Follow us on social

Pezeshkian Putin

Can Russia avert a US slide toward war with Iran?

As Trump commits to max pressure 2.0, Moscow is expressing interest in mediating a new deal

Analysis | Middle East

Russia is reportedly interested in assisting U.S. efforts to negotiate a new and broader nuclear deal with Iran.

The potential for Washington-Moscow cooperation on Iran’s nuclear program comes as the Middle East continues to experience its most tumultuous days in recent memory, facing a litany of risks that could ignite into broader conflict at any moment. While some view Iran’s so-called Axis of Resistance as on the back foot, justifying an aggressive posture to “reshape the Middle East,” the reality is that any added aggression risks disaster in a region where Washington should be hyper-focused on shrinking its footprint.

The reporting on potential Russian mediation comes one month after President Donald Trump signed a National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM-2), declaring a return of “maximum pressure” against Iran. NSPM-2 makes clear its reasoning for maximum pressure: “Iran’s behavior threatens the national interest of the United States. It is therefore in the national interest to impose maximum pressure on the Iranian regime to end its nuclear threat, curtail its ballistic missile program, and stop its support for terrorist groups.”

Trump has left the option of military strikes on Iranian nuclear and military sites on the table should non-military efforts fail to curtail Tehran.

This rationalization of interests could not be further from the truth when considering the use of military force versus diplomatic mechanisms to rein in Iran’s nuclear program. The United States has very narrowly defined interests in the Middle East, regardless of what hawkish pundits would have the American public believe. Indeed, the opposite of NSPM-2 is true of U.S. regional policy priorities: avoiding a war with Iran is a core U.S. interest.

Policymakers should always try to apply a restrained approach to military force that considers the law and vital national interests. In this regard, there is not a legal basis for attacking Iran. More importantly, Iran does not present an existential threat to the United States in any current or medium-term scenario. Rather, Tehran presents an immediate threat to the interest of certain regional partners — namely Israel — and U.S. forces left exposed in forward positions across the Middle East.

Yet even when observing regional geopolitical dynamics, the Islamic Republic is not an existential threat to Israel, which is the most powerful Middle Eastern country militarily. This says nothing of the natural regional rebalancing that has occurred over time to check Iranian actions, including but not limited to the Abraham Accords, a growing interstate missile defense network, and the China-sponsored renormalization agreement between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Beyond interests, any maximum pressure strategy against Iran that includes striking its nuclear and military facilities would be ineffective and counterproductive. The U.S. intelligence community estimates that an attack on Iran’s nuclear sites would achieve a modest impact at best, setting back Tehran’s nuclear program by only “weeks or months” without eliminating its ability to reconstitute.

The Islamic Republic cannot be fully isolated from the world in any way that would block efforts to resist maximum pressure or rebuild its nuclear program, as witnessed by its increasingly close, albeit transactional, relations with Russia, China, and many of its neighbors. Indeed, on the nuclear file, it has the domestic knowledge base to resume nuclear activities after any attack.

Worse, a massive strike on Iranian nuclear and military sites will effectively kill any future attempts at diplomacy between the West and Tehran. The Islamic Republic’s leadership is already skeptical of the West and bases much of its limited legitimacy on anti-American and anti-imperial sentiment. Hawkish decisions against the country empower Iranian hardliners and vice versa, leaving limited options for permanently curtailing the Iranian nuclear program outside of violent regime change while inducing a race to the bottom that fuels hardline views and policies.

Yet any future war with Iran will be disastrous for the Middle East and globally — including the United States. It also harms an additional core but narrow interest: sustaining regional stability for the free flow of energy products in support of global energy security. Washington and the broader international community cannot afford a brutal war with one of the region’s most powerful countries, let alone one with proxies willing to expand the conflict region-wide.

While Iran will likely lose any war with the United States, the post-conflict scenario is equally undesirable. Iran is a large and diverse country with multiple ethnicities that would fight for statelets from the former nation, inducing a 2006 Iraq-style civil conflict with disastrous results.

There are better ways to approach the issue of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, as news of potential U.S.-Russia cooperation on the issue highlight. While building a coalition of world leaders interested in curtailing Iran’s nuclear program, U.S. officials would be wise to voice opposition publicly and privately to unhelpful policies that stifle a diplomatic approach. That effort should include tempering Israel’s ambitions to change the security environment through short-sighted, military-first strategies.

Such considerations are critical for advancing real U.S. interests, which preclude yet another Middle East war.


Top photo credit: Russian President Vladimir Putin and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian arrive for a ceremony to sign an agreement of comprehensive strategic partnership between the two countries, at the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia January 17, 2025. Sputnik/Vyacheslav Prokofyev/Pool via REUTER
Analysis | Middle East
Hezbollah
Top photo credit: Flags of Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon (Shutterstock/crop media)
Flags of Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon (Shutterstock/crop media)

Hezbollah to US: It's not in your interest to support Israeli attacks

Middle East

The Secretary-General of the Lebanese Hezbollah movement, Sheikh Naim Qassem, recently asserted that continued instability in Lebanon does not serve U.S. interests.

Qassem made the remarks following an Israeli airstrike on Beirut’s southern suburbs which Israel claimed had targeted a Hezbollah weapons depot.

keep readingShow less
ukraine military
UKRAINE MARCH 22, 2023: Ukrainian military practice assault tactics at the training ground before counteroffensive operation during Russo-Ukrainian War (Shutterstock/Dymtro Larin)
Ukraine War at 3: The victory we demanded and the attrition we got

Ukraine’s battlefield position is deteriorating fast

Europe

The election of U.S. President Donald Trump changed U.S. policy toward Ukraine from “as long as it takes” to seeking a negotiated peace settlement. These negotiations will be driven by the battlefield reality. The side holding the biggest advantage gets to dictate the terms. This gets more complicated if there is no ceasefire during the negotiations and the battlefield remains dynamic. Belligerents may conduct offensive operations while negotiations are progressing to improve their bargaining position. Historically in many conflicts, peace negotiations lasted years, even as the war raged on, such as during the Korean and Vietnam wars. Thus, the balance of power, measured in resources, losses and quality of strategic leadership are critical to the outcome of negotiations.

For Western powers, this carries serious consequences. They have staked their reputation on this conflict and with it, the fate of the rules-based world order. The Global South and the multipolar world order is waiting in the wings to take over. Failure to achieve victory has the potential to fatally undermine that order and remove the West from global leadership, which it has enjoyed for the last several centuries.

keep readingShow less
Russia Navy United Kingdom Putin Starmer
Top Photo: Russian small missile ships Sovetsk and Grad sail along the Neva river during a rehearsal for the Navy Day parade, in Saint Petersburg, Russia July 21, 2024. REUTERS/Anton Vaganov

How Russia’s naval rearmament has gone unnoticed

Europe

Today, there are only three global naval powers: the United States, China, and Russia. The British Royal Navy is, sadly, reduced to a small regional naval power, able occasionally to deploy further afield. If Donald Trump wants European states to look after their own collective security, Britain might be better off keeping its handful of ships in the Atlantic.

European politicians and journalists talk constantly about the huge challenge in countering an apparently imminent Russian invasion, should the U.S. back away from NATO under President Trump. With Russia’s Black Sea fleet largely confined to the eastern Black Sea during the war, although still able to inflict severe damage on Ukraine, few people talk about the real Russian naval capacity to challenge Western dominance. Or, indeed, how this will increasingly come up against U.S. naval interests in the Pacific and, potentially, in the Arctic.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

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.