This article argues against using Russia as a mediator in the Iran nuclear negotiations, citing its conflicting interests with the United States. It advocates for engaging the E3 nations to create a stronger multilateral approach that addresses the threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon.
In February, President Vladimir Putin of Russia agreed to mediate a potential nuclear agreement between the United States and Iran, following a request from U.S. President Donald Trump. Subsequent discussions occurred during a meeting in Saudi Arabia involving Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Trump has expressed his intentions for a new deal with Iran, indicating his commitment through an executive order aimed at reestablishing a pressure campaign against Tehran.
The United States government should reconsider this approach, as Russia’s interests align closely with those of Iran, rendering it an inappropriate mediator. Moscow’s involvement could undermine U.S. interests in the Middle East, creating doubts about its role as a facilitator rather than an aggressor. Washington should approach this situation with skepticism, viewing Russia’s engagement as potentially harmful rather than constructive.
Engaging with Russia as a mediator risks overlooking Moscow’s historical opposition to America’s goals in the region, similar to trusting a predator to protect prey. U.S. strategies under President Trump have also diverged significantly from the previous administration’s support for NATO allies, notably impacting U.S. relations with Ukraine.
Russia’s actions have consistently undermined U.S. interests in the Middle East, notably through support for adversarial regimes. For over a decade, Moscow has collaborated with Iran to bolster the Assad regime in Syria, while directly assisting Iran’s military capabilities at the same time. This partnership allows Iran to strengthen its regional influence, complicating U.S. and allied security efforts.
Moreover, Russia has increased its military and economic ties with Iran, aiding Tehran’s ballistic missile development and providing strategic systems like the S-300 air defense. By circumventing U.S. sanctions, Russia has fostered a thriving energy partnership that supports Iran’s economy and military agenda, undermining the effectiveness of American sanctions.
Despite its leverage over Iran, Russia’s interests correlate more closely with Tehran than those of the United States. This dynamic suggests that Moscow would exploit any mediation role to enhance its position against U.S. interests, derailing the prospects for meaningful negotiations regarding nuclear capabilities.
Trump’s desire for an agreement with Iran underscores the critical need to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons. To address this challenge effectively, the United States should not depend on Russia’s collaboration, which has historically favored Iranian objectives.
Instead, it is advisable for President Trump to engage the E3 nations—United Kingdom, France, and Germany—which are aligned with U.S. objectives concerning Iran’s nuclear ambitions. By uniting with these allies to strengthen the maximum pressure campaign, the U.S. can approach negotiations from a robust position.
Coordination with traditional allies could lead to enhanced diplomatic leverage to ensure Iran remains non-nuclear. The E3’s stance has likely evolved since their participation in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, presenting an opportunity to forge a strong multilateral effort aimed at achieving lasting security in relation to Iran’s nuclear program.
With the risks critically high, a collaborative strategy among allied nations will be essential for securing peace and preventing Iran from developing nuclear capabilities.
In conclusion, the possibility of utilizing Russia as a mediator in the Iran nuclear negotiations appears fraught with risk due to its alignment with Iran’s strategic interests, which are often at odds with those of the United States. A collaborative approach involving the E3 nations could provide a stronger framework for addressing the nuclear threat from Iran, thereby ensuring greater stability and security in the Middle East. The U.S. must pursue diplomatic engagements that prioritize the prevention of nuclear proliferation, leveraging its alliances to achieve these crucial objectives.
Original Source: foreignpolicy.com
