The Dangers of Trusting Russia to Mediate the Iran Nuclear Deal

Russian President Vladimir Putin has agreed to mediate a new U.S.-Iran nuclear agreement at Trump’s request. However, involving Russia as a mediator is deemed imprudent due to its aligned interests with Iran, which could undermine U.S. and allied efforts. A collaborative approach with E3 nations would better serve U.S. interests by strengthening the maximum pressure campaign against Iran.

This month, Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed to engage as a mediator in developing a new nuclear agreement between the United States and Iran. This decision reportedly follows a request from U.S. President Donald Trump during a phone conversation in February. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is said to have reiterated this request during a meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Saudi Arabia. Trump is adamant about pursuing a new deal, evidenced by his recent executive order reinstating the maximum pressure campaign and a letter sent to Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

It is imperative for the White House to reconsider this strategy. Russia’s vested interests align more closely with Iran’s, rendering it an inappropriate mediator that could severely hinder U.S. objectives in the Middle East. Historically, Moscow has behaved like an arsonist in the region. Therefore, Washington should exhibit skepticism towards Russia’s newfound role as a perceived peacekeeper regarding Iran.

The belief that Putin shares America’s commitment to thwarting an Iranian nuclear weapon is misguided. It is akin to trusting a predator to negotiate peace rather than protect its prey. A more plausible outcome would involve Russia and Iran collaborating at the detriment of U.S. interests, which undermines the integrity of any potential agreement.

Recent shifts in U.S. foreign policy vis-à-vis Europe spotlight Trump’s contrasting stance with that of former President Joe Biden. Biden actively sought to bolster NATO support for Ukraine amid Russia’s aggression, while Trump has criticized Ukraine and European allies. This pivot diminishes the rationale for inviting Russia into the Iran negotiations, as Moscow’s consistent undermining of U.S. positions in the Middle East complicates any prospect for constructive mediation.

Throughout history, Russia’s support for antagonistic regimes like Bashar al-Assad’s in Syria has aligned it with Iran, thus threatening the security of U.S. partners in the region. Russia’s actions, including military support for militant groups such as Hezbollah, pose direct risks to U.S. interests and Israel’s security. Furthermore, Russia’s recent provision of advanced weaponry has enhanced Iran’s military capabilities, intensifying threats against regional security.

Russia’s collaboration in supporting the Houthis in Yemen has adversely affected international shipping, which is vital for global commerce and the economic stability of countries like Egypt. Militarily aiding insurgent groups while undermining regional stability signifies a pattern of behavior at odds with U.S. interests.

Additionally, Russia’s military and economic assistance has bolstered Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities. Not only has Russia defied U.S. sanctions through trade interactions with Iran, but it has also contributed to Iran’s resilience against such sanctions by investing in its energy infrastructure. The深化合作 treaty signed earlier this year between both nations further consolidates their alliance.

Although Russia stands in a position of power over Iran, its interests remain aligned more with Tehran than Washington. This dynamic will likely result in Moscow leveraging its role to the detriment of U.S. objectives, undermining efforts to achieve a meaningful nuclear agreement. Hence, any partnership with Russia in these negotiations risks empowering Iran rather than restraining it from developing nuclear weapons.

Given that Trump is determined to reach an agreement with Iran, it is crucial that he refrains from involving adversaries such as Russia. Instead, he should collaborate with the E3 states—namely the United Kingdom, France, and Germany—to unify interests regarding Iranian nuclear development. A multilateral approach with these allies would bolster the maximum pressure campaign against Iran and empower the U.S. when negotiating from a position of strength.

Despite differences regarding European security, shared priorities on the Iranian issue can form a basis for cooperation among the E3 nations. The previous hesitations to exit the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action may have shifted, presenting an opportunity for Trump to reinvigorate a multilateral strategy aimed at deterring Iran from nuclear armament, thereby fulfilling the promise of “peace through strength.”

In summary, involving Russia as a mediator in the Iran nuclear deal is ill-advised given its conflicting interests with the United States. Russia’s historical actions, characterized by its support for Iran and anti-U.S. activities in the Middle East, undermine American interests. Instead, a unified front with E3 allies represents a more strategic approach that reinforces efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear capabilities. Engaging with trusted allies would enhance the maximum pressure campaign and ensure a stronger negotiating position for the United States.

Original Source: foreignpolicy.com