by Gevorg Mirzayan via: https://vz.ru/world/2025/3/7/1318799.html

“This is evidence of a general warming of relations between Moscow and Washington.” With these words, experts assess reports that Washington has asked Moscow to mediate in negotiations with Iran. Such mediation opens up both opportunities and dangers for Russia. What is this about?

The United States needs Russian help in normalizing relations with Iran. This is reported by the American publication, Bloomberg. According to its sources, Donald Trump voiced the relevant request during his talks with Vladimir Putin on February 12, and then US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov discussed it at their meeting in Saudi Arabia.

The logic of the American side is clear. Despite Trump’s dislike of Iranians, he has no time for conflict with the Islamic Republic right now – there is neither time, energy, nor desire for this. “For the Trump administration, any reduction in tensions with … Iran could be a victory, as it would not have to focus on the Middle East,” writes The Jerusalem Post.

On the other hand, the United States cannot let the situation with Iran take its course either. After the failure in Syria, the Iranians feel vulnerable – and, according to Western media, they are accelerating the process of creating a nuclear bomb as their ultimate weapon of defense.

At the same time, there is now a unique chance to resolve all the problems peacefully, partly because Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian is also a proponent of a diplomatic solution to the conflict. And the defeat in Syria, multiplied by the economic crisis in the country, allows him and his supporters to “sell” a compromise with the United States as the best solution to all problems.

It is clear that Washington and Teheran cannot speak directly, which means that an intermediary is needed. Influential and at the same time honest, whose word is trusted by both sides. That is, Russia.

“The United States understands that negotiations with Iran will be difficult, and therefore, not wanting to greatly increase the number of intermediaries, they turned to Russia.”

“They took into account Moscow’s good relations with Teheran, as well as Russia’s proven ability to manoeuvre between various players,” says Yelena Suponina, an international political scientist and expert at the Russian International Affairs Council.

Yelena Suponina speaking (in Arabic) at the Emirates Policy Centre.

Moscow neither confirms nor denies the American request for cooperation. “I cannot confirm, but I said that, in general, Putin has repeatedly said that the problem of the Iranian nuclear dossier should be solved exclusively by peaceful means. Russia, being an ally and partner of Iran, is ready to do everything possible to facilitate this process,” said Dmitry Peskov, a spokesman for the Russian president.

[Russia wants] to contribute not only because it is beneficial to an ally, but also because Russia does not need a war in the Middle East, nor nuclear proliferation, which will increase if Teheran gets a nuclear bomb. And finally, to contribute because it is beneficial to Russia. Such mediation enhances its role in the Middle East, and also makes it an important and necessary partner for Washington.

However, we must not forget about the risks of such mediation. “This proposal is evidence of the general warming of relations between Moscow and Washington, but such proposals should be treated very carefully,” adds Suponina.

“Firstly, because the level of distrust between the parties is enormous. And it’s not just about Iranian-American relations. Washington – and this is not surprising after so many years of conflict – does not trust Moscow either. But trust in an intermediary is a key condition for successful negotiations. Moscow is also not sure that Washington will comply with the agreements reached under its leadership.”

“Secondly, there is an unstable domestic political situation in both countries. Donald Trump has actually declared war on a significant part of the American foreign policy establishment, and it is far from certain that he will win it. The Iranian leadership is also split, including into supporters and opponents of negotiations with the Americans. And not only with the Americans, but also personally with Trump, the man who withdrew from the previous peace deal (concluded under Barack Obama), and also ordered the assassination of General Qassem Soleimani, the most popular figure on the Iranian street.”

“At the same time, the serious state of health of the country’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei creates additional uncertainty – no one knows who will be chosen as the successor and what policy position this successor will take. And this uncertainty, both in the United States and in Iran, does not allow us to enter into any serious, long–term deals right now.”

“Thirdly, the position of the key American allies in the region, the Israelis, cannot be ignored. “Israel has a very negative attitude towards the idea of peace talks with Iran. And Trump himself is unpredictable. Therefore, it is possible that if the negotiations break down at some stage, he will take into account Benjamin Netanyahu’s idea of forceful solutions to the Iranian issue,” says Suponina.

Finally, Iran’s skepticism about the warming of Russian-American relations should be taken into account.

A number of politicians and experts in Teheran believe that Russia, in exchange for concessions from the United States, will be able to distance itself from allied relations with Iran. And neither the recently signed strategic agreement, nor the statements of the Russian leadership, nor elementary common sense (dictating that no one should change a strategic partner for American promises) can convince them. And Russia’s attempts to mediate, as well as generally discuss the Iranian issue in negotiations with the Americans, may strengthen these suspicions and, therefore, harm bilateral relations.

At the same time, there are always risks – they are the flip side of opportunities. And Russian diplomacy has repeatedly proven its ability to sail safely between the reefs of world politics.