are no reports of a Russian response to the request.

The New York Times reported August 5 that Russia was sending air defense systems to Iran, without specifying the systems in question. Russia does not have weaponry to spare from its ongoing operation in Ukraine, according to Russian sources, and is unlikely to provide its best air defense hardware to Iran.

According to sources familiar with Shoigu’s discussions in Tehran, Iran took Putin’s proposal under consideration but asked for high-tech Russian weaponry as part of the bargain – specifically, Russia’s S-400 air defense system, which has a range of up to 400 kilometers and capacity to track multiple targets.

Iran has had an older Russian system, the S-300, since 2016, although it is not known whether it has the newest version.

Some analysts believe that the S-400 can track American stealth aircraft like the F-22 and F-35. This is unlikely, given that Russia has delayed shipments of previously contracted S-400 systems to India – its best arms customer – due to the demands of the Ukraine conflict.

Israel has maintained close communications with Russia, advising Russian forces in Syria on thousands of strikes against Iranian-allied militias. Russia has stood down its air defense and allowed Israel to operate unimpeded.

The Ukraine war has put Israel in a bind: It does not want to get on Russia’s wrong side by providing military support to Ukraine.

The US has asked Israel to sell up to eight Patriot missile systems to Ukraine, and the matter reportedly remains under negotiation.

The Patriot is particularly important for Ukraine, as the only defense available against Russian aircraft launching glide bombs at a reported range of about 60 kilometers.

If Putin helps Israel by defusing a possible exchange of fire with Iran, he will want some favors in return.