As Iran and the IAEA managed to solve the few remaining continuous factors in ongoing nuclear talks and the prospect for a renewed nuclear deal began to look bright, Russia’s sudden demand for sanctions exemptions has dampened hope the a deal can be reached any time soon.
Linking its support for the deal to a guaranteed right to “free and fully-fledged trade and economic and investment cooperation and military-technical cooperation with Iran” in spite of the newly imposed sanctions on it, Iranian officials have been quick to criticize the last minute change especially after that the U.S. government has refused Russia’s demand as irrelevant. So what explains Russia’s change of heart and what does it mean for Tehran?
There are a number of explanations ranging from the effects of the deal on energy prices to the more long term prospect of Iran moving away from Moscow. To be able to avoid further deterioration of its economy and maintain its war efforts, Russia’s interest squarely lies in higher oil prices, and thus any development that could lower prices, however meagre, is to be prevented. A renewed nuclear deal with Iran would do just that. While Iranian oil will not replace that of Russia nor will it, in the short to medium term, reduce the EU’s dependency on the Russian energy, the addition of Iranian resources and Tehran’s ability to sell its oil on the global market freely will certainly reduce prices.
Equally important is Moscow’s fear of losing access to Iran’s lucrative market and the prospect of Tehran’s drifting away from its strategic orbit. Given its dire economic and military needs, Tehran is in no position to be picky about who it trades with or where it sources its needs from. Hence, and in the light of current sanctions on Moscow over its invasion of Ukraine, it is safe to speculate that Russian officials are worried that Iran can be easily dissuaded from working with Russian entities by relatively generous offers of cooperation and investment from Europe.
Added to this is Iran’s wariness of sanctions reimposition on its banking system and its companies should they engage in commercial interactions with their Russian counterparts. This, in turn, will serve a severe blow to Moscow’s attempt at carving an exclusive commercial role for itself in Iran and might even dampen Iranian enthusiasm for the signing of a long term strategic pact.
War in Ukraine, it appears, has provided Iran with an unexpected and indeed unique geopolitical opportunity to reduce its over-reliance on Moscow and accelerate its integration into the global economy by banking on increased Western appetite for isolating Russia, curbing its influence, and, perhaps most importantly, reducing their own reliance on it. Such sentiments are best evidenced in Denmark’s resumption of pipeline construction connecting Poland to Norway, the EU’s courting of Azerbaijan for increased supply of gas to Europe, and the United States’ sudden engagement with Venezuela.
To grasp this opportunity, Tehran needs to prioritize pragmatism over idealism and push for a deal with or without Russia. Surely, such undertaking will neither be cost free nor easy. Given Moscow’s direct access to key centers of power, including the Supreme Leader’s office in Tehran, its critical role as operator in chief of Iran’s nuclear facilities, and its influence as the dominant player in Syria, Russia has the means and resources to not just avert pragmatic decision making but also punish Iran for pursuing its interests in defiance of Moscow.
Also at play is Ali Khamenei’s own deeply ingrained suspicious of the West as a reliable partner. However, the point remains that Iranian elites have been presented with a random, yet unique, historical opportunity to put national interests above factional politics and ideological sentiments. Whether or not they will seize it and give up on being “a cause” remains to be seen.
Nima Khorrami is a Research Associate at The Arctic Institute. His areas of interest and expertise lie at the intersection of geopolitics, infrastructure and technology. At The Arctic Institute, his research is mainly focused on Sweden’s Arctic policy, (digital) connectivity, and potential links between China, Russia, and US’s Arctic and Middle East policies.He is an alumni of Nottingham University and the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Russian President Vladimir Putin meets with Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, Sept 7, 2018 (photo via khamenei.ir).
Top image credit: Elbridge Colby is seen at Senate Committee on Armed Services Hearings to examine his nomination to be Under Secretary of Defense for Policy in the Dirksen Senate office building in Washington, DC, on Tuesday, March 4, 2025. (Photo by Mattie Neretin/Sipa USA).
In his senate confirmation hearing on Tuesday, Elbridge Colby, nominee for Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, stood out as one of the few people auditioning for a Pentagon job who say they may want to deploy fewer U.S. troops across the globe, not more.
“If we’re going to put American forces into action, we’re gonna have a clear goal. It’s going to have a clear exit strategy when plausible,” he told the Senate Armed Services Committee.
“A lot of my advocacy and commentary as a kind of public intellectual, if you will, has been pushing back against a lot of people who… [are] quite cavalier about the employment of military force.”
Colby said he and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth were on the same page. “We have a team that understands strength for sure, but also understands… the downside risks of the use of military force, and the importance of not being cavalier about… deploying our men and women in uniform.”
If confirmed, Colby’s role, essentially, would be to develop and advance a grand strategy for national defense, a position vital toward steering the Trump administration’s foreign policy direction. Colby had previously served under the last Trump administration as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy and Force Development from 2017 to 2018.
The confirmation hearing was highly anticipated amid chatter that some congressional Republicans, skeptical of some of Colby’s realist foreign policy positions, could block the nomination.
Apparently anticipating a battle, Vice President J.D. Vance provided Colby’s official introduction Tuesday morning. "In so many ways, Bridge predicted what we would be talking about four years down the road, five years down the road, 10 years down the road. He saw around corners that very few other people were seeing around,” Vance said, calling Colby a friend.
Senators clearly wanted to test that foreign policy vision, particularly on Ukraine, Taiwan, and Iran. Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) challenged Colby’s position that “America has a strong interest in defending Taiwan, but Americans can survive without it.”
“Your views on Taiwan’s importance to the United States seems to have softened considerably,” Wicker mused to Colby.
"What I have been trying to shoot a signal flare over is that it is vital for us to focus and enable our own forces for an effective and reasonable defense of Taiwan and for the Taiwanese, as well as the Japanese to do more," Colby responded.
“I have some concerns about what you’ve said in the past, namely if we had to choose between hoping to contain a nuclear Iran and preventing Iran with military force from getting nukes that we should tolerate a nuclear Iran and try to contain it,” Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) told Colby, while acknowledging a written statement from Colby that Iran should be prevented from developing a nuclear weapon.
Cotton asked Colby whether he would “commit to providing the President with credible, realistic military options to stop Iran from going nuclear.” Colby affirmed he would if diplomacy fails, agreeing that a nuclear Iran would be “an existential danger.” Senators grilled Colby on the Trump administration’s Ukraine strategy, much like they did during billionaire investor Stephen Feinberg’s Deputy Secretary of Defense hearing last week.
“I cannot believe that the United States would side with dictators over democracies, over our democratic partners and allies. We must stand with Ukraine,” Senator Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.) said, slamming the recent Trump-Vance-Zelensky debacle which left Zelensky without a deal last week. Senators Tammy Duckworth (D- Ill.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), and Angus King (I-Maine) also asked Colby explicitly whether Russia invaded Ukraine.
Saying that he was concerned his comments might disrupt ongoing diplomatic negotiations towards ending the Ukraine war, Colby largely avoided answering questions along these lines.
Other moments went more smoothly. To the approval of senators present, for example, Colby said he’d advocate for higher defense spending levels to prop up the country’s defense industrial base. “I think we’re in a situation where more robust levels of defense spending are clearly good,” Colby said.
Colby had other chances to showcase his realist foreign policy perspective at the hearing.
Although he stressed NATO’s importance as a military alliance, for example, Colby also noted that “we are not in a unipolar, military dominant situation with respect to NATO.” Indeed, he explained that the growing prominence of intergovernmental organization BRICS was a "representation of the changing world dynamic,” where the U.S. would have to contend with the realities of other nations gaining more ground in world affairs.
“We’re no longer in Charles Krauthammer’s unipolar world,” he said, citing the late columnist’s famed 1990 article, which framed the U.S. as the global hegemon. “The Saudis are talking to the Russians and they’re talking to us, that’s how the world is going to be. That’s the reality of the world system as it is now.”
Altogether, senators present expressed mixed feelings toward Colby’s performance. Reports indicate Democrats will unite against Colby’s nomination, meaning even one Republican voting against him may block his ascension to the position. However, Senate GOP sources suggest that Colby faces less resistance now that more controversial Trump picks, like Hegseth and Gabbard, have been confirmed.
At the time of writing, details about when a final vote may take place remain unclear.
keep readingShow less
Top image credit: Joshua Sukoff / Shutterstock.com
Transatlanticism’s sternest critics all too often fail to reckon with the paradox that this ideology has commanded fervent devotion since the mid-20th century not because it correctly reflects the substance of U.S.-European relations or U.S. grand strategy but precisely because it exists in a permanent state of unreality.
We were told that America’s alliances have “never been stronger” even as the Ukraine war stretched them to a breaking point. Meanwhile, Europeans gladly, if not jubilantly, accepted the fact that Europe has been rendered poorer and less safe than at any time since the end of WWII as the price of “stopping Putin,” telling themselves and their American counterparts that Russia’s military or economic collapse is just around the corner if only we keep the war going for one more year, month, week, or day.
Perhaps the biggest and cruelest lie of all, one stemming back to the tragic conceit of Woodrow Wilson’s attempt to remake post-1918 Europe on the basis of his Fourteen Point program, is the naively millenarian sentiment that the balance of power and hard power realities are relics of a less enlightened age, replaced by the universal dictates of liberal democracy.
So it is that top Western leaders and thinkers convinced themselves that a war-torn country which is entirely dependent on Western military, financial, and humanitarian aid — which could sustain its own war effort for barely several months, if even that, if the aid was to stop — should actually be treated as a wholly independent actor capable of making its own foreign policy decisions completely untethered from the aspirations, priorities, and convictions of its Western backers.
The Trump administration’s snap decision to freeze U.S. aid to Ukraine has drawn no shortage of incredulous reactions, but there is a sense in which it was always bound to end this way. After years of willful, destructive dereliction by the previous administration, the dog is finally reasserting control of its tail in a way that cannot but shock and dismay those, especially on the other side of the Atlantic, who’ve come to believe that the Zelensky government can forever adhere to its unrealistic victory plans and peace formulas, forever exercise a veto on any form of diplomatic engagement between Russia and the West, and forever sustain Western support even as Russia’s growing battlefield advantages approach critical mass.
President Volodymyr Zelensky sought to prosecute the war as long as it takes to secure what he sees as credible security guarantees, centering on soliciting NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine or securing Ukraine’s outright NATO membership. The Trump administration, by stark distinction, made clear early on its goal of facilitating a negotiated end to the Ukraine war in a way that does not entail the extension of any concrete U.S.-backed security guarantees.
Zelensky hurriedly responded to the freeze by appearing to walk back his maximalist position on security guarantees and willingness to negotiate with Russia, but it remains to be seen whether this change in tone will translate into a meaningful change in Ukraine’s diplomatic strategy.
This is not, nor has it ever been, a contest between evenly leveraged partners. Ukraine relies overwhelmingly on U.S. military assistance, including the provision of Starlink internet services, and intelligence sharing to sustain its military effort. Any speculation that the Europeans can inherit America’s share of that burden and indefinitely fund Ukraine in Washington’s absence will quickly run up against the qualitative and quantitative deficiencies that required Washington to take a leading role as Ukraine’s supplier in the first place.
On that score, it is no accident that, in spite of surging political will among European leaders to do something, all the European plans presented thus far hinge on the U.S. acting as a security backstop in a way that, to one degree or another, secures America’s explicit, binding commitment to go to war against Russia over Ukraine, something that the Obama and Biden administrations themselves repeatedly rejected, and is opposed by large majorities in every NATO country.
The situation has escalated to this point because Ukraine, flanked by the UK, France, and other European players, has refused to heed the Trump administration’s repeated statements and signals on these issues. The administration has therefore unsurprisingly turned up the pressure on Zelensky, sending its strongest signal yet that continued U.S. assistance to Ukraine amid Russia’s invasion is conditional on Kyiv engaging as a good faith participant in a negotiated track with Moscow.
The decision to freeze, rather than terminate, aid appears to be consistent with a strategy not to wash its hands of Ukraine, which would be counterproductive to ending this war and detract from Washington’s larger goal of securing some kind of detente with Moscow, but to exercise U.S. leverage in a way that facilitates meaningful progress in negotiations. It also ensures that the U.S. does not simply relinquish one of its main sources of leverage over Russia, a point that will become increasingly important when the negotiations progress to discussion of contentious topics, particularly on the territorial question, where Moscow maintains its own set of maximalist demands which will likely need to be watered down to achieve a viable, durable peace.
To be sure, it is regrettable that the dissonance between Washington and Kyiv has reached a point where this kind of move is seen as necessary, and there is an inherent risk that this kind of direct compellence against Ukraine can inadvertently strengthen Russia’s hand both on and off the battlefield. This risk will have to be mitigated by vigorous behind-the-scenes diplomacy to reassure Kyiv that Washington’s goal to end the war is intended to benefit Ukraine, not throw it under the bus, and that the U.S. is in it for the long haul when it comes achieving a durable peace that all the parties can live with.
The idea of supporting Ukraine “as long as it takes” with no explicit strategic goal whilst Russia slowly grinds down the country was neither sustainable nor ethical. Over the past three years, the West continually abdicated its outsized share of ownership over diplomacy to end the war by dressing up its strategic paralysis in hollow moralistic slogans. This administration recognizes Washington’s role as a central driver of events and seeks to wind down this war in a way that doesn’t just serve U.S. interests but puts postwar Ukraine in a position to recover and eventually flourish while promoting a broader stability in Europe.
This will require careful, sustained diplomacy with all three stakeholders — Ukraine, Russia, and Europe — and the surgical juxtaposition of sticks and carrots in service of a larger incentive structure that gives everyone a long-term peace.
The administration is now moving with full recognition that the status quo on Ukraine is and has always been unviable, but this realization should be coupled with a deliberate, nuanced, and patient approach, one that extends beyond a ceasefire, to work toward a reinvigorated architecture of European security with the goal of ensuring that nothing like the catastrophe that has played out since 2022 can reoccur.
keep readingShow less
Top Image Credit: A Nigerien soldier walks out of a house that residents say a Boko Haram militant had forcefully seized and occupied in Damasak March 24, 2015 (Reuters/Joe Penny)
Insinuations by a U.S. member of Congress that American taxpayers’ money may have been used to fund terrorist groups around the world, including Boko Haram, have prompted Nigeria’s federal lawmakers to order a probe into the activities of USAID in the country’s North East.
Despite assurances by the U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria, Richard Mills, who said in a statement that “there was no evidence that the United States Agency for International Development, USAID, was funding Boko Haram or any terrorist group in Nigeria,” Nigeria’s lawmakers appear intent on investigating.
No doubt, a probe into Nigeria’s long drawn counter-terrorism operation is long overdue. Since 2009 with the rise of the Boko Haram insurgency in Nigeria, billions of dollars have poured into the North East, an area the size of New England, ostensibly to assist aid groups providing vital humanitarian relief for civilians caught in the rapidly degenerating security landscape.
This vital aid has now stopped due to Washington’s decision to freeze foreign assistance for 90 days. According to the U.N., a total of $910 million is required this year alone to respond to the humanitarian needs of 3.6 million people in the states of Borno, Adamawa and Yobe in northeast Nigeria.
It would not be the first time we have heard accusations of this nature. What is different, however, this time around is that the current furor risks distracting from the real problem: Nigeria’s war against Boko Haram. Over the years, Nigeria’s military have been increasingly unable to contend with the insurgency’s extraordinary resilience.
As recently as January, General Christopher Musa, Nigeria’s Chief of Defense Staff, told Al Jazeera, “as we speak, over 120,000 Boko Haram members have surrendered, and most of them came with hard currency. How did they get it? How are they funded? How did they get the training? How did they get the equipment?… How are they able to sustain themselves for 15 years? That is one question I think everybody should ask themselves.”
These are tough questions that Nigeria’s military and intelligence services claim to have no means of answering. Hence aid groups, flush with foreign currencies, have become easy scapegoats. In October 2019, the Nigerian army banned two NGOs — Action Against Hunger and Mercy Corps — from providing humanitarian services in the North East, accusing them of working with Boko Haram. The groups rejected the accusations, with Action Against Hunger stressing they only deliver “neutral, impartial and independent” aid to the most vulnerable, especially women and children in the North East.
Since fighting began in 2009, approximately 35,000 people have been killed, while 2.5 million people have been displaced from their homes and a further 230,000 people have fled to neighboring Chad, Cameroon and Niger. Often, aid workers themselves have been caught in the crossfire, with 37 killed since 2009. In 2018, Médecins Sans Frontières was forced to briefly halt its operations when a deadly strike by Boko Haram fighters on a military base in Borno state killed at least three aid workers. The military base was near a camp hosting about 55,000 internally displaced persons.
Meanwhile, contrary to Nigeria’s chief of defense staff, there appears to be plenty of evidence, dating back to 2014, of where Boko Haram gets its funding. “During this period, Boko Haram relied on local sources of funding, including robberies, kidnappings for ransom, and extortion of communities under their control,” Zagazola Makama, a counterterrorism and security expert in the Lake Chad region, told Responsible Statecraft.
At this point in 2014, Boko Haram controlled 22 out of the 27 local government areas in Borno state in its self-described Islamic caliphate. Several reports have explained that the terrorist group funded its operations from extortion, charitable donations, smuggling, remittances and kidnapping, while also leveraging its control of the ancient Trans-Sahara trading routes to exert tolls on the rural population. Here the terrorist group has established a quasi-economic ecosystem through which it is able to generate significant income from taxing agricultural activities, including fishing and cattle rearing. The group is also able to use old smuggling and trading routes across the Sahel to import arms and mercenaries to sustain its activities.
Indeed, a Dubai-based Boko Haram financing ring consisting of six Nigerians was discovered as recently as 2020. The sophisticated money laundering group was found to have facilitated the transfer of $782,000 from Dubai to Nigeria between 2015 and 2016 to bolster Boko Haram’s operations.
Shortly after, Nigeria’s Financial Intelligence Unit revealed another alleged group of 96 Boko Haram financiers and 424 associates in March 2022. Until now, the Nigerian government has failed to reveal their identities. It’s hard not to believe that the government’s furor over USAID isn’t an attempt to divert attention away from their failures here — as well as their failure in the war against the Islamist insurgency. Despite repeated claims of technically defeating the group, Boko Haram and its splinters, although severely weakened, have retained the ability to deliver deadly strikes on civilian and military targets.
One might also ask why U.S. military aidhasn’t been more effective. Since the U.S. designated Boko Haram and a local splinter group, Ansaru, as Foreign Terrorist Organizations in 2013, U.S. support to Nigeria’s military has increased considerably. Between 2016 and 2020, Washington spent no less than $1.8 million in Foreign Military Financing (FMF) to support Nigeria’s maritime security, military professionalization, and counterterrorism efforts.
Between 2018 and 2022, the United States also authorized the permanent export of over $53 million in defense articles to Nigeria via the Direct Commercial Sales (DCS) process.
That the Boko Haram/ISWAP insurgency continues notwithstanding speaks to a larger crisis, which also includes the blighting socio-economic condition of the North East and Sahel regions, which provide a ready army for recruitment by the group and has left vast spaces ungoverned for dissident groups to thrive.
Operationally, the Multinational Joint Task Force (MNJTF), a combined multinational army comprising military units from Benin, Cameroon, Chad, Niger, and Nigeria and established in 2014, has suffered frequent operational lapses. Since 2015, the MNJTF has conducted six significant operations. However, many have been short and not always sustained long enough to root out the terrorists or disperse them completely.
Also, the absence of policing capability has become a recurrent problem for the mission. This means that areas initially liberated by fighting units are soon reoccupied by the terrorist groups.
To ignore these vital operational questions to pursue an inquest against relief agencies might seem gratifying for the moment, and possibly even rewarding politically, due to the interest the controversy has generated. But in the long run, it would probably do nothing to strengthen the country’s capacity to rid itself of an insurgency that has lasted for far too long.
Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.