Talking about the Middle East: Russia is ready to help the United States and Iran break the deadlock

Moscow is ready to become a mediator and help find a way out of the diplomatic impasse over the Iranian crisis. But in practice, this is complicated by a serious divergence of views between Washington and Tehran on the "correct conclusion" of the conflict, as well as the general rush of the United States due to the approaching deadlines of the anti-Iranian operation. The position of Israel, which wants to withdraw from the campaign only on its own terms, without regard to the White House, is also not completely clear. This, coupled with the general uncertainty, greatly narrows the possibilities for diplomacy, experts interviewed by Izvestia believe.

What did Putin and Trump talk about?

In a telephone conversation between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump on April 29, the Middle East issue became one of the main topics. According to Russian Presidential aide Yuri Ushakov, the two leaders exchanged views on the situation around Iran and discussed prospects for further diplomatic settlement of the crisis.

Among other things, Putin told Trump that he considered his decision to extend the ceasefire to be correct: according to the Russian leader, this should help stabilize the situation in the Middle East and eliminate the "inevitable, extremely harmful consequences" of the resumption of US military actions for the entire region.

"Russia is firmly committed to providing all possible assistance to diplomatic efforts to find a peaceful solution to the [Iranian] crisis and has proposed a number of considerations aimed at resolving disagreements over the Iranian nuclear program," Ushakov commented on the results of the conversation.

Moscow does not disclose the details of the mediation scheme proposed to Washington. Although it follows from the theses that have become public that active contacts will be put at the forefront not only with the Iranian elites, but also with the leaders of the Persian Gulf countries and Israel, who are no less involved in the conflict.

As Ivan Bocharov, the INF program manager, noted in an interview with Izvestia, Russia is able to contribute to resolving the crisis, not least due to its significant political and diplomatic weight.

— Despite the fact that Russia is now more associated with Iran, Moscow has a good tradition of constructive relations with Israel and Arab countries. Contacts, albeit in a limited format, are maintained with the United States. So at the current stage of the crisis in the Middle East, Russia can be, if not a mediator, then at least a party capable of facilitating the negotiation process," the expert noted.

The United States is looking for a way out of the crisis

The White House's reaction after the leaders' conversation was restrained. Trump drew his counterpart's attention to the results of the military confrontation with the Islamic Republic, and also reiterated the thesis about the "difficult situation in which Iran and its leadership are" — thereby hinting that it is the United States that is in a "strong position" in negotiations with Tehran. However, he did not abandon the continuation of diplomatic efforts.

The White House is in desperate need of a breakthrough — and Trump himself has become a hostage to the framework he had previously established. On May 1, the 60-day limit on conducting military operations without congressional approval expires. If Washington is unable to overpower Tehran by this point, Republicans will either have to seek lawmakers' permission to continue the war, or unilaterally curtail the operation.

And given that the Democrats have already begun work on "legally blocking" Trump's request, the White House will have to provide congressmen with convincing evidence of the expediency of further combating Iran in order to maintain its position.

In order to consolidate the appearance of a "position of strength," the White House does not make concessions to Iran, even if they are able to restore the previous intensity of the negotiation process. In particular, the other day, Trump rejected the settlement formula proposed by Tehran, under which the United States should first open the Strait of Hormuz and lift the naval blockade, and only then discuss the nuclear program. Instead, the Republican advised his opponents to "get smarter" and accept the US position without preconditions.

In addition, Trump constantly focuses on the fact that Iran is "in a state of collapse" and asks the United States for concessions during a difficult period for them. "They want us to 'open the Strait of Hormuz' as soon as possible while they try to deal with the situation with the leadership (and I believe they will succeed!)," he wrote earlier on the Truth Social network.

The situation around the new round of talks in Islamabad remains uncertain: the United States and Iran have already announced several times their intentions to send delegations to participate, but under various pretexts withdrew them before the meetings. The parties cannot come to a compromise and therefore prefer not to waste resources on simulating interaction.

At the same time, there is a possibility that on May 1, on the eve of a certain cutoff in the US—Iranian confrontation, Tehran will try to offer the United States a "symbolic breakthrough": a new version of the agreements that will move the process forward and create a more trusting atmosphere between the delegations in Islamabad. However, whether Washington will agree to such a solution is an open question.

Can Washington resume strikes

Meanwhile, the concentration of American forces in the Middle East is showing a downward trend. In particular, according to media reports, the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford completed a ten-month duty in the region and headed to its home port to undergo scheduled maintenance and repairs. His withdrawal from the deployment zone of American forces is considered, among other things, as one of the signs of Washington's declining interest in continuing intense hostilities.

However, even with a decrease in the combined combat power of the United States in the region, the likelihood of a re-escalation still remains high. The White House is gradually leaning towards the formula of "de-escalation through escalation." According to Axios, CENTCOM CEO Brad Cooper will present new possible scenarios for the resumption of hostilities against Iran to the US president on April 30.

The Pentagon is lobbying for the idea of a "short and powerful" wave of strikes, hoping to boost the negotiation process in this way. At the same time, in this scenario, the United States, apparently, does not aim to undermine Iran's management vertical, but is trying to bring the leaders to the negotiating table and "force them to show more flexibility."

However, if the pressure exerted is not enough, Trump, judging by his statements, is ready to return to openly escalatory steps, including seizing part of the Strait of Hormuz for its unilateral opening to commercial vessels or agreeing on a limited land operation in the coastal areas of Iran.

However, this approach is still considered more as a last resort. Publicly, the White House continues to lobby for a prolonged blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and systemic pressure on the Iranian economy and oil exports.

Tehran, on the other hand, shows no signs of internal breakdown and takes a tough negotiating position — and, more importantly, considers itself a party that should dictate terms to Washington, not the other way around. This is due, among other things, to the growing influence of conservatives (primarily those from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)) on the country's foreign policy course.

In this regard, political analyst Dastan Tokoldoshev draws attention to the fact that, even taking into account the general heterogeneity of Iran's military elites, the ongoing blockade of the Strait of Hormuz by Tehran provides a good lever of pressure on the United States and pushes for a delay in negotiations. At the same time, there is also an opinion that the Iranians are still ready for mutual detente if the guarantee mechanism is stable and transparent.

"If their conditions are accepted and Washington abandons its demands on the Islamic Republic's nuclear program, we can count on early commensurate mutual steps by Tehran," the expert believes.

According to Tokoldoshev, the formula lobbied by the United States to "reduce tension without concessions to Iran" significantly reduces the likelihood of Washington and Tehran reaching a sustainable compromise.

Israel's interests in the conflict

When developing a strategy towards Iran, the United States is forced to take into account the interests of Israel, which is on a parallel settlement track in the current conflict. Trump is constantly in contact with the Prime Minister of the Jewish state, Benjamin Netanyahu, and regulates the country's actions almost manually. In particular, he had previously called on Netanyahu to maintain the "targeted nature" of attacks on Lebanon in order not to provoke Tehran into a unilateral violation of the "regime of silence."

Israel generally supports Washington's desire to maintain the truce, although it evaluates regional dynamics mainly from alarmist positions. Netanyahu's entourage believes that the "protracted search for options" reduces the strategic advantage that the United States and Israel achieved in the first weeks of the operation.

According to Israeli media, citing sources in the IDF leadership, during the period of silence, the IRGC managed to restore and clear the passages to most of the so-called rocket cities, which offset the damage from pre-emptive bombing and significantly increased the capabilities of the Iranian missile forces to strike in the event of a new round of escalation.

At the same time, the Israelis, apparently, do not want to act as instigators of the conflict, and therefore prefer to wait for the decision of the White House. At the same time, he concentrated the resources released after the end of the operation on securing a foothold in the "buffer zone" in Lebanon. However, with an important caveat: Israel will interpret the degree of failure of negotiations between the United States and Iran (and, as a result, the expediency of switching to a military option) on its own; without prior consultations with the White House and any synchronization of assessments.

Such uncertainty further complicates the work of international mediators. To break the deadlock, the parties need a common denominator that will help develop a permanent mechanism. However, it seems that the participants in the Middle East crisis are not yet able to find him.