The Sovereign Factor

Iran’s Growing Skepticism Toward Russian Mediation in Nuclear Talks

As nuclear negotiations involving Iran, Russia, and the United States continue, Tehran’s shifting stance on Moscow’s role in the process is becoming increasingly evident. The recent sidelining of Iran’s liberal political wing and the conservative consolidation of power have amplified concerns that Russia’s involvement serves its own geopolitical leverage rather than Iran’s national interests.

A recent statement by Qasem Mohebali, former Director General for Middle East Affairs at the Iranian Foreign Ministry, has shed light on these concerns. Mohebali argued that Moscow is not a reliable mediator for Tehran, suggesting that Russia is merely seeking to extract concessions from Washington on Ukraine at Iran’s expense. This reflects broader Iranian anxieties over Russia’s ability, or willingness, to act as an impartial intermediary.

The concern is not simply about trust, but also about sovereignty. Iranian officials have long been sensitive to any perceived compromise of national autonomy. This was evident during Russia’s military campaign in Syria, when an attempt to establish a temporary airbase in Iran triggered an uproar, ultimately leading to the removal of Russian aircraft and equipment. Tehran’s strict adherence to constitutional provisions prohibiting foreign military bases underscores the depth of its sovereignty concerns, which also apply to diplomatic dealings with Moscow.

The current head of the Iranian Foreign Ministry, Abbas Araghchi, has echoed Mohebali’s stance, albeit in a more measured tone. Araghchi emphasized that while Iran remains open to external support, it will steadfastly protect its national interests. This suggests a broader recalibration in Iran’s approach: While Tehran has sought Russian backing in the past, it is now signaling a more cautious engagement, wary of becoming a pawn in Moscow’s broader strategic calculations.

Compounding these tensions is the ongoing shift within Iran’s domestic political landscape. The recent sidelining of liberal political figures indicates that conservatives and moderates alike have coalesced to steer negotiations on their own terms. With hopes of rapprochement with the West largely dashed, Tehran has finalized agreements with Russia that were previously delayed, further cementing the perception that Iran is prioritizing national security over diplomatic diversification.

However, this consolidation of power does not come without risks. While conservatives may have successfully pushed liberals out of the negotiation process, the internal alliances they formed to achieve this goal may prove fragile. The key question now is: who will fill the void left by the liberal wing, and how will this impact the nuclear talks moving forward?

For Russia, these developments present both challenges and opportunities. Moscow is undoubtedly aware of Tehran’s sensitivities and is likely calibrating its strategy accordingly. However, if nuclear negotiations progress, information is more likely to leak from the Western side than from Moscow—precisely because Russia understands the delicate domestic pressures Iran faces. Meanwhile, Tehran is even more invested in maintaining a controlled narrative, ensuring that its internal political dynamics do not derail ongoing diplomatic efforts.

The broader takeaway is clear: Iran’s approach to nuclear negotiations is deeply intertwined with its internal political shifts and its historical insistence on sovereignty. While Russia remains a crucial partner, Tehran’s skepticism underscores a strategic recalibration, one that may redefine the trajectory of the nuclear talks in ways that neither Moscow nor Washington can fully anticipate.