Azernews.Az

Akbar Novruz

Read more

As Israel and Iran exchange missile and drone strikes following the June 13 Israeli attack on military targets in Isfahan and Bushehr, the world watches nervously — not just because of the risk of a full-scale regional war, but because the ripple effects may reach well beyond the Middle East. Into this firestorm, former U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin have entered, not with weapons, but with words — and diplomatic gambits that could reshape not only the region but the course of the war in Ukraine.

Yet, amidst all the noise, one dangerous trend becomes clear: Russia sees the Israeli-Iranian war as both a distraction and a strategic opportunity. And Trump, who once promised to end Russia’s invasion of Ukraine “in 24 hours,” now appears more focused on brokering peace between Tehran and Tel Aviv.

Trump’s cryptic post — “His war must end too” — addressed to Putin, raises further questions. Was it a signal? A suggestion of diplomatic linkage between the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East? Whatever the intent, it reveals an uncomfortable possibility: that Trump views the Israel-Iran war as a more pressing, or more solvable, conflict than the one in Ukraine.

As the Gaza war did in 2023, this new front threatens to divert Western attention and resources away from Ukraine. Aid money, weapons shipments, and political energy — all may shift toward Israel at Ukraine’s expense. This is a calculation Moscow is banking on, according to Russian military analyst Ruslan Pukhov, who wrote that the greatest strategic damage from this conflict may be inflicted not on Iran, but on Ukraine.

Energy prices, too, are a major factor. Western sanctions aimed at reducing Russia’s oil revenue have had mixed results, but war in the Middle East has already driven prices up, weakening the impact of those sanctions and strengthening the Kremlin’s cash flow.

Even on the battlefield, there are implications. Iran's Shahed drones — previously used by Russia in Ukraine — may become less accessible if Tehran is forced to prioritize its own defense or suffers logistical setbacks. Still, as analyst Hannah Notte notes, Russia is increasingly building its own versions of the Shahed, incorporating significant design changes to reduce reliance on Iran.

Amid all this, Trump has floated the idea of using Putin as a mediator in talks with Iran — especially on nuclear issues. According to the Kremlin, Putin has expressed willingness to engage in such a role. And Trump confirmed to ABC News that he was “open” to the idea.

But this diplomatic overture comes with complex tradeoffs. For Russia, playing the mediator in the Middle East could boost its global standing, offering a counterweight to the U.S. and China in the region. But Putin would not make any move on Iran without extracting concessions on Ukraine.

Herein lies the catch: if the U.S. hopes to co-opt Russian diplomacy to pressure Tehran, it may find itself having to negotiate on Ukraine. But Ukraine’s leadership and its European allies are united in their assessment: Russia is not negotiating in good faith, but rather trying to prolong the war to regroup and seize advantage on the front.

Even the previously scheduled diplomatic dialogue between the U.S. and Russia — aimed at stabilizing bilateral relations — has now been suspended. The pause came shortly after Trump’s call with Putin and reportedly centered on Iran’s nuclear and missile programs. Washington’s message seems clear: unless Moscow pushes Tehran to comply, further engagement with the Kremlin is off the table.

There is a theory circulating among analysts that Russia could “trade” Iran for Ukraine, helping Trump reach a deal with Tehran in exchange for leniency or concessions in Eastern Europe. But this idea has major flaws.

First, Iran doesn’t trust Russia. Tehran has already tried — and failed — to negotiate directly with Washington. Second, China is the only country with true leverage over Iran, largely via its strategic relationship with Pakistan and energy trade. And third, the Iranian regime is unlikely to accept major demands from Trump — such as abandoning its nuclear or missile programs — without solid guarantees.

The best-case scenario for Putin might be convincing Iran to compromise without losing the regime, and without Israeli warplanes dominating its skies. But even that may be out of reach.

The longer the Israeli-Iranian war continues, the more it benefits Russia in the short term — by weakening Western unity, inflating oil prices, and delaying new sanctions. But strategically, a complete Iranian defeat or regime change would be a disaster for Moscow, potentially unraveling the fragile anti-Western axis that includes China, Iran, and Russia.

At the same time, Trump’s focus on Middle East diplomacy may delay decisive moves on Ukraine. His “two-week deadline” for Putin to show interest in peace is already halfway over, with no results. If Trump leans too heavily on Putin for help with Iran, he may find himself constrained when it comes to taking action against Russian aggression.

Türkiye’s President Erdoğan may also try to position himself as a mediator, but his leverage with Tehran is limited. And if Iran does make concessions, it will likely prefer to do so directly with Washington, not through third parties.

What’s next?
In the end, the war between Israel and Iran may end with a new regional status quo — one shaped in the air, not on the ground. But the implications for Ukraine, Russia, and the broader international order are profound.

As Trump, Putin, and the rest of the world scramble to contain one war, another continues to burn — less visible, perhaps, but no less deadly.

And while some may see Iran as a bargaining chip, it’s clear that the cost of any such trade could be enormous — for Ukraine, for the Middle East, and for global stability itself.