While many EU countries continue to grapple with the implications of the United States’ stance on Ukraine and NATO. Simultaneously, in the Middle East Iran’s concerns regarding Trump’s new order were no less than those of Europe. Iran is anxiously monitoring potential actions from President Trump, especially as its nuclear issue remains a critical topic that is expected to be addressed in the near future.
The scandale meeting in which the U.S. President Donald Trump publicly rebuked outgoing President Volodymyr Zelensky resonated strongly in Tehran. Iranian conservatives became increasingly entrenched in their refusal to negotiate with the United States, viewing the incident involving Zelensky as a cautionary tale. They drew support for their stance from the Supreme Leader of the Iranian Revolution, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who asserted that negotiations with the U.S. would be “is not wise, it is not intelligent, it is not honorable.”
The internal divisions in Iran have reached a peak between the moderates, represented by President Massoud Pezeshkian and his team—essentially the Iranian government,[1] and the conservatives,[2] in which the Iranian parliament ousted the Minister of Economy, Abdolnaser Hemmati. who had advocated for the necessity of negotiation with the United States in order to lift sanctions and improve Iran’s struggling economic situation,[3] In contrast,the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has urged the government to adopt a “resistance economy to offset sanctions” asserting that negotiations with the United States “will have no effect on solving the country’s problems”but rather “will subject the country to economic and ideological US domination.
At the same time, the judiciary forced the resignation of Vice President for Strategic Affairs Mohammad Javad Zarif—who played a pivotal role in drafting the 2015 Iran nuclear deal and was known for his open and moderate stance advocating for direct negotiations with the United States, as well as his involvement in initiating the Amity instead of enmity Initiative after the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime—indicating that Iran is shifting towards a hardline policy at a critical moment. By excluding him now, Iran’s hardliners seem to be driving the final nail into the coffin of negotiations with the United States.
During the same parliamentary session in which the vote of confidence was withdrawn from the Minister of Economy, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian made a noteworthy statement:
«I believed it would be better to have a dialogue, but the leadership said we will not have a dialogue with America, and we will move forward in line with the words of the Supreme Leader of the Revolution.» Masoud Pezzekian tried his best to convince his opposition of the necessity of talks with the US «We are in a full-scale war with the enemy.» but it seems all his efforts are in vain, at the end this pressure from the opposition is threatening Pezzekian’s government as whole.
The divisions within Iran’s leadership regarding negotiations with the United States over the Iranian nuclear issue are rapidly escalating. The conservative faction, led by Supreme Leader Khamenei, argues that negotiations are futile, citing Iran’s previous experience with the 2015 agreement with the P5+1 group, from which President Trump unilaterally withdrew in 2018. This faction also holds Trump responsible for the assassination of General Qassem Soleimani in 2020 and for the imposition of economic sanctions on Iran. Their position is further reinforced by referencing the situation involving Zelensky’s scandal at the oval office as evidence for their viewpoint.
Conversely, the moderates, represented by President Pezeshkian and his team, advocate for direct negotiations with Washington, emphasizing the necessity of engaging with Donald Trump to navigate the critical situation and safeguard the country from potentially adverse scenarios that could provoke conflict, for which Iran may bear significant consequences. This urgency is underscored by the challenging regional landscape, as Iran’s allies have suffered substantial losses and are increasingly unable to play any role in the event of an attack.
Additionally, two prominent regional powers—Turkey and Israel—are openly threatening Iran. Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan has explicitly accused Iran of supporting groups he labels as oppositional in Syria, referring specifically to the Alawites and Kurds. He warned that Iran will face instability if it makes any destabilizing move in Syria saying “If you try to create instability in another country by supporting a certain group, then another country may do the same to you in return.”.It is in Turkey’s interest to weaken Iran to mitigate the threat posed by its status as a major regional power bordering Syria, along with any potential future influence it may wield. Furthermore, Turkey aims to curtail Iranian support for Kurdish groups in northeastern Syria.
On the other hand, Israel perceives itself as the strongest regional player at present, and the Israeli Prime Minister has consistently seized opportunities to send threats against Iran. Israel has considered itself made significant progress, beginning with confrontations involving Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Syrian regime, all aimed at ultimately addressing its objectives in Tehran and neutralizing the regime there. This has been particularly underscored since Netanyahu announced that Israel will not confine its efforts to the borders of Gaza, but intends to reshape the Middle East. He stated, “We are preparing for the next stages of the war—on seven fronts.” in addition to the IDF chief Zamir statements in which he declared «2025 a year of war on Gaza and Iran» «with other fronts also being given attention.»
This assertion aligns with reports, indicating that the Israeli and U.S. Air Forces carried out a major joint military exercise over the Mediterranean Sea, marking their first collaboration of this magnitude in two years. simulating coordinated strikes on common targets.[4]
In addition to the letter from the Jewish Institute for National Security of America that a group of 77 retired U.S. generals and admirals has called on President Trump to support Israeli military action against Iran, warning that Tehran is becoming closer than ever to having nuclear weapons capability. They expressed that a nuclear-armed Iran poses a significant threat to U.S. national security and urged urgent military assistance to Israel to counter this threat, citing Iran’s increased uranium enrichment and delays with IAEA inspections.
The current circumstances do little to foster optimism about preventing a potential confrontation if the situation is not addressed promptly. The Russian government is acutely aware of this precarious reality and the urgent need for swift action, expressed through the Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov stated, “Russia believes that the United States and Iran should resolve all problems through negotiations” and affirmed that Moscow is “ready to do everything in its power to achieve this,”
In fact, the Russian mission faces significant challenges due to the lack of a unified stance within Iran regarding negotiations with the United States. The internal divisions in Iran further complicate the situation. Notably, the conservatives have made their resistance to U.S. negotiations clear through the ousting of Javad Zarif, who was a symbol of negotiation with the US. This move indicates that the conservative bloc intends to obstruct progress in discussions with the U.S. Therefore, Russia’s primary task in Iran would be to persuade the conservative faction to accept the idea of negotiations with the U.S. before commencing any negotiation efforts, which is not an easy one.
In fact these actions compel us to consider a critical question: What is the hardline conservative party in Iran hoping to achieve by dismissing the prospect of negotiations? There are various internal, regional, and international factors that they must examine objectively and seriously, even if acknowledging these factors poses a significant challenge and pain for them. Nonetheless, this is an undeniable reality; dismissing it will not resolve Iran’s issues but rather exacerbate them.
The internal economic situation is dire, and the long-standing reliance on the Iranian populace to endure hardships through the «resistance economy» policy may not be viable this time around. The regional landscape has also shifted; Iran can no longer exert its influence in Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen with the same strength and momentum, as its economic fragility significantly undermines its capacity to support its remaining power in these areas. Consequently, Iran finds itself with limited means to apply substantial pressure against Israel, a close ally of the United States.
Additionally, a new variable has emerged on the international stage: Donald Trump, whose approach to foreign policy markedly diverges from the traditional methods to which the world has become accustomed. Consequently, Iran must adapt, remain flexible, and develop new strategies for engaging with the United States and managing the evolving situation. In this context, the prospect of Russian mediation is viewed as highly significant.
In other words, can we assert that a unified vision between the two superpowers overseeing the negotiation processes is essential for reaching a final agreement on outstanding issues? Aligning on a common perspective in dealing with Iran could be a decisive factor. Would this alignment encourage Iran to adopt a more flexible and accommodating stance, similar to Zelensky’s response when he realized that NATO and European nations, without U.S. support, could not provide effective assistance on the ground or achieve significant shifts in the balance of power? Or would the situation with Iran prove the opposite? If Iran perceives that Russia and the United States are on the same page, might it then seek assistance from another major power, such as China, as a third superpower? Would this shift the dynamics once again?
The Cold War, as history illustrates, led to significant global polarization, driven by the competing interests and objectives of two superpowers: the United States and the Soviet Union. This bipolarity fostered a highly charged environment where conflicting parties felt emboldened to seek support from one of these superpowers. As a result, nations found themselves drawn into a web of ideological and strategic alliances, amplifying tensions and shaping international relations for decades. The impact of this rivalry extended beyond military proxies; it influenced economic policies, cultural exchanges, and the very fabric of societies around the world. The legacy of the Cold War reminds us of the enduring complexities of geopolitical divisions and the far-reaching consequences of superpower competition.
However, one can ponder: if the Russians and American powers were to adopt a collaborative stance on international and regional conflicts, could this lead to a more stable and secure global system? Might such cooperation represent a transformative shift in international relations—one where the perspectives of Russia and the United States align on a majority of issues? Would this newfound consensus promote greater stability in the world? or will it create new counter-alliances?
In other words, the existence of understanding between these two superpowers in managing diplomatic negotiations could facilitate the resolution of long standing conflicts. For instance, if the U.S. and Russia were to present a united front in their approach to Iran, could this encourage Tehran to adopt a more conciliatory position? Would Iran be willing to adjust its stance in light of the demonstrated limitations of European support, as seen in the case of Ukraine, where Zelensky recognized that effective military support of NATO and Europe could not be secured without the backing of the United States? which pushed him to rethink his stance and limited options. How would Iran react to such a situation where it could perceive an understanding between the Trump administration and Russia.?
The current interplay between Russia and the United States holds the potential to create a fundamentally new international order, provided both countries embrace a shared vision for addressing interconnected global issues. By establishing cooperative frameworks that promote global stability, they can mitigate tensions and foster collaboration. The successful resolution of the Ukrainian and Iranian cases might serve as a leading example of this potential for cooperation.
[1] which constitutes the executive authority
[2] which holds the majority in both parliament and the judiciary, representing the legislative and judicial authorities.The conservatives control the intelligence services, the Revolutionary Guard, the judicial oversight bodies, and the bodies entrusted with protecting the revolution in general, especially the Guardian Council. These bodies dominate political life.
[3] Rising prices and shrinking purchasing power are major challenges, as the rial has reached a record low, with the exchange rate for the US dollar now at 940,000 rials. The typical worker earns about $120 a month, whereas official estimates indicate that at least $500 is necessary for a family of three to meet basic survival needs. Meanwhile, inflation continues to rise, exacerbated by Donald Trump’s «maximum pressure» policy against Iran. https://www.iranintl.com/en/202503017712.
[4] The exercise involved numerous fighter jets, strategic B-52 bombers, and refueling aircraft.
