Iran turns to Russia after US bombing: Will Putin be of any help?

After the US bombed Iran's nuclear sites, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi rushed to Moscow for urgent talks. But while Russia condemned the strikes, President Vladimir Putin signalled neutrality due to close ties with Israel. Despite a strategic partnership, Iran may find its powerful ally unwilling to escalate, leaving Tehran more isolated than ever read more
Russian President Vladimir Putin attends a meeting with editors of the federal lineup of history textbooks for grades 5 to 11 of secondary school as well as vocational schools, at the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia, June 22, 2025. File Image/Sputlink via Reuters
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has travelled to Moscow for a high-level diplomatic consultation with President Vladimir Putin and other senior Russian officials.
The visit, which follows US military strikes on Iran's key nuclear sites in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan under Operation Midnight Hammer, signals a critical moment in Iran-Russia ties, testing the limits of their strategic cooperation.
While addressing a conference in Istanbul prior to his departure, Araghchi highlighted the importance of Iran's long-standing relationship with Russia, stating that both sides 'always consult with each other and coordinate our positions.'
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
His arrival in the Russian capital was announced just hours after the military operation by the United States, which used 14,000-kg bunker-buster bombs to target what Washington claims were active components of Iran's nuclear programme.
The Iranian foreign minister, speaking on social media, sharply criticised the US operation. 'The United States, a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, has committed a grave violation of the UN Charter, international law and the (nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) by attacking Iran's peaceful nuclear installations… Each and every member of the UN must be alarmed over this extremely dangerous, lawless and criminal behaviour.'
He added, 'In accordance with the UN Charter and its provisions allowing a legitimate response in self-defence, Iran reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interest, and people.'
How Moscow is walking a diplomatic tightrope
Though Tehran and Moscow have deepened their cooperation in recent years — particularly following Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 — Putin has taken a measured stance on the recent escalation.
Speaking at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, Putin explained that Russia's neutrality is influenced by domestic and regional considerations, particularly the significant number of Russian-speaking citizens in Israel.
'Almost two million people from the former Soviet Union and the Russian Federation reside in Israel. It is almost a Russian-speaking country today. And, undoubtedly, we always take this into account in Russia's contemporary history.'
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
This demographic factor, coupled with Moscow's multi-directional diplomacy in West Asia, has shaped a cautious Russian posture. The Kremlin maintains working relationships with Israel, Arab states and Islamic countries alike.
With 15 per cent of its own population identifying as Muslim and holding observer status in the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), Moscow continues to present itself as a neutral but influential actor in regional affairs.
Although Russia condemned the US strikes on Iranian territory, calling them a violation of international law, its response has been restrained.
The Russian foreign ministry stated: 'An irresponsible decision to subject the territory of a sovereign state to missile and bomb strikes, no matter what arguments it is presented with… It is particularly alarming that the strikes were carried out by a country that is a permanent member of the UN Security Council.'
How the Iran-Russia relationship is a partnership with limits
The strategic partnership between Iran and Russia has flourished under pressure from Western sanctions, with both countries collaborating on areas such as drone manufacturing, satellite technology, and nuclear energy.
After Russia began its Ukraine invasion, Iran provided Moscow with Shahed drones, which were later used in attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure. Reports suggest that Moscow may have compensated Tehran with over $100 million worth of gold for these transactions.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Despite these developments, Putin has made clear that Iran has not sought Russian military assistance in this crisis, and their recently signed comprehensive partnership treaty does not contain any provisions related to defence cooperation.
As Putin explained, the agreement focuses on non-military collaboration.
Russia's posture also indicates it will not escalate its involvement beyond diplomacy. Iran, on its part, has declared that it will not return to the negotiating table until it has retaliated.
Araghchi has added Iran was already at the negotiating table and it was the US and Israel who 'blew up' talks.
Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi addresses a special session of the Human Rights Council at the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, June 20, 2025. File Image/Reuters
While Moscow has attempted to act as a mediator, US President Donald Trump declined such efforts. When Putin offered to mediate between Iran and Israel, Trump dismissed the proposal: 'Do me a favour, mediate your own. Let's mediate Russia first. You can worry about this later.'
How the conflict has put Moscow in a dilemma
Following recent losses in Syria — where rebels toppled Bashar al-Assad, a long-time Russian ally — the perception that Moscow is pulling back from full-scale commitments in West Asia has only grown stronger.
Even as Russia continues its cooperation with Iran in certain strategic sectors, including local production of Iranian drone designs, it has avoided deeper military entanglement.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The Kremlin has historically been cautious about Iran crossing the nuclear threshold, wary of losing leverage over Tehran and provoking further US military action in the region.
Meanwhile, the geopolitical fallout is benefiting Moscow in some respects. The intensification of hostilities in the region has distracted international attention from Ukraine.
At the G7 summit in Canada, global powers opted not to lower the price ceiling on Russian oil, which remains capped at $60 per barrel — a potential boon to Russia's oil-dependent economy.
Iran's foreign minister's visit to Moscow reflects a need for diplomatic cover and strategic reassurance at a time when Tehran finds itself increasingly isolated.
Iran expects Russia to take a more active role both in the UN Security Council and in the region amid heightened tensions with the United States, foreign ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said on Monday.
Yet Russia, despite condemning US actions, has offered no indications that it will go beyond rhetoric.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
With inputs from agencies

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Indian Express

23 minutes ago

• Indian Express

America bombs Iran: What does the US Constitution say about war

In 1973, a war-weary US Congress passed the War Powers Act to rein in presidents who overstepped in Vietnam. Five decades later, President Donald Trump's unilateral strike on Iran has reignited a debate the Founders thought they had settled in 1787. On June 22, when Trump announced a series of coordinated airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities — hitting targets in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan — he did so without notifying Congress, let alone securing its approval. The sites were hit with precision-guided missiles and 30,000-pound bunker-busters. While Tehran stopped short of a formal declaration of war, officials warned that retaliation was inevitable. At an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council, Iran's ambassador, Amir Saeid Iravani, accused the United States of having 'destroyed diplomacy,' warning that the Iranian military would determine the 'timing, nature, and scale' of its retaliation, the Associated Press reported. Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi immediately flew to Moscow for consultations with Russia, a sign of how fast this confrontation could escalate beyond bilateral hostilities. Back in Washington, President Trump's aides termed the strike as a limited action. Secretary of State Marco Rubio appeared on Fox News to clarify the administration's position: 'This is not a war against Iran,' he said. 'It's a targeted operation to prevent nuclear escalation.' Yet just hours later, President Trump posted a message online: 'If the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!' The message prompted widespread speculation. Was the administration pursuing regime change in Iran? And if so, was the United States already engaged in war? Global markets reacted nervously. Oil prices surged, and analysts warned of long-term consequences for nuclear non-proliferation and regional stability. More profoundly, Trump's decision reignited a centuries-old question: who gets to declare war? The US Constitution is unequivocal: under Article I, Section 8, only Congress — not the President — holds the authority to declare war. This separation was no accident. It was a deliberate check on executive power, forged in reaction to the British monarchy, where kings could drag nations into conflict at will. The Founders sought to ensure that decisions as grave as war would require the consent of the people's representatives. The Constitution also designates the president as Commander in Chief under Article II, granting authority to direct military operations once war is authorised. The executive also retains the capacity to respond swiftly to sudden attacks. The most notable test came in 1861, when President Abraham Lincoln ordered a blockade of Southern ports at the outset of the Civil War, months before Congress officially declared war on the Confederacy. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld Lincoln's actions, ruling that the President has the authority to 'repel sudden attacks.' For much of US history, this balance endured. From the War of 1812 through World War II, major military engagements were accompanied by formal declarations of war from Congress. Formal declarations of war have remained rare. The United States has declared war only 11 times. (Source: But in the post-1945 world, that constitutional clarity began to blur. The first major rupture came in 1950, when President Harry Truman committed US troops to Korea without seeking congressional approval, framing the war as a 'police action' under the United Nations banner. Subsequent presidents followed suit. John F Kennedy escalated America's presence in Vietnam by sending military advisors and weapons, sidestepping a formal declaration. By 1969, President Richard Nixon was conducting a secret bombing campaign in Cambodia, entirely without the knowledge or consent of Congress. This executive overreach eventually sparked legislative backlash. In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, designed to reassert its authority, overriding Nixon's veto in the process. The act required presidents to consult with Congress before engaging in hostilities and to withdraw forces within 60 days unless Congress explicitly authorised further action. In theory, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 was crafted to restrain precisely the kind of unilateral action President Trump has now taken. Passed in the aftermath of Vietnam, the law requires presidents to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying US forces into hostilities and to withdraw them within 60 days unless Congress grants explicit authorisation. In practice, it has proven all but toothless. Every president since its passage has sidestepped or outright ignored its provisions. Trump did not inform Congress before ordering strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, nor, critics argue, has he offered a convincing legal justification under the US or international law. 'The short answer is that this is, in my view, illegal under both international law and U.S. domestic law,' Oona Hathaway, a professor of international law at Yale Law School who has worked at the Defense Department, told the New York Times. The law, like many of its post-Watergate era peers, was built on trust and precedent. It had no true enforcement mechanism. And so, it has repeatedly failed to restrain the very power it was meant to check. Trump's decision fits a well-established pattern of executive overreach in foreign military engagements. President Ronald Reagan ordered the invasion of Grenada and airstrikes on Libya without congressional approval. President George HW Bush invaded Panama in 1989, triggering legal debate over constitutional boundaries. President Bill Clinton bombed Serbia in 1999 as part of the Kosovo conflict, again without seeking congressional consent. President Barack Obama launched a prolonged air campaign in Libya in 2011 and later against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, citing outdated authorisations rather than requesting new ones. Even President Joe Biden, a former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, authorised airstrikes on Houthi rebels in Yemen in 2024 without congressional sanction. Each administration justified its actions as necessary and time-sensitive. But cumulatively, these precedents have normalised unilateral war-making, eroding Congress's role and the public's voice in questions of war and peace. Technological change has accelerated this shift. Drones, cyber tools, and remote strike capabilities have made it easier to conduct military operations with minimal personnel and lower political risk. A key enabler of this executive drift has been the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed in 2001, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. The resolution granted the president authority to use 'all necessary and appropriate force' against those responsible for the attacks and those who harboured them. Originally intended to target al-Qaeda and its affiliates, the 2001 AUMF has since been used to justify military actions in at least seven countries, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, and Pakistan. It has also been invoked against newer groups like ISIS, despite no explicit congressional authorisation for those operations. Multiple presidents have promised to revise or repeal the AUMF. None have succeeded. Its broad language remains a legal foundation for perpetual military engagement. Trump's 2025 strikes have brought these longstanding tensions to a head. Legal scholars, military experts, and members of Congress are warning that US war-making has entered a constitutional grey zone. By allowing the executive to define and initiate acts of war without oversight, Congress risks ceding one of its most fundamental constitutional powers. Trump ran for office promising to end America's entanglements abroad. Instead, with his June strike, he has intensified one of the longest-running debates in US history. At its core, the question remains unchanged since 1787: who gets to take the United States to war? Aishwarya Khosla is a journalist currently serving as Deputy Copy Editor at The Indian Express. Her writings examine the interplay of culture, identity, and politics. She began her career at the Hindustan Times, where she covered books, theatre, culture, and the Punjabi diaspora. Her editorial expertise spans the Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Chandigarh, Punjab and Online desks. She was the recipient of the The Nehru Fellowship in Politics and Elections, where she studied political campaigns, policy research, political strategy and communications for a year. She pens The Indian Express newsletter, Meanwhile, Back Home. Write to her at or You can follow her on Instagram: @ink_and_ideology, and X: @KhoslaAishwarya. ... Read More

United News of India

25 minutes ago

• United News of India

Iran plans temporary suspension of cooperation with IAEA due to its 'political stance'

Tehran, June 23 (UNI) The Iranian parliament plans to pass a bill to temporarily suspend cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) due to its "politicised stance", said Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the Speaker of the Majlis (the unicameral parliament) of the Islamic Republic, reports Sputnik. 'We plan to adopt a bill in parliament that would suspend Iran's cooperation with the IAEA until we receive objective guarantees of professional conduct from this international organisation,' he said during a speech to lawmakers. 'The world has clearly seen that the IAEA has not fulfilled a single one of its obligations and has turned into a political tool.' A parliamentary bill to suspend Iran's cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog is under consideration, said Parliament presidium member Ruhollah Motefakerzadeh on June 23, according to state news agency Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA), reports Strait Times. UNI ANV RN

Time of India

28 minutes ago

• Time of India

With death clock gone, Khamenei's prophecy lies shattered

Israel conducted on Monday a high-profile airstrike on Tehran, targeting not only military and intelligence assets but also one of the most potent ideological symbols of the Islamic Republic -- the digital countdown clock in Palestine Square. Installed in 2017, the clock was based on Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's ominous 2015 prophecy that Israel 'will not exist in 25 years.' Its destruction carries enormous symbolic weight, not only erasing a defiant message embedded in Tehran's skyline but also underlining Israel's growing assertiveness amid escalating confrontation. The origin and ideology behind the doomsday clock The digital clock, unveiled during Quds Day in June 2017, was more than a timekeeping device. It was propaganda incarnate, counting down the days to Israel's predicted demise in 2040. Displaying its message in Persian, Arabic and English, the clock tower loomed over Palestine Square, a location already soaked in political symbolism. Its placement and message were calculated to consolidate Iran 's self-image as the epicenter of the anti-Israel activities. For Iran's hardliners, the clock functioned as a perpetual reminder of their ideological mission -- the eventual eradication of Israel. It was also designed to project ideological resolve to domestic and foreign audiences alike. To supporters, it was a declaration of strategic patience and religious destiny. To Israel, it was a provocation, an unwavering threat that one day Iran's ambitions would be realized. Read More | Israel is not yet willing to touch Iran's most sensitive nerve In July 2021, widespread blackouts across Iran briefly halted the countdown. Though the disruption was due to electricity shortages caused by drought, heatwaves, and crumbling infrastructure, the symbolic impact was immediate. Iranian critics mocked the state's inability to keep its ideological machinery running, while international observers noted the irony that a regime proclaiming the fall of Israel couldn't keep a propaganda clock running. This moment offered a rare window into Iran's fragility. Even as the regime pushed grand ideological visions, it struggled with basic services, facing economic strain from sanctions and internal mismanagement. The clock's failure, however brief, diminished its aura of invincibility and suggested a gap between Tehran's ambitions and its capabilities. Live Events Read More | Fordow underground enrichment site attacked again, says Iranian media, a day after US strikes An ominous symbol is gone but the threat remains Today's Israeli airstrike marks a critical turning point, not just in military escalation, but in the symbolic war between the two nations. Alongside hits on the notorious Evin Prison and IRGC headquarters, Israel deliberately targeted the countdown clock in Palestine Square. This act was not accidental. It was a surgical erasure of a regime's ideological fixture, timed precisely to deliver maximum symbolic impact. The destruction of the clock represented a reversal of narratives. For years, Iran had used the clock as a visual countdown toward Israel's destruction. By physically erasing it, Israel flipped the script, demonstrating that it no longer accepted Iran's psychological warfare and that it possessed both the will and the precision to eliminate even the most guarded symbols of ideological aggression. The clock's destruction coincides with a series of crippling blows to Iran's nuclear ambitions and strategic infrastructure. American B-2 bombers have destroyed Iran's key nuclear site, Fordow, using bunker-buster bombs, which amounts to the de-nuclearisation of Iran. The development marks a significant rollback of Iranian power. For the first time in years, Israel appears to be dictating the tempo of conflict, not reacting to Iran's moves, but preemptively shaping the battlefield. The destruction of ideological symbols like the countdown clock underlines this momentum. However, it would be premature to declare Israel free of existential threat. Iran still retains a vast missile arsenal and asymmetric tools such as drones, cyber capabilities and maritime threats in the Strait of Hormuz. Even a weakened Iran can inflict significant damage through its regional proxies or unconventional attacks. Ideologically, while the clock is gone, the doctrine behind it remains embedded in the regime's DNA. Perhaps the most important shift lies in the realm of psychological warfare. The countdown clock's presence gave Iran a persistent advantage in setting the ideological narrative. Its disappearance, bombed into oblivion by an Israeli strike, reverses that advantage. It suggests that Tehran's grand timelines and theological certainties are no longer sacred or untouchable. Symbolically, this act represents Israel's defiance not just of physical threats, but of the very idea that its destruction is inevitable. It delivers a message to the Iranian regime and its allies that history will not unfold on their terms. By destroying the clock, Israel has shattered Khamenei's prophecy, not only for the people of Tehran, but for a global audience witnessing the symbolic end of the 2040 vision. Bombing of the countdown clock is the culmination of a sustained campaign by Israel and the US to neutralize both the physical and ideological engines of Iran's aggression. While military threats remain and Iran's ambitions are far from extinguished, the destruction of the clock marks a powerful shift in psychological momentum.