This article argues against relying on Russia as a mediator in the Iran nuclear deal, citing conflicting interests and historical support for Iranian actions contrary to U.S. objectives. It advocates for a collaborative approach with E3 allies to strengthen the maximum pressure campaign instead.
In recent discussions, Russian President Vladimir Putin accepted a role as the mediator for a new nuclear agreement involving the United States and Iran at the requests of U.S. President Donald Trump. Following up on Trump’s communication in February, Secretary of State Marco Rubio reportedly reiterated this request during a meeting in Saudi Arabia with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Trump has expressed a desire for a new deal with Iran, evident in his actions to reimplement the maximum pressure campaign and direct communications with Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
However, it is imperative for the White House to reconsider this engagement with Russia. Moscow’s alliance with Iran conflicts with U.S. interests in the region, raising doubts about Russia’s suitability as a mediator and its potential to sabotage American positions, along with that of its allies. Trusting Russia, a historically disruptive actor in the Middle East, would be unwise as it could further exacerbate existing tensions.
The belief that Russia would align its actions to protect U.S. interests in preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon is naive. The relationship between Russia and Iran resembles a predatory dynamic rather than a cooperative negotiation aimed at mutual benefit. Each party’s self-interests suggest that they are more likely to collude rather than facilitate an agreement that genuinely safeguards Western interests.
Moreover, Trump’s shift in U.S. policy towards Europe complicates matters. While previous administrations sought collaborative approaches with NATO allies to counter Russian aggression in Ukraine, Trump appears more favorable towards reconciliations with Russia. This pivot raises concerns about the implications of allowing Moscow to influence negotiations concerning Iran.
Historically, Russia has consistently undermined U.S. goals in the Middle East by supporting adversarial forces such as Iran and its regional proxies. Notably, Russia’s backing of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has contributed to the humanitarian crisis in Syria, indicating its alignment with Iranian interests against U.S. allies like Israel.
Additionally, Russia’s support for the Houthis in Yemen and its ongoing military and economic relationship with Iran indicate its vested interest in the current power dynamics in the region. This intra-alliance strengthens Iran’s capacity to disrupt not only regional but also global commerce, indicating a shared agenda that is hostile to U.S. objectives.
Despite any potential leverage Russia might wield over Iran, its consistent opposition to U.S. interests suggests that Moscow would exploit its position to further its geopolitical aims, rather than facilitate the prevention of Iranian nuclear capability. Engaging Russia as a mediator could inadvertently strengthen Iran’s position against U.S and allied interests.
Trump’s commitment to achieving a deal with Iran, especially regarding nuclear non-proliferation, is vital for both U.S. security and Israel’s safety. However, relying on Russia poses significant risks given its history of antagonism towards U.S. goals. Instead, a more effective strategy would be for Trump to collaborate with the E3 states—Britain, France, and Germany—who share a united interest in deterring Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
An E3-led approach could bolster the existing maximum pressure campaign into a more robust multilateral effort, presenting a united front in negotiations with Iran. As the geopolitical landscape shifts, collaboration with these European allies could lead to a more favorable outcome regarding nuclear issue management, aligning with Trump’s policies to assure “peace through strength.”
In conclusion, the engagement of Russia as a mediator in the Iran nuclear negotiations poses significant risks due to its contradictory interests and historical support for antagonistic actors in the region. The United States should pivot towards strengthening ties with its E3 allies, utilizing a collaborative approach to reinforce pressure against Iran. This strategy would better serve U.S. security objectives and help prevent Iranian nuclear armament without the detrimental influence of a geopolitically adversarial Russia.
Original Source: foreignpolicy.com
