“World War III could break out at any moment if he continues on his irrational course.” These words, belonging to the vice-chairman of the Russian Security Council and former president of the country, Dmitry Medvedev, describe the accelerated deterioration of bilateral relations and , in the wake of the war in .
From softening to sharpening
Medvedev’s position – considered by the Kremlin’s “hierarchs” – was made in the context of an interview with the TASS news agency (Tuesday, 03/03) and was accompanied by the assessment that “the war started by Trump is a fatal mistake” with the ultimate goal of “maintaining the global hegemony of the USA”. He did not hesitate to call European leaders “submissive sycophants”, while asserting that “from now on Iran will pursue the creation of nuclear weapons with redoubled determination”.
This was followed by the representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Maria Zakharova, who in her statements (Wednesday, 04/03) to the media accused the US of using an imaginary threat from Iran as a pretext to overthrow the country’s constitutional order and stated that Washington’s calls to the Iranians to take power from their leaders are cynical and inhumane.
It is not the first time that both have resorted to extreme statements against European leaders or used harsh language against the “collective West”. However, it is the first time that the American president himself, who until recently was credited by the Kremlin as a “peacemaker” (), is now being targeted by Moscow, betting a lot on the personal chemistry between Presidents Trump and Putin, which was emphatically reflected in the meeting held on August 15, in Anchorage, Alaska.
Six months later, the Russian president, referring to the death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, speaks of “a cynical murder that violates all human morality and International Law”, pointing indirectly but clearly at his American counterpart.
Turning point or opportunity?
The reason behind the recent escalation is none other than Iran, which is emerging as a tipping point for relations between the two most powerful nuclear powers. For the Russian side, the scenario of the collapse of such an important diplomatic and economic ally is a sign of a decline in its power. It comes on top of a series of emphatic defeats for Kremlin allies, including the kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and the fall of Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad.
“Russia’s weakness reflects its strategic degradation,” comments Tatiana Kastueva-Jean, a researcher at the French Institute of International Relations (IFRI), speaking to Monde. And he adds: “In Syria, in Venezuela, in the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, Moscow proved incapable of protecting its allies and influencing the outcome.”
This finding seems to be confirmed by the reluctance of the Russian government to provide substantial military assistance to Tehran. “Any help will probably be exhausted in the area of repression, as with the recent anti-government protests where Moscow supplied the Iranian authorities with digital surveillance tools,” Nicole Grajewski, a professor at the Center for International Relations at the French university Sciences Po Paris, points out to Monde. In a recent article in the digital edition of Foreign Policy, she emphasized that although Russia has no intention of active involvement, it will do everything it can to indirectly support the theocratic regime.
There is also a different approach. Not a few analysts point out that the fuel shortage – a result of the blockade of the Straits of Hormuz and Iranian raids on the oil infrastructure of the Gulf monarchies – offers a rare opportunity for Russia to
re-enter the bidding game strongly, after the drop in its oil revenues. In addition, the fact that Iran remains high on the list of international priorities facilitates the designs of the Russian armed forces on the Ukrainian war front.
Returning to the rift between the Kremlin and Washington, the question of whether it is final remains open. In an article for the Lowy Institute think tank, former New Zealand ambassador to Russia Ian Hill offers an intermediate perspective. “Russia hopes the US will engage in a costly conflict that will upset the balance in the Middle East, allowing Moscow to step in a second time to rebuild diplomatic alliances.”
Is there a middle ground between friendship and enmity? And how quickly does negotiation follow escalation? Vladimir Putin’s letter to his Iranian counterpart, Massoud Pezheskian, in which he condemned the attack on the one hand and avoided any mention of the US in general and Trump in particular, gives a first indirect answer about the flexibility in international affairs
