Russia, China and India’s backing for Iran against West remains tactical
Afifeh Abedi
Talks between Iran and the United States have been stalled since the 12-day war in June, while Western pressure on Tehran continues through international bodies, including the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). As Western governments persist in leaning on Iran through pressure and threats to achieve their objectives, China and Russia, as two key permanent members of the UN Security Council, have reiterated that the dispute should be resolved through dialogue. During Russian President Vladimir Putin’s recent trip to India and his meeting with Prime Minister Narendra Modi, New Delhi likewise stressed the importance of talks. This development could signal the alignment of another major global economic power with the China-Russia bloc in supporting Iran against US unilateralism and Western coercion more broadly.
Broader support from major powers could strengthen Iran’s position in this standoff and potentially nudge the West toward stepping back from some of its maximalist demands and entering equitable negotiations. International affairs analyst Afifeh Abedi told Iran Daily that while such political backing carried significant weight, breaking the deadlock would still ultimately depend on Washington’s willingness to compromise and its acceptance of Iran’s rights. She also noted that the alignment reflected tactical considerations rather than a strategic commitment.
IRAN DAILY: Given China, Russia and now India’s support for dialogue to break the standoff over Iran’s nuclear program, can this emerging consensus create space for breaking the deadlock between Tehran and Washington?
ABEDI: The current deadlock in Iran-US talks has not stemmed from actors other than Israel and the United States itself. China, Russia and India have consistently welcomed resolving Iran’s nuclear file through dialogue. At certain junctures, players like Russia have had reservations, such as at the outset of the Ukraine war in 2022, but these were secondary factors.
Just as Washington’s stance obstructed a nuclear agreement in previous rounds, it was the US decision to prepare for military action against Iran on the eve of the sixth round of talks that ultimately derailed negotiations and brought the process to a halt. Despite Washington’s claims of being ready to negotiate, there appears to be no genuine willingness to reach an agreement. US calculations, misguided ones, seem to rest on the assumption that after the 12-day war and the instigation of the snapback mechanism to restore UN sanctions on Iran, it has managed to force Iran’s hand and weaken its terms.
Overall, any breakthrough in the current deadlock hinges on Washington adopting a realistic approach and accepting Iran’s rights.
At what diplomatic or operational levels could these three major powers help advance a resolution of Iran’s nuclear issue? Could political mediation or economic and security support be feasible?
The joint backing of Beijing, Moscow and New Delhi for “dialogue” has clear political significance. Their verbal support for Iran’s nuclear rights has become more explicit, and at times they have sharply criticized Washington’s unlawful actions against Tehran.
Page 2