Russian mediation...a renewed conversation

On May 26, I wrote an article on this page entitled “What’s New in the Russian Role,” in which I discussed what was being said about the possibility of Russian mediation in the crisis between the United States and Iran, qualified by its relationship with all parties to the crisis. It goes without saying that this possibility led to nothing, as evidenced by the continuation of the crisis and the violent fluctuations that accompanied it. Last Saturday, the Kremlin spokesman stated that Russian President Vladimir Putin conveyed to US President Donald Trump the vision and position of the Iranian side regarding the possibility of reaching a possible settlement or agreement to end the ongoing conflict and war, and that this initiative was carried out in direct coordination with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian. It is noted that this statement followed a phone call between Putin and Trump, on the Friday before the statement, which lasted about an hour and a half, and which Moscow described as extended and friendly. Some reports stated that Putin confirmed during the call that his offer to receive Iranian highly enriched uranium still stands, which is the basic idea that was raised in the first mediation conversation, and that Trump expressed interest in this point and welcomed the Russian role without announcing specific details of the Russian vision, or a final response from Washington to it. There is a temptation to assume that this Russian initiative will have greater chances this time due to the different circumstances, but without the ability to resolve its future due to the extreme complexity of the crisis. In the following analysis, I focus on two specific dimensions of this difference. The first dimension relates to the fact that this new Russian initiative comes at a time of American-Iranian communications where no one can decide whetherWhether it has a direct element or is it all indirect communication, but most importantly it is clear that it is serious. The American side, despite its repeated threats to resume military operations, has not closed the door to negotiation. Indeed, statements by Trump and his aides have often indicated that reaching an agreement is the preferred option, provided that the agreement achieves American demands. As for Iran, there is evidence of clearer flexibility in its positions. Last September 22, the spokesman for the Revolutionary Guard stated, “If our national interest requires that we conduct negotiations alongside war, then we must negotiate.” On October 9, the Iranian President affirmed that Iran would continue the path of indirect negotiations with the United States, and that it would not withdraw from the negotiations even if the United States attacked it again. He also explained that his country is currently reviewing and studying mutual proposals with the American side through mediators... all of which are indicators that indicate the seriousness of the negotiating option, regardless of its final outcomes. As for the second dimension of the difference in circumstances, which raises greater possibilities for the success of the initiative, it is the breakthrough that occurred in Russian-American relations with the signing of the diesel deal, which involves supplying the American and global market with millions of tons of Russian diesel, to help reduce fuel prices, which reduces the pressure on Trump, and puts Russia in a better position in terms of the possibility of Trump responding to his ideas regarding settling the Iranian war, as well as avoiding embarrassment from Iran, due to his confusion with its strategy, which focuses on pressuring Trump by keeping energy prices high. To the maximum possible level... Will this Russian initiative be valid?Better luck this time?

Professor of Political Science - Cairo University