The Kremlin’s expectations appeared markedly pessimistic in the fourth week of the Iran war, as confidence grew that Russia’s ability to influence the conflict was waning and that the repercussions for one of its key partners could be severe.
With limited leverage, the Kremlin’s main options now seem to be avoiding direct involvement while closely monitoring the fallout, particularly signs of widening divisions between Washington and European capitals — and what one veteran Russian diplomat described as “driving the final wedge” into transatlantic relations.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov summed up the mood: “No reasonable person would dare predict how the situation in the Middle East will evolve, but it is clear that things are moving toward the worse.”
From the outset, Russian assessments have focused on two key assumptions: that air strikes alone cannot topple Iran’s political system, regardless of their scale, and that ending the war without a costly ground intervention would be difficult for the attacking parties.
A second assumption is that any cessation of hostilities would resemble the outcome of the brief 12-day war of 2025, with each side claiming success without achieving its ultimate objectives, particularly Israel’s stated goal of dismantling Iran’s ruling system.
Such a scenario would suit Moscow, even if Iran were to emerge weakened but still cohesive under its leadership.
Despite increasingly pessimistic forecasts about a potential geographic expansion of the conflict, Moscow believes Tehran has so far absorbed the initial blow and shifted the confrontation into a war of attrition. Russian officials are also banking on possible internal developments within Washington and Tel Aviv, as well as growing divergences with European allies.
Peskov has repeatedly stressed that military operations against Iran have led to greater cohesion among the Iranian people around their leadership, adding that attempts at regime change tend to produce the opposite effect.
He also condemned ongoing assassination campaigns targeting Iranian leaders, calling the situation “abnormal” and warning of “serious consequences.” In a pointed remark, he added that Iran is “actively defending itself against attacks on its territory.”
These statements underline Russia’s primary bet: that Iran’s internal stability will hold, while divisions deepen among its adversaries.
Putin’s mediation effort
President Vladimir Putin initially sought to use the crisis to bolster Russia’s diplomatic standing by proposing rapid mediation to halt the war.
During the first week, he held a series of calls with regional leaders, criticizing Iranian strikes on Gulf countries while emphasizing Moscow’s ability to send “direct messages” to Tehran.
Russia also revived earlier proposals discussed in Oman concerning Iran’s nuclear capabilities and missile program. Moscow offered to take control of enriched uranium and transfer it to Russian territory, while guaranteeing that Iran’s missile capabilities would not be used against Israel or neighboring states.
The proposal was also raised during Putin’s only call with US President Donald Trump in the second week of the war. However, it failed to gain traction in either Tel Aviv — which insists on a military solution — or Washington, where Trump signaled that Putin should first resolve the Ukraine conflict before seeking a role elsewhere.
Limited support for Iran
Against this backdrop, the Kremlin’s options for meaningful intervention appear extremely limited. Complicating matters are accusations that Moscow has provided valuable intelligence support to Iran.
These claims gained weight when US presidential envoy Steve Witkoff reportedly issued a strong warning to Moscow, and the issue was raised directly during the Trump-Putin call.
Nevertheless, Russian circles argue that Moscow has little choice but to continue offering indirect assistance to Tehran while avoiding provoking Washington.
According to Russian media sources, this support takes two main forms: sharing limited intelligence on Israeli movements — carefully calibrated to avoid harming US interests — and providing indirect backing through private companies specializing in cyber technologies, an area where Russia and China have made significant advances.
European repercussions
Another key aspect of Russia’s strategy is its close monitoring of how the war is affecting Ukraine and European positions, which Moscow still sees as the main obstacle to ending the conflict on its terms.
There is little concealment of Russian satisfaction at Europe’s difficulties amid the war, particularly fears over rising oil and gas prices and the prospect of easing sanctions on Moscow to offset supply shortages.
Kremlin commentary suggests that European priorities are shifting, with energy costs replacing Ukraine at the top of government agendas.
Veteran Russian diplomat Alexander Yakovenko argued that the Middle East crisis, combined with the fallout from Ukraine, is intensifying tensions within the transatlantic alliance.
He pointed to German Chancellor Friedrich Merz rejecting a US request to help secure the Strait of Hormuz as evidence of deepening strains. Trump, he noted, responded by describing NATO as a “paper tiger.”
According to Yakovenko, the coming weeks will be decisive for the Iran conflict and its broader consequences. He added that transatlantic relations are facing a severe crisis, with disagreements over Ukraine fueling European opposition to Trump, a factor that could influence the US midterm elections in November.
More broadly, he warned that a US setback in Iran would weaken Washington’s position vis-à-vis Beijing, noting that China has already used export controls on rare earth minerals to counter US trade pressure.
In this context, Yakovenko sees the emergence of three dominant global powers — the United States, China and Russia — with Europe increasingly sidelined.
Such a shift, he suggested, would echo the post-World War II Yalta-Potsdam order, albeit with China replacing Britain, marking the end of two centuries of Western containment of Russia.
