China and Russia reject US maximum pressure

Lately, China, Iran, and Russia held talks in Beijing, urging diplomacy over “pressure and threats” and calling for an end to “illegal unilateral sanctions” on Iran.

The meeting, led by deputy foreign ministers from the three nations, comes as China positions itself as a key player in resolving Iran’s nuclear issue.

This follows US President Donald Trump’s statement that Iran faces two options: a deal or military action.

China’s Executive Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu emphasized eliminating the root causes of the crisis, rejecting sanctions and force.

The joint statement called for avoiding escalation and fostering a diplomatic resolution. The urgency grows as the UN nuclear watchdog warns of Iran’s expanding uranium stockpile, though Iran maintains its program is peaceful.

Beijing opposes US sanctions and the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” campaign, which began after the US withdrew from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal — the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

The deal’s looming October deadline could trigger a “snapback” of UN sanctions unless a new agreement is reached.

China, alongside European powers, hopes to salvage the JCPOA or craft a new deal. Trump remains open to negotiation but maintains pressure through sanctions, while Iran’s leadership rejects talks under US duress.

China’s diplomatic push aligns with its goal of emerging as a global leader, especially as Trump’s "America First" policy shifts US foreign strategies. The Beijing meeting also showcased non-Western approaches to global issues.

For Iran, the talks offered a chance to reinforce ties with China and Russia — key allies amid Western sanctions. Tehran and Moscow have deepened cooperation, particularly through military support in Ukraine, while China remains a vital economic and diplomatic partner.

China seeks to balance its relationships across the Middle East, including ties with Saudi Arabia, and mitigate potential risks to its businesses from US pressure on Iran.

Analysts note that China’s limited experience in Middle Eastern diplomacy and Iran’s independent stance could restrict its role as a deal broker. Despite this, China’s efforts signal growing influence and alignment with Russia and Iran against Western pressure.

West Asia can ensure its security, claims Iranian commander

Iran's Navy Commander, Rear Admiral Shahram Irani, stated that countries in West Asia are capable of handling their own security and urged external actors to rethink their involvement in the region. 

Speaking to Al Jazeera, he emphasized that regional nations are no longer as vulnerable as they once were and possess the means to protect themselves.

“The region is no longer what it used to be, and its countries are equipped to ensure their safety; therefore, foes must change their policies and respect regional nations,” The commander stressed.

Admiral Irani also asserted that Iran rejects isolation and will operate within international legal frameworks.

“The behavior of Iranians, particularly in the current regional context, aligns with international laws,” he noted. 

“Regional instability will harm the global economy,” Admiral Iravani said, adding that Iran is offering expertise to West Asian regional countries. 

The statement came as Iran, Russia, and China wrapped up a joint maritime exercise dubbed “Maritime Security Belt 2025” in the Indian Ocean on Wednesday, alongside observers from several other nations.

In related remarks on Tuesday, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi congratulated Admiral Irani on the successful execution of the exercises, emphasizing the Navy's strength and international dominance.

The top diplomat said the drills, beginning on March 10, demonstrated the Navy's decisive attitude and global operational capabilities.

He also stressed the importance of an assertive presence in expansive oceanic areas for maritime security and development.

“Iran has an unwavering determination to maintain and enhance the security of the strategic and sensitive Persian Gulf region, the strategically crucial Strait of Hormuz within it, the Sea of Oman, and beyond. These exercises were a reflection of that resolve.” Araghchi noted. 

 

Iran showcases prowess with China and Russia

Iran has reaffirmed its pivotal role in regional security by leading the seventh iteration of the Maritime Security Belt-2025 joint naval exercises alongside China and Russia, being held March 10–13 near the strategic port of Chabahar, reports the Tehran Times.

The drills, marked by advanced tactical operations and aerial maneuvers, underscored Tehran’s commitment to safeguarding vital maritime routes while strengthening alliances with global powers in the face of shifting geopolitical dynamics.  

The exercises featured synchronized day and night aerial target shooting, tactical formations, mock rescue missions, and a grand naval parade, demonstrating heightened interoperability among the three nations.

Rear Admiral Mostafa Tajeddini, deputy operations commander of Iran’s Navy, hailed the drills as a testament to Iran’s technical sophistication and leadership.

“The execution of these operations demands precise coordination and step-by-step orders,” he stated, emphasizing the seamless integration of the Iranian Navy and Islamic Revolution Guards Corps Navy with Chinese and Russian fleets.

Notably, this year’s drills expanded operational scope, deploying helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft in deeper waters—a strategic leap from prior iterations.

Tajeddini underscored the significance of such advancements, describing them as critical to countering “external threats” and ensuring regional stability.

Rear Admiral Tajeddini also reiterated Iran’s uncompromising stance: “We will not tolerate any threats or incursions into the nation’s maritime borders.”

“Unity at sea today ensures stability onshore tomorrow,” he added.

Since their inception in 2019, the Maritime Security Belt drills have evolved in scale and complexity, mirroring Iran’s geopolitical ambitions.

The 2025 edition coincides with heightened tensions in the Red Sea and Arabian Sea, where Western-led coalitions have increased patrols.

By contrast, Iran’s collaboration with Beijing and Moscow offers an alternative security framework, prioritizing regional sovereignty over external intervention.

The choice of Chabahar as the drills’ focal point highlights its unparalleled strategic value. Situated on the Gulf of Oman, Iran’s sole oceanic port bypasses the congested Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of global oil transits.

Chabahar’s direct access to the Indian Ocean positions it as a gateway for the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC), a 7,200-km trade artery linking India to Central Asia and Europe via Iran.  

Historically, US sanctions somewhat complicated Chabahar’s development, yet partnerships with Eastern allies have helped improve its outlook.

India’s initial investments in the port’s infrastructure, aimed at accessing Afghanistan and Central Asia, have been complemented by China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), weaving Chabahar into broader Eurasian connectivity projects.

The port now serves as a military and economic nexus, enabling Iran to project influence while mitigating reliance on Western-dominated trade routes.

The 2025 drills signal a deepening alignment among Iran, China, and Russia, reflecting shared opposition to unilateralism.

Analysts note that the exercises, occurring near the Strait of Hormuz and Chabahar, symbolize a collective resolve to secure energy corridors and trade lanes critical to the Global South.

Some experts view these exercises as more than just defensive actions; they are seen as opportunities to create a unified vision for maritime security.

This partnership also counters Western isolation efforts. By anchoring military cooperation in the Indian Ocean, 
Furthermore, the inclusion of aerial units and night operations—a first in the tripartite drills—signals Iran’s growing confidence in asymmetric warfare capabilities, crucial in deterring adversarial naval presence.

 

Iran, Russia and China to participate in naval drill in Indian Ocean

Iran, Russia, and China are set to conduct a large-scale joint naval exercise in the northern Indian Ocean, focusing on maritime security operations and strategic military coordination.

The drill, named Security Belt-2025, will take place in early and mid-March near Iran’s southeastern Chabahar Port, involving various branches of the three nations' naval forces.  

The Chinese Defense Ministry announced the exercise on Sunday via its official Weibo account, detailing that the drill will include multiple training operations such as maritime target strikes, VBSS (visit, board, search, and seizure), damage control, and joint search and rescue missions.  

According to the ministry, the primary goal of Security Belt-2025 is to enhance military trust and strengthen practical cooperation between the participating forces. China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Navy is set to deploy a destroyer and a replenishment ship for the exercise.  

A Chinese military analyst emphasized that the drill will contribute to safeguarding security in a strategically critical region, particularly one that serves as a key transit route for global energy shipments.  

Security Belt-2025 marks the fifth joint naval exercise between Iran, China, and Russia since 2019.

Over the past few years, the three nations have conducted multiple military drills to reinforce regional maritime stability and safeguard international trade routes.  

In addition to countering piracy and maritime terrorism, these exercises have facilitated intelligence sharing on naval rescue operations and the exchange of tactical and operational expertise.  

In March 2024, the Iranian Navy, along with Chinese and Russian naval and airborne units, participated in the Maritime Security Belt-2024 drills.

Observers from Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Oman, Pakistan, and South Africa attended the exercises, reflecting the growing interest in multilateral maritime cooperation.  

The joint maneuvers were designed to strengthen maritime security, bolster international trade protection, combat piracy, and enhance operational coordination among naval forces.

The drills also served as a demonstration of the participants' collective commitment to global peace and stability at sea.  

As part of the upcoming exercises, the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps Navy (IRGCN) will deploy two advanced vessels: the Shahid Nazeri and the Shahid Sayyad Shirazi.  

Commissioned into the IRGC Navy in September 2016, the Shahid Nazeri is a high-speed patrol and reconnaissance vessel designed for extended operational reach. With a length of 55 meters, a width of 14 meters, and a height of 13 meters, the vessel significantly enhances the IRGCN’s maritime capabilities, extending its operational range up to 10,000 kilometers.  

The Shahid Nazeri features a specialized twin-hull (SWATH – Small Waterplane Area Twin Hull) design, providing enhanced stability in high-speed operations and rough seas. Its design ensures that it remains steady even at high speeds, reducing the risk of capsizing.  

Equipped with a helicopter landing pad, the vessel can conduct surveillance and reconnaissance missions across various maritime zones, making it a valuable asset for intelligence gathering and patrol operations.  

The Shahid Sayyad Shirazi is a newly commissioned stealth warship from the Shahid Soleimani class, officially joining the IRGC Navy in February 2024. This catamaran-style ocean-going vessel is designed for high-speed operations, with a maximum speed of 45 knots.  

Armed with a wide array of offensive and defensive missile systems, the Shahid Sayyad Shirazi is equipped with vertical-launch Nawab air defense missiles and Sayyad cruise missiles with a strike range of 700 kilometers.  

With a length of 67 meters, a width of 20 meters, and a displacement of 600 tons, the vessel is powered by four engines, enabling long-distance operations. It has an operational range of 5,500 nautical miles and is capable of carrying three missile-launching fast attack boats along with an armed combat helicopter.  

 

What gives the US authority to impose sanctions on other countries?

It is believed that the United States has the legal authority to impose sanctions based on a combination of constitutional powers, legislative acts, executive orders, and national security considerations. Sanctions can be imposed for a range of reasons, from counterterrorism efforts to enforcing international law or responding to violations of human rights or international norms. However, the time has come to reject these power, which cause difficulties for the nations the US does not like.

Sanctions are often imposed for reasons related to US national security. This could include targeting foreign governments or groups that support terrorism, are involved in weapons proliferation, or engage in activities that harm US foreign policy objectives.

While US sanctions are often unilateral, they can also be part of multilateral efforts. The US may align its sanctions with those of international organizations, such as the United Nations or the European Union, especially when it comes to issues like nuclear proliferation, terrorism, and human rights violations. In this context, sanctions are seen as part of broader international diplomatic efforts.

The President has the authority to issue executive orders to implement sanctions without needing Congressional approval. These orders often cite national security concerns, international obligations, or the need to enforce specific laws (like the IEEPA) to restrict economic relations with certain countries or individuals.

 

Here's a breakdown of the key legal and institutional bases for US sanctions:

1. US Constitution

• Executive Powers (Article II): The President of the United States, as the head of the executive branch, has the authority to conduct foreign policy and engage in international relations. This includes the power to implement sanctions as a tool of diplomacy and national security.
• Congressional Powers (Article I): Congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and declare war. This allows it to pass laws that authorize sanctions, and the executive branch often implements those laws.

2. Specific Legislation

Several US laws grant the authority to impose sanctions, including:

• International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) (1977): This law grants the President broad powers to regulate international trade and economic transactions in response to national emergencies. Under this act, the President can block financial transactions, freeze assets, and prohibit trade with foreign governments or entities that pose a threat to U.S. interests.
• Trading with the Enemy Act (1917): Initially passed during World War I, this law allows the President to regulate or prohibit trade with foreign nations deemed enemies during wartime or national emergencies.
• The USA PATRIOT Act (2001): This law expanded the President's powers to combat terrorism and the financing of terrorist activities, enabling sanctions targeting individuals and entities linked to terrorism.
• Magnitsky Act (2012): This law allows the U.S. government to impose sanctions on individuals involved in human rights violations and corruption, even if they are not from countries officially designated as threats to U.S. security.
• Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) (2017): This law specifically targets countries like Russia, Iran, and North Korea, providing a legal framework for imposing sanctions against foreign governments and individuals involved in activities that threaten U.S. security or foreign policy.

 

 

United States destroying world order

Valeriy Zaluzhnyi, Ukraine's former armed forces chief and current ambassador to Britain, said on Thursday that the United States was destroying the current world order, reports Reuters,

The popular general, who led Ukraine's defence in the first two years of Moscow's full-scale invasion, spoke as President Volodymyr Zelenskiy sought to mend fences with Washington after a fiery White House row with President Donald Trump.

Zaluzhnyi said Ukraine had held onto its independence despite "animus and threats coming even from friends".

His sharp remarks, made at London's Chatham House think tank, came after Trump froze military aid and intelligence-sharing with Kyiv in moves to push Zelenskiy into peace talks with Russia, while refusing to offer Kyiv security guarantees.

"It's obvious the White House has questioned the unity of the whole Western world," Zaluzhnyi said, "Because we see that it's not just the axis of evil and Russia trying to revise the world order, but the US is finally destroying this order."

European leaders on Thursday said they would stand by Ukraine - and boost defence spending - to enable them to stand up to Russia. But the US has been a key backer, and its intelligence, equipment and financial support have been crucial for Kyiv.

Zaluzhnyi is broadly popular in Ukraine and is seen as a potential challenger to Zelenskiy when Ukraine holds elections, although he has voiced no clear ambitions to run for office.

Elections are currently prohibited by the declaration of martial law after Russia began its full-scale invasion in February 2022.

Zelenskiy replaced Zaluzhnyi as army chief last year following battlefield setbacks. Russian forces now hold about 20% of Ukraine and have been gradually advancing in the country's east.

Zaluzhnyi added that Ukraine should receive security guarantees and "should avoid the role of bargaining chip in any negotiations".

 

US mulls plan to disrupt Iranian oil movement

President Donald Trump's administration is considering a plan to stop and inspect Iranian oil tankers at sea under an international accord aimed at countering the spread of weapons of mass destruction, sources familiar with the matter told Reuters.

Trump has vowed to restore a "maximum pressure" campaign to isolate Iran from the global economy and drive its oil exports to zero, in order to stop the country from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Trump hit Iran with two waves of fresh sanctions in the first weeks of his second-term, targeting companies and the so-called shadow fleet of ageing oil tankers that sail without Western insurance and transport crude from sanctioned countries.

Those moves have largely been in line with the limited measures implemented during former President Joe Biden's administration, during which Iran succeeded in ramping up oil exports through complex smuggling networks.

Trump officials are now looking at ways for allied countries to stop and inspect ships sailing through critical chokepoints such as the Malacca Strait in Asia and other sea lanes.

Previous attempts to seize Iranian oil cargoes have triggered retaliation by Iran.

The US tried to interdict at least two cargoes of Iranian oil in 2023, under Biden. This prompted Iran to seize foreign ships - including one chartered by Chevron Corp, which sent crude prices higher.

The current low oil price environment gives Trump more options to block Iranian oil flows, from sanctions on tanker companies to seizing ships, according to Ben Cahill, an energy analyst at the Center for Energy and Environmental Systems at the University of Texas.

"I think if prices stay below US$75 a barrel, the White House has more latitude to look at sanctions that would affect, you know, supply from Iran and other countries. It would be much harder to do this in a US$92 per barrel environment," Cahill said.

Aggressive US action could cut Iran exports by some 750,000 barrels per day in the short term, he said, but the longer the sanctions are in place, the less effective they are as Iran and buyers figure out ways around them.

A speedy resumption of oil exports from Iraq's semi-autonomous Kurdistan region would help offset any fall in Iranian exports.

Reuters previously reported that the White House is piling pressure on Iraq to allow Kurdish oil exports to restart or face sanctions alongside Iran.

Despite US sanctions in recent years, Tehran's oil exports brought in US$53 billion in 2023 and US$54 billion a year earlier, largely in trades with China, according to US Energy Information Administration estimates.

Iran relies on oil exports to China for vital revenue. Russia, which faces restrictions on oil exports and broader Western sanctions, is similarly focused on shipping oil to buyers in China and India.

Finland and other Nordic countries have warned in recent months of the dangers of ships sailing close to their shores and the environmental risks they pose to their shores in oil spills if there is an accident.

While European countries have spoken about inspections of ships transporting Russian oil suspected of not having valid insurance, little action has been taken and none mooted for vessels hauling Iranian oil.

 

Five Takeaways from Trump-Vance-Zelensky meeting

An astonishing scene played out in the Oval Office on Friday as President Trump and Vice President Vance got into a shouting match with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, reports The Hill.

Amid angry crosstalk, Trump told Zelensky “without us, you don’t have any cards” and “you’re gambling with World War III.” Vance, for his part, accused Zelensky of being “disrespectful.”

Zelensky had taken issue with Trump’s depiction of him as having so much “hatred” for Russian President Vladimir Putin that it made it hard to end the conflict.

The Ukrainian president also pushed back on Vance’s suggestion that diplomacy could end the war — insisting that his nation had previously adopted that approach after Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, only for Putin to launch a full-scale invasion in 2022.

The clash derailed the proposed signing of a deal granting the United States some rights over Ukraine’s mineral deposits. A news conference between Trump and Zelensky that had been scheduled was abruptly canceled, and Zelensky left the White House without further comment.

Here are five big takeaways:

A row heard around the world

It’s hard to exaggerate the seismic shock created by the squabble in the Oval Office.

The political world, in the US and internationally, was instantly aflame over what had taken place. On cable news, usually loquacious anchors were left struggling for words.

It’s been years, if ever, since such a spectacle was seen on public display at the White House.

Inevitably, the shock spurred fevered speculation. One big question was whether Trump and Vance had intentionally provoked Zelensky, whom Trump recently dubbed a “dictator,” into a confrontation.

The other was whether the Ukrainian leader had reacted too intemperately in the moment, to the detriment of his national interests.

Certainly, Trump’s initial comments about Zelensky’s “hatred” for Putin carried a disparaging tone that it is hard to imagine being expressed toward any other US ally who was trying to repel an invasion. 

Likewise, Vance’s role will be closely dissected, especially his reference to Zelensky being “disrespectful” and his demands that the Ukrainian president say “thank you” for US aid.

But Zelensky’s volleys back made it clear he was not going to adopt the mollifying tone used by the week’s other high-profile visitors to the White House, French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

The White House has seemed to celebrate the encounter.

Meanwhile, a photo posted by CNN’s Kaitlan Collins of the Ukrainian ambassador to the US with her head in her hands during the encounter told its own story.

Now what?

The big question is where things go from here.

The minerals deal was presented, at least in some quarters, as a way to reimburse the US for future assistance to Ukraine, but Trump had been conspicuously vague on the key point of whether Washington would offer firm security guarantees in return.

Now, with that deal presumably shelved for the foreseeable future, nobody honestly knows what happens.

Zelensky could lean more heavily on Europe for both military and diplomatic support. Macron and Starmer have far more pro-Ukrainian viewpoints than does Trump. 

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, who has more of a Trump-like worldview, called on Friday for an immediate summit between the US and European nations to discuss Ukraine.

If the spigot of US aid is to be choked off and a piqued Trump is now fully embittered against Zelensky, the future looks bleak from a Ukrainian perspective.

It’s also worth noting that neither the US nor its European allies are willing to put boots on the ground during the war itself, for fear of being drawn into their own war with Russia

The suggestion so far is that the Europeans might help shore up a peace agreement — if one is reached.

Democrats, Trump critics blast Trump for helping Putin

Prominent Democrats blasted Trump and Vance for how they conducted the meeting with Zelensky, and some other Trump foes joined in.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on social media accused Trump and Vance of “doing Putin’s dirty work” and pledged that “Senate Democrats will never stop fighting for freedom and democracy.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren contended that it was “shameful and dangerous” for Trump to engage, as she saw it, in “treating the destruction of a democracy as a political show — throwing Ukraine to the wolves and doing a favor for Putin.” 

Meanwhile, former Republican congresswoman and leading Trump critic Liz Cheney said on social media that Trump and Vance had “attacked Zelenskyy and pressured him to surrender the freedom of his people to the KGB war criminal who invaded Ukraine.”

Cheney added, “History will remember this day— when an American President and Vice President abandoned all we stand for.”

Trump loyalists wear such disapproval as a badge of honor, of course. But there is no mistaking how deep the dismay runs on the other side.

Republicans counter that Trump stood up for American interests

GOP voices rushed to acclaim Trump — and often bash Zelensky — for the way the Oval Office drama went down.

Broadly, the chorus of Republican approval viewed Trump as standing up for American interests and cast Zelensky as an ingrate.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told Bloomberg that the Ukrainian president “chose to let things go into a downward spiral on worldwide television.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham said he had “never been more proud” of Trump and blamed Zelensky for a “disrespectful” display.

“I don’t know if we can ever do business with Zelensky again,” Graham said.

Sen. Bill Hagerty, alluding to the contrast with the Biden presidency, wrote on social media, “The United States of America will no longer be taken for granted. The contrast between the last four years and now could not be clearer. Thank you, Mr. President.” 

The White House Office of Communications collated many such responses and sent them out in an email with the subject line, “Support Pours in for President Trump, VP Vance’s America First Strength.”

Happiest of all: Russia

For all the delight expressed by some of Trump’s domestic allies, the real gloating seemed to come from Moscow.

Putin ally Dmitry Medvedev, who served as Russia’s president more than a decade ago, celebrated on social media that “the insolent pig finally got a proper slap down in the Oval Office.”

Medvedev also endorsed Trump’s view that Zelensky was gambling with World War Three. 

The Associated Press (AP) quoted a Russian lawmaker, Andrei Klishas, as describing the outcome of the meeting as “a brilliant result.”

Klishas, per the AP, wrote on Telegram that Zelensky had “played his role of a ‘president’ poorly in the White House and was thrown out for bad behavior and disrespect towards the US.”

Whatever Trump’s intentions, the current picture could hardly look rosier from the Kremlin’s perspective. 

Russia has been advancing on the battlefield, Ukraine is now starkly at odds with its chief benefactor and it’s not at all clear Trump will press Putin for major concessions in any peace deal.

 

Trump policy rattles European allies

Vice President Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Friday made separate speeches that rattled European leaders. US officials said Europeans cannot expect American troops to be on the continent forever.

Speaking at a press conference in Warsaw, Poland, Hegseth said that US force levels in Europe are important but must be scrutinized.

"What happens five, 10, 15 years from now is part of a larger discussion that reflects the threat level, America’s posture, our needs around the globe, but most importantly the capability of European countries to step up," he said.

"That’s why our message is so stark to our European allies — now is the time to invest because you can’t make an assumption that America’s presence will last forever."

His comments come on the end of a week-long trip through Europe that included stops in Germany to visit US Africa Command and Brussels for a two-day meeting of NATO defense ministers. While at the alliance headquarters, he hinted that Europeans would have to step up conventional deterrence against Russia.

Hegseth also sparked fears as to whether the US would largely abandon investment in NATO moving forward after he expressed “that stark strategic realities prevent the United States of America from being primarily focused on the security of Europe.”

No decision has yet been made on changing US force presence in Europe, though the Trump administration has said it is reviewing where it puts troops globally.

Vance, meanwhile, in remarks at the Munich Security Conference, argued the biggest threats facing Europe were not China or Russia, but the issue of mass migration and laws that restrict free speech.

“While the Trump administration is very concerned with European security and believes we can come to a reasonable settlement between Russia and Ukraine … the threat that I worry the most about vis-à-vis Europe is not Russia, it’s not China, it’s not any other external actor,” Vance said.

“And what I worry about is the threat from within,” he continued. “The retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values, values shared with the United States of America.”

Vance’s remarks did not delve into the conflict in Ukraine, where the Trump administration is pushing for a ceasefire negotiation, nor did he discuss at length President Trump’s desire for Europe to commit more to defense spending.

Instead, Vance accused European officials of using laws meant to minimize misinformation and disinformation to marginalize populist voices and voters, which garnered a tepid reception in the room. 

 

Iran Hosting Caspian Economic Forum

Iran is hosting the Third Caspian Economic Forum on February 17-18, with the participation of prime ministers and ministers from Russia, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, and Azerbaijan, an Iranian trade official informed.

According to Iran's Trade Promotion Organization (TPO), Akbar Godari, Director General for Central Asia, the Caucasus, and Russia at the TPO, said on Wednesday that the forum aims to enhance economic, trade, scientific, and technological cooperation among Caspian littoral states. Key topics include healthcare, energy, finance, tourism, investment in free trade zones, and logistics.

Godari noted that Iran’s Trade Promotion Organization has organized seven specialized panels for the first day of the event, covering areas such as trade, industry, and agriculture (Ministry of Industry, Mine, and Trade); economic, customs, banking, and investment cooperation (Ministry of Economic Affairs and Finance); transportation, transit, and engineering services (Iran's Transport and Urban Development Ministry); environmental, health, and tourism cooperation (Department of Environment); energy collaboration, including oil, gas, electricity, and renewables (Ministry of Oil and Ministry of Energy); scientific and technological cooperation (Vice Presidency for Science and Technology); and discussions among the heads of chambers of commerce (Iran Chamber of Commerce, Industries, Mines, and Agriculture).

On the second day, the prime ministers of the five Caspian littoral states will sign a final declaration outlining measures to strengthen cooperation and implement agreements through periodic ministerial follow-ups.

The first Caspian trade and economic cooperation agreement was signed in August 2018 in Kazakhstan and ratified by Iran’s Parliament in January 2023. Under Article 5 of the agreement, the Caspian Economic Forum is to be held periodically in each of the coastal nations.

The inaugural Caspian Economic Forum and exhibition took place in August 2019 in Awaza, Turkmenistan, with the participation of prime ministers and trade delegations.

The second forum was held in Moscow in October 2022, attended by Iran’s former First Vice President Mohammad Mokhber and other leaders. During that meeting, it was agreed that Iran would host the third edition in 2024.

 

Trump announces to end Ukraine war

US President Donald Trump announced on Friday that his administration has already engaged in "very serious" discussions with Russia regarding the ongoing war in Ukraine, hinting that he and Russian President Vladimir Putin could soon take "significant" steps toward ending the conflict, reports the Saudi Gazette.

“We will be speaking, and I think we will perhaps do something significant,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. “We want to end that war. That war would have not started if I was president.”

While Trump did not disclose which members of his administration have been in contact with Russia, he insisted that "talks are already happening."

When asked whether he had personally spoken with Putin, he remained evasive, stating, “I don’t want to say that.”

Since his return to the White House, Trump has been vocal in his criticism of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, arguing that he should have negotiated with Putin to prevent the war.

In a Fox News interview earlier in January, Trump ridiculed Zelenskyy, stating, “They were brave, but we gave them billions of dollars,” in reference to the extensive US military and economic aid sent to Kyiv.

Putin, for his part, recently praised Trump in an interview with Russian state television, describing him as a "clever and pragmatic man" who prioritizes US interests.

The Russian leader claimed that if Trump had remained in office, the war in Ukraine might have been avoided. “We always had a business-like, pragmatic but also trusting relationship,” Putin remarked.

The Russian president also echoed Trump’s unsubstantiated claims about the 2020 US election, saying that the Ukraine crisis might never have happened had Trump not been "robbed" of victory.

However, multiple courts, federal and local officials, former campaign staffers, and even Trump's former attorney general have all dismissed any claims of election fraud.

Trump has frequently promised a swift resolution to the war if re-elected, while criticizing President Joe Biden’s administration for its financial and military support of Ukraine. His relationship with Putin has been under scrutiny since his 2016 presidential campaign when he publicly called on Russia to release missing emails belonging to his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton.

Trump has also been criticized for siding with Putin over US intelligence officials regarding Russia’s interference in the 2016 election and has previously described the Russian president as “pretty smart” for his invasion of Ukraine.

Trump's decisions good or bad

In a nearly 30-minute speech, Donald Trump called for “change” after he claimed a litany of national failures under Biden’s watch. His first standing ovation came after announcing that he would declare a national emergency at the Southern border, a move that will allow the Pentagon to deploy troops to the region.

The declaration would also free up resources to build a wall at the US-Mexico border, an effort he was forced to abandon at the end of his last administration.

Trump later said he would reinstate service members who were fired for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine and give them full back pay.

The GOP has long vowed to reinstate troops fired for refusing the vaccine. They slipped in the 2024 defense authorization bill a requirement for the Pentagon to consider reinstatement for that reason.

Trump also said he would stop “radical political theories” and “social experiments” for members of the armed forces. “It’s going to end immediately,” he said.

Trump vowed to “build the strongest military the world has ever seen.”

In addition, he said the US will once again become a “growing nation,” vowing to take back the Panama Canal during his inauguration speech.

The newly sworn-in president added that he wants his legacy to be that of a “peacemaker and unifier” as he touted the release of Israeli hostages a day before his inauguration.

One notable omission from his inaugural speech was the Russia-Ukraine war, soon to enter its third year. Trump has promised to end the conflict war even before he was sworn in.

The immediate visible effects of the new Trump administration could be found at the Pentagon, where a portrait of retired Gen. Mark Milley, the former chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who has feuded in highly public spats with Trump, was taken down on Monday. No reason was given for the change.

Trump has clashed with Milley over several national security issues during his first time in the White House, with Trump once suggesting that the four-star general deserved to be executed. Milley, who retired in 2023, has called Trump a fascist.

In his last few hours in the Oval Office on Monday, Joe Biden issued pre-emptive pardons to Milley and several other people, which he said were not an admittance of guilt but were issued for their service.

 

Russia and Iran to sign strategic partnership

According to Reuters, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian will hold talks in Russia on January 17 after which they will sign a long-awaited comprehensive strategic partnership pact, the Kremlin said on Monday.

The two leaders will discuss options for further expanding ties between Moscow and Tehran, including in the trade and investment, transport and logistics, and humanitarian spheres, the Kremlin said.

Putin and Pezeshkian will also talk about regional and international issues, it added.

Russia has developed closer ties with Iran and other countries hostile towards the United States, such as North Korea, since the start of the Ukraine war.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said in October last year that Moscow and Tehran intended to sign the strategic partnership pact which would include closer defence cooperation.

The United States accused Tehran in September last year of delivering close-range ballistic missiles to Russia for use against Ukraine, and imposed sanctions on ships and companies it said were involved in delivering Iranian weapons. Tehran denies providing Moscow with the missiles.

Iran's economic relations with its neighbors

In recent years, the economic relationships between Iran and its neighboring countries have grown in both complexity and significance. This economic integration is crucial for the development of Iran’s non-oil sector and its broader economic strategy, especially considering the geopolitical challenges that the country faces.

In this article, an effort has been made to explore the current state and future prospects of Iran’s trade with its neighbors, examine key sectors, trade volumes, and strategic partnerships.

As of late 2024, Iran’s non-oil trade with its neighbors has seen a notable increase. Non-oil trade volumes reached US$55.3 billion in the first 11 months of the year, with exports constituting 67 million tons of goods valued at US$25.8 billion and imports amounting to 21.4 million tons valued at US$29.4 billion.

This represents a significant increase in trade flows, driven by an increase in exports of petrochemical products, minerals, and agricultural goods.

Iran’s primary trading partners in the region include Iraq, the UAE, Turkey, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. The UAE and Iraq are Iran’s two largest trade partners, especially in terms of exports.

For example, in the first seven months of 2024, Iran’s trade with Iraq was valued at US$7.6 billion, making it one of the most crucial destinations for Iranian goods. The major exports to Iraq include petrochemicals, cement, and agricultural products, while imports primarily consist of machinery and food items.

Turkey has also maintained its position as a key trading partner, with trade between the two countries amounting to US$9.9 billion in the same period. Iranian exports to Turkey largely consist of natural gas and petroleum products, while imports from Turkey are diverse, including electrical machinery and textiles.

Iran’s geopolitical location, bordered by 15 countries, gives it a strategic advantage in the trade of goods and services. This advantageous position allows Iran to serve as a key transit hub for goods moving between Central Asia, the Caucasus, and West Asia.

In particular, the development of international transport corridors, such as the North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC), which links Iran with Russia, India, and Central Asia, is expected to enhance Iran’s role in regional trade.

Furthermore, the expansion of special economic zones, such as the Lamerd Free Trade Zone, has created new opportunities for businesses to engage in regional trade. This diversification of trade routes and infrastructure investment is expected to foster deeper economic ties with countries in the Persian Gulf and beyond.

Despite challenges, such as global sanctions and regional instability, Iran’s government has focused on expanding its non-oil exports, particularly to its neighbors. This strategy is part of a broader effort to reduce Iran’s dependency on oil revenues and diversify its economy.

The Iranian government’s push for stronger trade relations with Central Asia, Russia, and even countries like Oman and Turkmenistan, is driven by the need for economic diversification and the potential to access new markets. Iran’s trade with Russia, for example, has grown steadily, with recent figures showing a trade volume of US$1.5 billion in 2024.

The economic outlook for Iran’s trade with neighboring countries is promising. The country’s strategic location, combined with increased infrastructure investment and a strong focus on non-oil exports, positions Iran as a key player in the regional economy.

However, the ongoing challenges of sanctions and geopolitical tensions remain factors to consider as Iran continues to navigate its path toward economic diversification.

If these trade relationships continue to strengthen, Iran could significantly enhance its role as a regional economic hub, ensuring long-term stability and growth for its economy.

 

JCPOA no longer relevant, says IAEA chief

Rafael Grossi, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has said that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is no longer viable, appearing to place sole responsibility for the 2015 nuclear deal's lame-duck state on Iran.

"The philosophy of the initial JCPOA agreement can be used as a basis, but the agreement itself is no longer necessary," Grossi remarked during his visit to Italy for discussions with the Foreign Ministry. 

The UN nuclear chief pointed out that Iran is now enriching uranium to levels of 60%, a threshold that he said brings the country close to the capability to produce military-grade uranium, which requires enrichment to 90%. "Iran is rapidly approaching the status of a nuclear state," he claimed. 

Grossi omitted any mention of the West's abandonment of the deal, the factor that prompted Iran to curtail some of its JCPOA commitments in the first place. 

The JCPOA was signed in 2015 between Iran and the P5+1 group of countries (the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and China). It aimed to limit Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for the termination of sanctions.

Washington unilaterally withdrew from the pact in 2018 and re-imposed sanctions against Iran. European signatories to the deal not only failed to take the sting out of US sanctions but also came up with anti-Iran bans of their own. 

Tehran began to scale back on some of its JCPOA commitments in 2020, under a new law passed by the Iranian parliament. 
 

 

 

Turkey violated Doha agreement on Syria

The Turkish Foreign Minister has claimed that Turkey successfully persuaded Iran and Russia not to intervene militarily during the Syrian rebels' offensive which led to the downfall of President Bashar al-Assad's government in the early hours of December 08. 2024.

The information obtained by the Tehran Times suggests that this assertion contradicts the terms agreed upon in Doha on December 07 between the foreign ministers of Turkey, Iran, and Russia.

In a recent interview with Turkey’s NTV, Hakan Fidan stated, "The most important thing we had to do was to talk to the Russians and Iranians to ensure they would not enter the (Syria) equation with military force. We spoke with the Russians and Iranians, and they understood the issue."

The information obtained by the Tehran Times shows the December 07 summit under the Astana platform saw Turkey agree to a framework enabling direct negotiations between the Syrian President and rebel forces, with Assad remaining in power.

“It was agreed that the Syrian conflict would be resolved through political means, with both the Assad government and the armed opposition entering into dialogue,” a source involved in the Doha talks told the Tehran Times.

“The agreement was signed by Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, Turkey's Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, and Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Yet, developments on the ground in Syria on Sunday, December 09, show that Turkey did not adhere to what it had signed.”

Armed factions led by the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) rebels launched a surprise attack against Syria’s northwestern Aleppo Province on November 27. The militants quickly advanced towards Damascus in the face of the Syrian army’s refusal to resist. 

Reports and evidence show the HTS and its allied factions have been receiving substantial financial and military support from Turkey, the United States, and Israel.

 

Shia-Sunni Conflict in Syria to Get Louder

The current situation in Syria presents three significant implications. First, the recruitment of fighters, motivated by financial incentives or sectarian affiliations, is expected to rise. Second, the majority of these recruits are likely to come from the South Asian region. Videos circulating on social media already show individuals with Pashto or Hazara accents celebrating the withdrawal of Bashar al-Assad’s forces from key cities, leaving behind military-grade weapons, ammunition, and vehicles. Third, existing foot soldiers in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran may see new opportunities to leverage their combat experience, contributing to the rekindling of the Syrian conflict.

Shia militias, including the Zainabiyoun Brigade and other groups from Iraq, are also being drawn into the conflict. As a result, Syria is poised to become the site of escalating sectarian violence, with Sunni and Shia factions, supported by various regional and international actors, facing off.

What Impact Will This Have on the Gaza War?

How will these developments affect the ongoing conflict in Gaza? Will they weaken Hezbollah in Lebanon? And what strategic advantages might Israel and its regional or international allies gain?

Currently, Hamas is on the defensive, and the Syrian situation could demoralize its forces if Bashar al-Assad and his allies lose their grip on power, potentially drawing them into direct confrontation with rebel factions.

Iran and Russia are already evacuating some of their officials, but sectarian fighters loyal to the Assad regime will likely remain in Syria, continuing their resistance. Aerial support for Assad’s forces may still come from select countries, but unless a similar conflict arises in Iraq—where Sunni militias start pushing against Shia factions—a complete collapse of the Assad regime seems unlikely.

A Possible Escalation: Assad's Last Resort?

If Bashar al-Assad feels cornered and believes he must evacuate, he could resort to an extreme measure: launching a direct attack on Israel. What might such an assault look like?

First, a safe zone could be established for Iranian, Russian, or Syrian officials in the border region of Iraq, enabling them to continue strategizing and coordinating efforts in Syria and beyond.

Second, there would be a need for a large influx of Shia fighters into Syria and Lebanon to counteract new rebel offensives or Israeli airstrikes against Assad’s regime. These fighters could also act as conduits for weapons flowing into Lebanon, strengthening Hezbollah and other allies.

Coupled with aerial support, these forces could give Assad a better chance of reclaiming lost territories.

Wider Regional Implications: Yemen and Saudi Arabia

The sectarian tensions in Syria could also spill over into other parts of the region, particularly Yemen and Saudi Arabia, exacerbating existing conflicts there.

What if Bashar government falls in Syria?

Donald Trump will formally take charge as president of United States on January 20, 2025. The strategic regions of the world are being trapped in a situation known as "tactical wars". These conflicts do not seek a definitive victory but rather aim to create a state of instability and uncertainty in key areas vital to US global interests.

The "America First" slogan, central to Trump's agenda, can only materialize if Washington succeeds in maintaining its hegemony over the major geostrategic regions. However, this dominance is only possible if one essential factor is guaranteed: an active and sustained military presence in these regions.

In these sensitive territories, the United States faces growing resistance from both local governments and popular movements demanding the withdrawal of American troops. If Washington were to yield to these demands and abandon Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, or the Persian Gulf; renounce its intervention in Ukraine and the Caucasus under the pretext of NATO; or reduce its activities in the South China Sea, it would risk becoming just another power, unable to maintain its global hegemony.

The United States deems it necessary to maintain its presence in these strategic regions to avoid the decline of hegemony. Its military deployments, although costly and often unpopular, are seen as the only means to ensure its position as a dominant power in an increasingly competitive world.

As explained by Iranian diplomat Mohammad Rasoul Mousavi, the strategy to preserve the United States' military presence is based on fueling what are known as "tactical wars." These wars do not seek a definitive resolution but rather aim to prolong the conflict. On one hand, they weaken the countries involved, and on the other, allow the United States to justify and impose its presence in those regions.

Mousavi interprets the resurgence of the conflict in Syria as a clear manifestation of the United States' strategic approach. In the current context, it is evident how Washington is attempting to consolidate its presence in the region. Despite avoiding responsibility for the war led by extremist militants backed by Turkey, the United States insists that the solution to the conflict is inevitably tied to its military presence in Syria— a presence that would be difficult to justify without the conflict serving as a pretext.

Additionally, there is a clear contradiction in the United States' stance. In the current offensive against the government of Bashar al-Assad, the main units fighting alongside anti-Assad forces are primarily affiliated with Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS). This group, which separated from Al-Qaeda in 2016, has maintained a strong presence in Syria.

Since 2018, the US State Department has designated HTS as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. HTS remains a central player in the Syrian conflict, particularly in the regions of Aleppo and Hama. The group is led by Abu Muhammed al-Golani, who previously led the Nusra Front, Al-Qaeda's affiliate in Syria. In 2016, al-Golani announced HTS's separation from Al-Qaeda, claiming a distance from the global terror network.

However, his ties with Al-Qaeda remain a burden, continuously attracting international attention. For example, the US still offers a US$10 million reward for the capture of al-Golani, reflecting the ongoing mistrust toward the group and its ideology.

In general, Syria is a stage where various geopolitical interests converge. In the case of Turkey, the potential fall of Bashar al-Assad would have significant strategic implications. Through its allied groups in Syria, such as the self-styled Syrian National Army and HTS, Turkey could consolidate and significantly expand its power and influence in a territory that was part of the Ottoman Empire from 1516 to 1918.

A withdrawal of Russia, its historical rival in the region, would represent a key political victory for Recep Tayyip Erdogan, while constituting a defeat for Vladimir Putin and weakening Russian influence in the Middle East. Additionally, the weakening or elimination of Kurdish forces in Syria, a constant point of friction for Ankara, would be one of Turkey's primary strategic objectives.

Finally, once Syria was "pacified" by HTS and its allies, Erdogan could seize the opportunity to facilitate the return of the millions of Syrian refugees currently in Turkey, presenting Assad’s fall as the end of the war. This measure could potentially boost support for the Justice and Development Party (AKP) in future elections.

The potential fall of Bashar al-Assad would have profound consequences for Russia, as it could redefine both its influence in Syria and its projection in the Middle East.

The loss of its main ally in Damascus would signal the end of its political influence in the country, marking a strategic defeat that would alter the regional balance.

Additionally, Russia would be surpassed by Turkey, which would solidify its power and influence in Syria, leading to a geopolitical reshaping in favor of Ankara.

Russia's military presence, essential to its influence in Syria, could be significantly reduced or even eliminated, representing a substantial loss of power in the region.

Moreover, Moscow would lose control of the naval base in Tartus, a strategic facility it has controlled since 1971 during the Soviet era and it serves as its only permanent military base in the Mediterranean. The loss of Tartus would deal a major blow to Russia’s ability to project power in the Middle East.

The potential fall of Bashar al-Assad would also bring a series of strategic implications for Israel, directly impacting its security in the region.

For Iran, the fall of Bashar al-Assad would have political and strategic consequences. First, Iran would lose a key ally in the region.

However, the rise of Turkey as a regional power would be a blow to Iran’s interests, as it would witness its rival expanding its power while Iran's own political and military presence in Syria and Lebanon crumbles. This scenario would lead to the weakening of Shia interests in Syria, Lebanon, and even Iraq, disrupting the regional balance and undermining Iran's influence in these key countries.

Finally, for the United States, the fall of Bashar al-Assad would have significant strategic implications. First, it would mean Russia's withdrawal from Syria, which would considerably weaken Moscow's influence in the region, reducing its projection of power in the Middle East.

Additionally, the United States would achieve a key victory by seeing the fall of Assad's government, considered one of Iran's main allies, with whom Washington maintains an openly adversarial relationship. This would mark the end of a long struggle to displace a government that has been an obstacle to US policy in the region, consolidating the influence of Washington and its allies in Syria and the Levant.

 

OPEC Plus extend production cuts

Saudi Arabia and seven other OPEC Plus countries have decided on Thursday to extend their oil production cuts for another three months, until the end of March 2025.

Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iraq, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Kazakhstan, Algeria, and Oman, which previously announced additional voluntary adjustments in April 2023 and November 2023, held a virtual meeting on Thursday on the sideline of the 38th OPEC and non-OPEC Ministerial Meeting (ONOMM).

These countries will extend their additional voluntary adjustments of 2.2 million barrels per day, that were announced in November 2023, until the end of March 2025 and then the 2.2 million barrels per day adjustments will be gradually phased out on a monthly basis until the end of September 2026 to support market stability. This monthly increase can be paused or reversed subject to market conditions," OPEC Plus said in a statement carried by Saudi Press Agency.

The virtual meeting was held to reinforce the precautionary efforts of OPEC Plus countries, aiming to support the stability and balance of oil markets. These countries decided, in addition to the latest decisions from the 38th ONOMM, to extend the additional voluntary adjustments of 1.65 million barrels per day that were announced in April 2023, until the end of December 2026.

"In the spirit of transparency and collaboration, the meeting welcomed the pledges made by the overproducing countries to achieve full conformity and resubmit their updated compensation schedule to the OPEC Secretariat for the overproduced volumes since Jan 2024 before the end of December 2024 as agreed in the 52nd Meeting of the Joint Ministerial Monitoring Committee. The compensation period will be extended until the end of June 2026," the statement said.

  

Trump Victory: Impact on Iran-Russia relations

Iranian political experts have quickly projected that a Trump victory in the presidential elections could lead to renewed US-Russia relations due to Trump and Putin's reportedly friendly ties. Some in Iran worry that this shift might undermine the strategic partnership between Iran and Russia, which has been strengthened over the past three years.

However, a closer look at Russian experts' views presents a more balanced and realistic perspective. These analysts believe that the US-Russia relationship is unlikely to return to pre-conflict levels, given the profound trust issues that have persisted since the Ukraine crisis.

Russian-Iranian partnership, which has gained unprecedented momentum, is unlikely to be sacrificed for potential rapprochement with the United States.

Examining the opinions of notable Russian experts can shed light on Moscow's likely short-term approach to US relations, especially regarding the Ukraine conflict.

In initial responses, some speculate that Trump's return might lead Russia to slightly slow its Eurasian integration efforts, potentially making space for renewed discussions with the US, especially on the Ukraine crisis.

Yet, Alexander Dugin, a prominent proponent of Eurasianism in Russia, expresses a different view. He argues that while Trump’s administration may deprioritize the Ukraine crisis, it will likely focus on domestic US issues and its trade war with China.

Dugin, who frames Russia's actions in Ukraine as part of a destiny-driven mission to “de-Nazify Kyiv,” is adamant that this campaign should continue westward in Ukraine. In his view, even if Trump were to ask Putin to halt military operations in Ukraine, such a request would be improbable to affect Russia's plans.

Similarly, Andrey Bezrukov, an international relations expert and professor at Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs University, believes that resolving the Ukraine issue depends more on Russia's military progress than the US elections.

He emphasizes Trump’s unpredictability, citing Iran's experience with US policy shifts, and warns of the risks if future Democratic administrations disregard any agreements.

Bezrukov adds that Trump's administration would likely focus primarily on countering China's global influence, rather than confronting Russia directly in Ukraine.

However, this does not necessarily mean the end of US support for Ukraine; the US might shift more of this responsibility to Europe, despite Trump's potential disagreements with European leaders.

Andrey Sushentsov, director of the Valdai Discussion Club’s programs and an expert on international relations, says US institutions constrained Trump’s policy intentions on Ukraine during his presidency from 2017-2021.

During his campaign, Trump asserted he could resolve the Ukraine crisis swiftly, but Sushentsov views such claims skeptically.

He argues that Ukraine is a tool for the US to manage Russia’s influence, rally European allies, and compel them to bear the economic and social costs of the crisis unless the US decides that Ukraine is no longer an effective lever.

In reviewing these insights from prominent Russian analysts and commentaries in Russian media, it is apparent that most Russian experts are skeptical about any rapid impact of a Trump-Putin rapport on resolving the Ukraine conflict.

Given the unprecedented level of Russian-Iranian relations over the past three years, it is unlikely that this alliance would be sacrificed for hypothetical negotiations between a Republican-led US and Russia.