Iran International
While Iran denies receiving a letter from President Donald Trump demanding nuclear talks, statements by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, the foreign ministry and Iran's UN ambassador Saeed Iravani appear to be responses to it.
The officials' statements suggest that the letter or message contained a mix of carrots and sticks. They also indicate that Iran may be open to Trump’s proposals, provided the talks remain strictly focused on the nuclear issue, as Iravani stated.
Iravani further suggested that Iran can take part in talks with America only to convince Washington that its nuclear program is peaceful.
At another level, media, commentators, and politicians seem perplexed by Trump’s approach. As political analyst Ali Bigdeli told the pro-reform daily Arman Melli, “Trump’s statements about Iran have confused everyone.” He added that “Trump disregards diplomatic protocols and seeks to stage a show of power.”
“He wants to overwhelm the other side, leaving them uncertain about how to respond,” Bigdeli said. Given this, he suggested that Iran might be better off using European mediators rather than engaging with Trump directly.
At the same time, in a commentary in the reformist daily Shargh, Iran's former ambassador to Riyadh Mohammad Hosseini has predicted that "the possibility of a military attack by the United States and Israel on Iran is serious and highly likely in the near future."
Hosseini outlined 10 reasons and indicators suggesting that an attack on Iran is imminent. These include the shared Israeli and US assessment of a shifting balance of power in the region, Iran’s declining ability to respond to threats, and officials in both countries recognizing the weakening ties between the Iranian people and their government.
Hosseini added that Israel and the United States recognize Iran has accelerated uranium enrichment to weaponization levels. He also noted that both countries are aware of Iran’s loss of strategic depth in the region and the likelihood that Russia could use Iran as a bargaining chip in negotiations over Ukraine.
Ali Hossein Ghazizadeh, London-based Iran International analyst, said that Trump understands Iranians will not agree to negotiations under pressure, yet he insists on talks solely to demonstrate that Iran is unwilling to engage.
Meanwhile, former diplomat Fereydoun Majlesi told local media that IAEA Chief Rafael Grossi is concerned about the possible weaponization of Tehran's nuclear program. Another concern for the West is nuclear proliferation in the region as a result of regional countries' rivalry with Iran.
He noted that the United Arab Emirates has already built a nuclear power plant, and Turkey and Saudi Arabia may also be encouraged to develop their own nuclear programs. Majlesi added that Grossi recognizes Iran's ability to effectively circumvent US economic sanctions, making it less likely to abandon enrichment. He quoted Grossi as saying that Iran’s nuclear program has gained new momentum since the US withdrew from the 2015 nuclear deal.
Former chairman of the Iranian parliament's foreign relations committee, Heshmatollah Falahatpisheh, told the conservative Nameh News website that Trump's threats against Iran are mere "bluffs" and that now is not the right time for Iran to negotiate with him.
State TV commentator Hassan Hanizadeh also dismissed Trump's "war or negotiation" rhetoric as "empty threats," arguing that Trump has no real intention of negotiating with Iran.
Meanwhile, Iran's former chief diplomat in London, Jalal Sadatian, told Nameh News that while Trump might soften his stance on Iran’s nuclear program, he is unlikely to change his broader approach to dealing with Iran.
Bruised by its falling out with Europe and feeling encircled by US-led sanctions, Moscow is likely to act as a spoiler, neither allowing its Mideast ally to be decisively weakened nor fully insulated from Western demands over its nuclear program.
Russia said this week that it seeks an agreement along the lines of an international nuclear deal in 2015 it signed onto along with the United States, signaling it might join the effort to press Tehran on its escalating nuclear enrichment.
The remarks may suggest Moscow believes Iran might limit its nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief.
Russia has a vested interest in preventing this issue from escalating into a full-blown crisis. Moscow sees Iran’s economic collapse—driven by US sanctions and chronic mismanagement—as a liability, weakening Tehran’s regional influence.
Iran’s diminishing ability to project power in Syria and Iraq threatens Russia’s own strategic foothold, particularly in Syria, where it has invested heavily. A destabilized Iran could also complicate Russia’s broader geopolitical maneuvers, including its efforts to counter Western influence in the Middle East.
Leave Iran in limbo
Russia benefits from an Iran that is economically viable but not fully reintegrated into the global system—dependent enough on Moscow to remain aligned, yet stable enough to prevent regional turmoil.
Iran is desperate for sanctions relief, but is unlikely to fully abandon its nuclear ambitions, which it views as a core element of national security. It could be persuaded by Russia, however, to limit certain aspects of its nuclear program in exchange for economic concessions without fully relinquishing its capabilities.
However, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei remains firm in his opposition to direct negotiations with the US, a stance rooted in ideology and mistrust.
In 2013, his policy of “heroic flexibility” allowed for the eventual deal to come about in 2015—the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), as it’s known officially. But the context has since shifted. Trump’s withdrawal from the deal in 2018 as well as Iran’s deepening reliance on Russia and China have hardened his position.
Any renewed talks would require guarantees that Iran is unlikely to trust, making a diplomatic breakthrough more difficult.
Avoiding war
Meanwhile, Western powers are increasingly considering a snapback of UN sanctions in the next few months. That could escalate tensions to the point of military confrontation—particularly with Israel, which has consistently warned that it will not allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons.
A direct conflict involving Israel and the U.S. would not only destabilize the region but also undermine Russia’s influence, disrupt energy markets, and divert global attention from Moscow’s priorities, including its war in Ukraine.
Russia’s actual ability to mediate between Iran, Israel, and the U.S. is hard to gauge. US president Donald Trump says he has a good relationship with Russian counterpart Valdimir Putin, which can be a positive.
Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu is on good terms with Putin too. Although the relationship has been complicated with Moscow's growing military and economic partnership with Tehran, the Kremlin may still be in a position to discourage Tel Aviv from full-scale military action.
Ultimately, Russia’s interest lies in preventing an uncontrolled escalation that could disrupt its strategic ambitions. Moscow does not seek to resolve the Iran nuclear crisis but to manage it—keeping tensions high enough to maintain leverage over both Iran and the West while avoiding outright war.
