‘No panic in Tehran': Russian expert recounts night of Israeli airstrikes
'No panic. Everyone is just getting on with their work.'
That's how Adlan Margoev, a Russian foreign policy expert currently in Tehran, describes the mood in the Iranian capital after Israel's dramatic airstrikes on military and nuclear targets. Speaking to Moscow newspaper Kommersant's Elena Chernenko from his hotel in northwestern Tehran, where he is attending a BRICS-related conference with other Russian scholars, Margoev offers a calm but clear-eyed account of events on the ground, Iran's likely response, and the potential collapse of nuclear negotiations with the US.
Elena Chernenko: As I understand it, you are now in Tehran with a group of Russian experts. What are you doing there?
Adlan Margoev: We are attending a joint conference with the Iranian side on BRICS and the Russian–Iranian strategic partnership. Our regular work involves informing the Iranian side about opportunities for bilateral and multilateral cooperation, discussing problematic issues in bilateral and multilateral relations, and focusing on how to strengthen such cooperation through various mechanisms.
EC: It was known in advance that Israel was preparing to attack Iran. Did you sense any danger? Was anyone warning you about anything?
AM: No, everything went on as normal and continues to do so. Iranians are used to the fact that there is always a risk of attacks and sabotage. One of the ordinary participants of our conference from the Iranian side (who is not in a position of responsibility, it should be emphasized) said, 'We have been fighting imperialism for so long that we are used to everything.' In general, Iranians maintain a friendly and calm attitude. We continue to work in the same vein.
EC: Where are you located?
AM: We are staying in a hotel in the north-west of Tehran. The conference is also taking place here and will continue today.
EC: No change?
AM: Except that the cultural event scheduled for tonight in the city has been cancelled.
EC: Tell me what happened last night.
AM: When it all started, we were asleep. One of our delegation's leaders was the first to wake up. At around three o'clock, she heard explosions from the strikes and the air defense systems that had been activated. A second round of strikes occurred at six o'clock in the morning. Needless to say, we were awake by then. We followed the news reports to find out what was happening. Among other things, we learned that the airspace had been closed. We have a return flight scheduled for Sunday.
EC: Are you thinking of leaving the country urgently by land?
AM: No, that would be an overreaction at this stage.
EC: So there's no panic on your part or on the part of others on the ground?
AM: There is no panic within the limits of what we can see.
EC: Nevertheless, the situation looks much more serious than the shelling that took place between Israel and Iran last year, right?
AM: Much more serious. The escalation comes at an extremely crucial moment because Iranian-American nuclear talks have been ongoing since April and the next round was scheduled for Sunday in Oman. I did not expect Israel to launch an attack while these talks were ongoing. Now, however, I doubt that the talks will continue.
EC: Judging by the statements of American officials, it seems that the US was aware of Israel's plans.
AM: No, but they were preparing for the possibility of such events occurring. They warned their diplomatic staff in the region and took a number of other steps.
EC: What kind of response do you expect from Iran?
AM: We have recently heard that Iran's response will differ from their 'True Promise' operations in response to the Israeli strikes in April 2024, as well as from their response to the previous round of Israeli attacks in 2024.
EC: Yes, it was quite restrained.
AM: Yes, it was done in such a way as to avoid further escalation. It is hard to say how the Iranian leadership will react now, but we will know soon.
EC: US President Donald Trump has questioned whether the US will be able to reach a deal with Iran over its nuclear program. Can we already talk about the failure of those talks?
AM: In retrospect, it's easy to say that the systemic positions of Iran and the United States were so far apart, especially regarding uranium enrichment, that the outcome of the negotiations was predictable.
However, we have been monitoring the internal dynamics within the Trump administration to see which team or school of thought will prevail. Will it be that limited enrichment in Iran is Iran's natural right as a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), like other member states? Or that, despite the NPT, Iran should not be allowed to engage in enrichment activities independently? President Trump, Vice President J.D. Vance and Steve Witkoff, head of the US negotiating delegation, have generally adopted a moderate stance, assuming that Iran can continue to exercise its right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. However, the opposing team, led by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, essentially reversed the results of several rounds of negotiations by stating that there could be no enrichment in Iran. Unfortunately, this harder line won out.
And, in behind-the-scenes conversations over the course of several months, the Iranian side confirmed that at each new round of negotiations, the American delegation arrived with a position as if there had been no previous round. Steve Witkoff would leave Muscat or Rome (where the negotiations were also taking place – Kommersant) with a reasonable approach to the Iranian position. However, each time, his consultations in Washington reversed the process. At the next round of negotiations, he reiterated that there could be no uranium enrichment in Iran. This, of course, frustrated the Iranian side. Nevertheless, they invested in the negotiation process. There were hopes that a rational and pragmatic approach with a view to peacefully resolving the crisis would prevail in the United States. However, as we can see, this did not happen.
EC: The Iranians have warned that if Israel were to attack, they could retaliate by targeting American facilities in the region. Do you expect Tehran to take such action?
AM: That's a good question. I would prefer not to speculate on the decisions Tehran might make. However, it still seems to me that it is not in Iran's interest to provoke the Americans and draw them into an escalation. I would therefore expect a tough response on Israeli targets and a more moderate response on American ones. Perhaps something similar to the Iranian strikes on US facilities in Iraq following the US assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani. Around 100 Americans were concussed in those attacks, but there were no fatalities.
From the perspective of avoiding a regional war, it would probably be sensible to give Israel a tough response, but to separate this from any tacit agreement by the US to allow such an operation. The big question is whether this will stop at exchanges of strikes on nuclear and/or military infrastructure or whether attacks on civilian targets will follow, which could lead to a major regional war.
EC: Russia and Iran recently signed a Strategic Cooperation Treaty. Although there is no clause obliging either party to intervene in the event of an attack, the two countries still consider each other to be allies. What kind of reaction does Iran expect from Russia?
AM: Judging by what is said publicly and non-publicly, the Iranians will expect the harshest possible condemnation of Israel's actions. They will also expect Russia and China to raise this issue at various international forums, such as the UN Security Council and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Additionally, we can expect the Iranians to be even more interested in continuing military-technical cooperation with Russia, including the supply of additional defense equipment — but this is not for public discussion.This article was first published by Kommersant, and was translated and edited by the RT team.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
3 hours ago
- Russia Today
Israel strikes Iranian state broadcaster's office
The Israeli military has targeted the headquarters of Iran's state broadcaster (IRINN) as part of its bombing campaign against the Islamic Republic. The office has continued operating despite sustaining damage, according to Iranian media. The strike came as IRINN was broadcasting live on air. Videos shared by both Israeli and Iranian media show a female anchor being forced to interrupt her work as the room she is in is affected by the attack. Dust and small pieces of debris can be seen flying in the air before the lights in the room go off after the sound of an explosion. At least four bombs hit IRINN's Political Affairs Office, which is operated by the Iranian Broadcasting Agency (IRIB), the state news media outlet said. Photos and videos from the scene show the building on fire, with plumes of thick black smoke rising above it. The IRIB maintains that broadcast resumed just minutes after the strike. It is unclear how many people were affected by the attack. The female anchor identified as Sahar Emami was reportedly unharmed and returned to work. She condemned the attack in a talk with IRIB and questioned the international community's inaction 'in the face of silencing journalists.' The Israel Defense Force (IDF) confirmed that it had struck the broadcaster's office, claiming the facility had been singled out because its 'infrastructure and assets' were allegedly being used by the Iranian Army under the guise of civilian activity. According to Israeli Defense Ministry Israel Katz, the broadcaster was specifically targeted in the strike. 'Iranian propaganda and incitement mouthpiece is on its way to disappearing,' he stated just before the attack, as reported by the Jerusalem Post. Offices in Tehran shared by RT and Ruptly also had to be evacuated on Monday due to intensifying Israeli strikes against the city. The bureau chief of RT's Tehran Office, Hami Hamedi, said that staff members had to promptly flee their office, as they received a warning from Iranian authorities about an impeding Israeli strike targeting their building. On Friday, Israel launched a series of air raids against Iran, including one that targeted a uranium enrichment center in Natanz and another which assassinated several senior military commanders and scientists. Iran retaliated by firing dozens of ballistic missiles into Israel. The sides have been exchanging attacks ever since.
Russia Today
3 hours ago
- Russia Today
Deterrence or death: Israel is making the case for a nuclear-armed Iran
Just hours after Israel launched its strikes on Iran in the early hours of Friday, June 13, US President Donald J. Trump declared that it was 'not too late' for Tehran to return to the negotiating table over its nuclear program. The level of delusion displayed by the joint aggressors here is simply staggering. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu justified the bombs being rained on Iranian cities as a means to bring 'freedom.' The US-Israeli axis sees no contradiction in reducing a sovereign nation to rubble while draping its aggression in humanitarian rhetoric. The strike came even as Washington and Tehran were engaged in protracted negotiations over the thorny nuclear issue. This is not diplomacy; this is coercion cloaked in diplomatic theater. Worse, it will go down as a day of infamy in international relations: a moment when negotiation was used not to resolve conflict, but to disguise premeditated violence. What did Israel and the United States hope to achieve through this betrayal? Regime change? The total submission of a sovereign nation to a militarized settler state forged in 1948? Are we now expected to believe that post-regime change, Tehran will suddenly embrace Tel Aviv – as some delusional pro-Israel ideologues like to fantasize? Incredibly, Israel now casts itself as the victim. Russia's deputy UN envoy Dmitry Polyansky brusquely described Israel's claims that it was only acting in 'self-defense' as 'very perverted logic.' But such perversion runs deep in the policies and pathologies of the Israeli state. As key Iranian infrastructure is bombed to ruins, and as Netanyahu urges Iranians to overthrow what he calls 'an evil and oppressive regime,' many Iranians are calling, ironically and defiantly, for their government to acquire nuclear weapons as the only credible deterrent against the endless cycle of sanctions, sabotage, targeted killings, and military strikes unleashed by the US-Israeli axis. Under such circumstances, can Tehran be blamed for cultivating and arming proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas in an effort to contain Israel? Just look at what Israel did to its neighbours before these groups existed. What makes Netanyahu believe that any post-Ayatollah government would be more pliant? If anything, it might be more resolute in seeking the ultimate deterrence. After all, Iran has been the target of unrelenting foreign aggression since the 1953 CIA-MI6 coup against nationalist Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. And let us not forget that during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War, the Islamic Republic was bombarded with chemical weapons, supplied or sanctioned by Western powers. Washington had no qualms back then, when Saddam was 'our man.' That was, until Israel orchestrated a back-channel arms pipeline that would become the infamous Iran-Contra affair. Can any self-respecting nation endure the constant humiliation meted out by its adversaries? That model of submission may succeed in parts of the Arab world, or in post-colonial client states across the Global South, but the Persians are apparently made of sterner stuff. Only time will tell. A civilization that traces its lineage to Cyrus and Avicenna has a moral and historical obligation to protect itself from existential threats. And if doing so requires the ultimate form of deterrence, then so be it – even if that means defying a so-called 'international community' that has allowed Israel to quietly amass nuclear weapons and lay waste to its neighbors with impunity for nearly 80 years. Israel, for its part, has warned the world time and again of the consequences of ignoring its self-declared prerogatives. As Netanyahu declared last year: 'If Israel falls, the whole world falls.' What exactly did he mean by that? Perhaps he was alluding to the Samson Option – a Sword of Damocles that Israel has long wielded over the world's head. It has been described as a nuclear-armed ultimatum: protect Israel at all costs, or face global ruin. The Samson Option refers to Israel's alleged military doctrine of massive nuclear retaliation in the face of an existential threat. Named after the biblical figure who brought down a Philistine temple, killing himself along with his enemies, the doctrine reflects a last-resort strategy. If Israel faces annihilation, it will reportedly unleash its full nuclear arsenal, possibly as many as 400 warheads, against its adversaries, regardless of collateral damage or global fallout. But is the Samson Option truly limited to nuclear counterstrikes? Former Israeli Defense Minister Naftali Bennett once warned that if Israel were ever pushed to the brink, critical global systems, including life-sustaining medical devices like pacemakers, could cease to function. That may sound far-fetched, until you consider that Israel's cybersecurity and cyber-strategic sectors have become a strategic pillar of its economy. Navigation apps like Waze, maritime tracking systems, and aerospace logistics pipelines are embedded with 'secure' Israeli codes. Now imagine a hidden fail-safe buried in legacy software across the globe, programmed to unleash cascading failures across nuclear plants, air traffic control systems, financial markets, and emergency infrastructure when the Samson Option is unleashed? Think of the recent Stuxnet and Lebanese pager affairs as harbingers. One keystroke, one kill-switch, and the lights go out everywhere! As a researcher in systemic global risks, I find it increasingly naive to assume that the Samson Option is limited to a conventional nuclear doctrine. The real Samson Option may be about collapsing the global system itself – a scorched-earth deterrent against isolation or defeat. Kenneth Waltz, one of the most influential realist thinkers in international relations, argued in a controversial 2012 Foreign Affairs article titled 'Why Iran Should Get the Bomb' that a nuclear-armed Iran might actually stabilize the Middle East, rather than destabilize it. Waltz's theory is rooted in neorealism (or structural realism), which sees the international system as anarchic, and posits that states act primarily to ensure their own survival. From this perspective, nuclear weapons are the ultimate deterrent, and their spread, under specific conditions, can actually lead to greater stability. Consider North Korea: since developing nuclear weapons and delivery systems, its behavior has arguably become more calculated and status-quo-oriented. It also encouraged Trump to extend an olive branch to Kim Jong-un. Israel remains the sole nuclear power in the Middle East, a monopoly fostering strategic imbalance and absolute impunity. The emergence of a rival nuclear-armed state, even with minimal second-strike capability, would force belligerent sides to act with greater caution. Conflicts would likely be reduced to face-saving precision strikes, as seen with nuclear-armed India and Pakistan. Despite hosting radical militant groups, Pakistan has behaved as a rational actor within the nuclear matrix. Similarly, a nuclear Iran could reduce its reliance on asymmetric proxy strategies – such as its support for Hamas or Hezbollah – because its security would primarily rest on deterrence. Some critics however warn that if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia may rapidly follow suit. A moot point, except that Riyadh bankrolled Islamabad's nuclear weapons program under America's watch during the 1980s Soviet-Afghan War which featured beloved 'anti-Soviet warriors' like Osama bin Laden! There are also persistent reports which suggest that some Pakistani nuclear assets may already be stationed in Saudi Arabia, under the command of senior Pakistani officers. In the event of a regional nuclear escalation, Riyadh can simply request transfer at will. Historical precedents also do not support alarmist non-proliferation fears. When North Korea acquired nuclear weapons, neither South Korea nor Japan followed suit. Deterrence, once established, tends to cool ambitions, especially when the cost of escalation becomes too high. So, what happens if Israel prevails in the current high-stakes military standoff, and a 'friendly' government is installed in Tehran? This could come about in any number of ways, as Israel alone will not be able to bomb Iran into submission. From a game theory perspective, a series of false flag events can be pinned on 'Iranian sleeper cells.' Furthermore, Netanyahu keeps insisting that Iran is plotting to assassinate Trump – a charge unsubstantiated by any US intelligence findings. If a 'presidential transition' occurs overnight, Vice President J.D. Vance may commit US forces directly to Israel's ongoing bombardment of Iran. But let's game out another scenario: If the current conflict escalates and the Temple Mount in Jerusalem is destroyed – whether by design or by accident – Iran will almost certainly be blamed for the loss of Islam's third holiest site. Such an event would enrage the Sunni Muslim world, redirecting its fury toward Shia Iran, and potentially paving the way for Israel to construct its long-anticipated Third Temple. Notably, in the early 1980s, Israeli extremists plotted to blow up the Dome of the Rock and the adjacent Al-Aqsa Mosque to effect this very outcome. Should such scenarios unfold, it could mark the disintegration of the Middle East as we know it. Netanyahu has previously hinted that after Iran, nuclear-armed 'militant Islamic regimes' like Pakistan could be next in Israel's crosshairs. This warning is not without its irony. For decades, Pakistan's deep state has maintained covert ties with Israel – dating back to Mossad-ISI collaboration in arming the Mujahideen during the 1980s Soviet-Afghan war. Israel has long been aware of Pakistan's 'pan-Islamic' nuclear ambitions but likely opted for strategic silence until all the Middle Eastern chips were in place. What the wider Muslim world fails to grasp is this: alliances with unprincipled powers are always transactional. When the geopolitical bill comes due, it may cost far more than anyone is willing to pay. Since its founding in 1948, several Israeli leaders have consistently expressed a vision of 'Greater Israel' stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates – encompassing parts of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and the Gulf. Iran however remained the perennial spoiler to this geopolitical dream. In fact, it was none other than Supreme Allied Commander Europe (NATO), General Wesley Clark, who famously revealed that Iran was the last in a list of seven Middle Eastern countries slated for regime change after 9/11. The current conflict is not about Iranian nukes per se; it is about Israel's territorial ambitions and the fulfilment of ancient apocalyptic messianic fantasies. Zionist ideologues like Avi Lipkin had even floated the idea of 'purifying Mecca, Medina, and Mt. Sinai' – rhetoric that signals theological as much as territorial ambitions. Once Israel secures strategic depth in the Middle East, it may soon challenge major powers beyond the region. But first, Iran must be subdued!
Russia Today
3 hours ago
- Russia Today
G7 still thinks it is running the world. The global majority has moved on
The G7 meeting in Canada is likely to put the internal cohesion of the group, which includes the leading Western economies plus Japan, to a severe test. Trump's America rarely sees eye to eye with the six other countries regarding most issues on the agenda. As it stands, the relevant weight of this group in providing stability to the global financial system was affected by the 2008 financial crisis, which led to the creation of the G20. This group of Western powers (with Japan co-opted) that had traditionally dominated the global economic and financial system realised that they could no longer do so on their own, as other economies had emerged whose cooperation to maintain the existing system had become necessary. The goal still was to maintain the global pre-eminence of the G7 by incorporating the emerging economies into the existing globalised system fostered by them. However, with the geopolitical rivalry with Russia (expelled in 2014 from what had become the G8) becoming intense after its military operation in Ukraine, and China declared as the principal long-term adversary of the US, this goal of preserving the hegemony of the West as much as possible by broadening the base of cooperation through the co-option of select non-Western countries is no longer realistic. Russia and China have become close strategic partners, their bilateral trade has expanded, and they are trading in their own currencies. The BRICS group has expanded, with members wanting to gain more economic and financial autonomy through development banks, trading more in their own currencies where possible, pressing for reforms of international political and financial institutions, and backing multipolarity in order to have a greater say in global governance. With his transactional approach towards friends and partners and giving primacy to trade over geopolitics, Trump has delivered a strong blow to internal unity within the G7. He is using trade as a weapon against all countries, including America's G7 partners, on whom he has imposed tariffs. He has upended the global trade order by grossly violating the provisions of the World Trade Organization (WTO). He is reversing globalisation. He sees the creation of the EU as an anti-American move. (The EU participates in the G7 summits). His views on European security have caused tremors in transatlantic alliance. His approach to Russia and the Ukraine conflict have flustered Europe. His administration has commented freely on internal European affairs, including the state of democracy in Europe. Trump's anti-woke agenda challenges the liberal excesses of European society. All this has led many European leaders to talk about a divorce between the US and Europe. The approaching G7 summit is meeting under the shadow of these developments. When the G7 last met in Canada in 2018 during Trump's first term as president, no joint communiqué could be issued, as Trump refused to be a party to it. The reason – his infamous spat with then-Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau over aluminium and steel tariffs. Since then, the bad blood between the US and Canada has worsened, with Trump treating Canada contemptuously by questioning its sovereignty and tauntingly inviting it to become America's 51st state for survival. The new Canadian Prime Minister Michael Carney has pushed back vigorously to maintain Canada's dignity and threatened reprisals on tariffs and other issues. This may not help in dealing with Trump. At the last G7 summit in Italy, the communiqué featured 18 forceful paragraphs on Ukraine – an indicator of the bloc's united stance at the time. However, it's hard to envision such consensus at the upcoming summit. Europe remains committed to arming and financing Vladimir Zelensky, who is expected to attend, signaling continued support for prolonging the conflict. It will be interesting to see the language on Ukraine in the final document. Italy's summit document also included 10 paragraphs on Gaza. Yet with starkly divergent views between Trump and the Europeans – on Gaza, Palestinian demands, and the two-state solution – reaching an agreed language would be most difficult. On climate change and environmental issues, which received 27 paragraphs in the 2024 communiqué, as well as on the clean energy transition and matters relating to Africa, which also featured prominetly in the Italian document, it is difficult to envision a unified language emerging. The text in Italy spoke of the G7 countries all remaining committed to 'the rules-based, free and fair, equitable, and transparent multilateral trading system,' with the WTO at its core, besides 'having a fully and well-functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all Members by the end of 2024.' This is a proposition that the Trump administration defines very differently and unilaterally. The discourse on resilient supply chains has also changed under Trump's on-shoring manufacturing and MAGA agenda. In Italy, the G7 also 'recognised the need' to strengthen the global health architecture with the World Health Organization (WHO) 'at its core.' Trump, however, has walked out of the WHO. There are issues on which the G7 could still find consensual language such as as on AI, maintaining financial stability, a more stable and fairer international tax system fit for the 21st century, migration, confronting non-market policies and practices that undermine the level playing field and the G7's economic security, strengthening coordination to address global overcapacity challenges, and fostering resilient and reliable global semiconductor supply chains. On the Indo-Pacific, China, Haiti, Libya, Sudan, Venezuela and Belarus countering terrorism, violent extremism and transnational organised crime, as well as pursuing nonproliferation, etc., acceptable language can also be be found. Iran has emerged as an issue of pressing concern following Israel's attack on the country and Iranian retaliation. It is of utmost importance that this conflict is contained and prevented from degenerating into a wider regional conflict. The usual calls for de-escalation and ceasefire won't be enough. Some concrete steps to pressure Israel to end the conflict would be required. The G7, however, is unlikely to put pressure on Israel as the focus will be on the unacceptability of Iran's nuclear ambitions. The Europeans will be opposed to any form of Russian involvement in mediation which figured in the Putin-Trump appears that the Canadian hosts, along with five other members – Europeans and Japan – have come to terms with the likelihood that issuing a joint communiqué may not be feasible. Canada is considering releasing a Chairman's Summary, which would signal that even without US support, six of the seven members remain aligned on a shared agenda. The implications of this lack of consensus – how it might weaken the G7's voice in global affairs and diminish its relevance – are likely to become a subject of debate and reflection. The relevance of the grouping is also often questioned in the Global South. For many in this part of the world, the G7 appears increasingly out of touch. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi will be attending the summit as an invitee, as has been the case with G7 summits in the last few years. Given the serious tensions in India-Canada relations over the activities of Canadian Sikh extremists seeking to promote separatism in India and issuing physical threats against Modi and Indian diplomats, an invitation to India to attend the summit was fraught with problems on both sides. With the ouster of Trudeau, who had burnt his boats with India, and Michael Carney replacing him, an effort on Canada's part to rebuild ties became feasible. This is despite opposition faced by Carney from local extremists who threatened large scale demonstrations against Modi. India, for its part, is ready to restore ties on the condition that anti-Indian forces in Canada are curbed. Modi's visit will test the ground. Modi will be meeting the G7 leaders separately. A meeting with Trump would be of particular importance, as lately the US leader has made statements that have caused concerns in New Delhi about the depth of his commitment to a strong strategic partnership with India.
