&w=3840&q=100)
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
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
38 minutes ago
- Time of India
‘World War 3 is near': After Putin, now Russia foreign minister warns about ‘complete global chaos'
In a stark warning to Western countries, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said that the West's disregard for the UN Charter risks plunging the world into chaos and could lead to a third world war. Quoting President Vladimir Putin, Lavrov said that if every country interprets the UN Charter as it wishes, 'this world would not be a place of peace and order would give way to 'complete chaos which could lead to World War 3 .' Lavrov conveyed Putin's statement that Russia has no intention of isolating itself from its neighbours. 'These are our neighbours,' Putin said, emphasizing the importance of regional ties. He described any talk of shared human values and a common space stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific as 'laughable,' accusing the West of cutting off Russian energy supplies to the detriment of their own populations. Highlighting the consequences of Western actions, Putin condemned the terrorist attack on the Nord Stream pipeline, which he said has cost hundreds of billions of euros and damaged the European Union's economic and social well-being. According to Putin, the EU is maintaining aggression primarily 'to keep their population in check,' while the West has repeatedly 'shown their true face.' by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Join new Free to Play WWII MMO War Thunder War Thunder Play Now Undo Former Russian president on US's Iran strikes In a related development, former Russian President and current Deputy Chairman of Russia's Security Council Dmitry Medvedev claimed that several countries are now prepared to supply Iran with nuclear warheads following recent American airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. In a series of posts on X, Medvedev criticized the US strikes on sites in Isfahan, Natanz, and Fordow, arguing that they failed to achieve their objectives and instead strengthened Iran's resolve. Live Events 'What have the Americans accomplished with their night-time strikes on three nuclear sites in Iran?' Medvedev asked. He asserted that 'the critical infrastructure of the nuclear fuel cycle appears to have been unaffected or sustained only minor damage,' and that 'enrichment of nuclear material—and, now we can say it outright, the future production of nuclear weapons—will continue.' Medvedev further warned, 'A number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads,' although he did not specify which countries. He described the strikes as an unintended consequence that politically strengthened Iran's regime, stating, 'The people are rallying around the country's spiritual leadership, including those who were previously indifferent or opposed to it.' Trump's Noble peace prize aspirations He also mocked former US President Donald Trump , saying, 'Trump, once hailed as 'president of peace,' has now pushed the US into another war,' and sarcastically remarked on the possibility of Trump receiving a Nobel Peace Prize . Medvedev warned that the US is 'entangled in a new conflict, with prospects of a ground operation looming on the horizon,' while regional instability grows. 'Israel is under attack, explosions are rocking the country, and people are panicking,' he wrote. Iranian FM to meet Vladimir Putin Following the strikes, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi announced plans to travel to Moscow for talks with President Putin. 'I'm going to Moscow this afternoon,' Araghchi told Russian media, adding he would hold 'serious consultations with the Russian president tomorrow morning.' He emphasized the close strategic partnership between Iran and Russia, saying, 'We always consult with each other and coordinate our positions.' The visit follows a phone call between Araghchi and Lavrov, during which Lavrov condemned Israel's use of force and reiterated Russia's willingness to help de-escalate the conflict. The Russian Foreign Ministry stated that Moscow remains prepared to continue efforts to resolve issues around Iran's nuclear program. The US strikes, confirmed by Trump as the first direct American military action in the Iran-Israel conflict, involved six B-2 bombers dropping 12 precision-guided bombs. US officials have reportedly assured Iran that the operation was limited in scope and not intended to pursue regime change. Despite these assurances, tensions have escalated. Iran launched retaliatory missile and drone attacks on Israel, prompting further Israeli strikes on Iranian territory. Iran's Foreign Minister earlier warned that any US involvement in attacks against Iran would be 'very, very dangerous.'
Indian Express
42 minutes ago
- Indian Express
When can US go to war? Here's what its Constitution says
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
Time of India
43 minutes ago
- Time of India
'It was a ruse': Inside Trump's war room; how 'Operation Midnight Hammer' against Iran was planned
US President Donald Trump in The Situation Room, June 21, 2025 (Pic credit: White House) In a move that marks a dramatic escalation in US-Iran tensions, American President Donald Trump ordered a high-precision military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities on Saturday, authorising the first major US military action on Iranian soil since the fall of the American-backed Shah in 1979. The operation, carried out by a small fleet of US B-2 stealth bombers, was planned under intense secrecy and executed just hours after Trump returned from his New Jersey golf club to the White House. In classic Trump fashion, he announced the strike minutes after it concluded, "Congratulations to our great American Warriors. There is not another military in the World that could have done this. NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE!. " Photo: Inside Trump's war room - a secretive, surgical attack The White House later released tightly controlled photos from the classified Situation Room, showing Trump, wearing his signature red MAGA hat, flanked by his war cabinet. CIA director John Ratcliffe, defense secretary Pete Hegseth, and White House chief of staff Susie Wiles were present, though national intelligence director Tulsi Gabbard was conspicuously missing, amid rumours of internal friction. US President Donald Trump in The Situation Room, June 21, 2025 (Pic credit: White House) Photos blurred key documents on the table, echoing the Obama-era images of the 2011 Bin Laden raid. But where Obama's photos suggested deliberation and calm, Trump's leaned into theatrics— part documentation, part spectacle, all calculated for impact. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like What She Did Mid-Air Left Passengers Speechless medalmerit Learn More Undo US President Donald Trump in The Situation Room, June 21, 2025 (Pic credit: White House) A strike months in the making, publicly denied until the last hour Though Trump projected uncertainty all week, publicly musing on whether he might "take two weeks" to decide, the internal gears of war were already in motion. By Thursday, he had approved detailed attack plans. By early Saturday morning, seven B-2s were already airborne. "It was a ruse," a senior administration official admitted, according to The Washington Post. Only a tight circle of aides were read in: VP JD Vance, CIA chief Ratcliffe, defense secretary Hegseth, national security envoy Steve Witkoff, and secretary of state Marco Rubio, among others. Some in the broader White House apparatus were in the dark until the bombs had already fallen. The final decision, it seems, was not so much a moment as a mood. Trump's two-week bluff? Trump's claim that he might take "two weeks" to decide on striking Iran was a calculated deception, designed to throw Tehran off balance. Behind the scenes, however, the decision had already been made, and stealth bombers were preparing for takeoff. A senior administration official later admitted the delayed talk was "our attempt to throw the Iranians off guard," though there was 'some truth' to it, according to The Washington Post. The public indecision masked a fast-moving, tightly held operation that unfolded just 36 hours later. Iran's red line: Nuclear enrichment At the heart of the conflict: Iran's refusal to halt its nuclear fuel enrichment program, an issue that has vexed American presidents for decades. In Geneva last week, European diplomats met with Iran's foreign minister Abbas Araghchi, but the talks stalled. Tehran wouldn't budge unless the bombing stopped. Trump, in turn, wouldn't stop unless Iran surrendered its nuclear future. This time, the ultimatum came with an unmistakable threat: Trump warned Tehran to "immediately evacuate" and told Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei that "he could be next." Despite the bombast, Trump never spoke to Iranian officials directly. Instead, Witkoff held backchannel negotiations. Trump's demand: zero enrichment, full dismantlement. Iran's answer: no. Behind the scenes: Friction, fundraisers, and the MAGA war room While B-2s sped across the Atlantic, Trump wasn't in a bunker, he was at a fundraiser. Vice President JD Vance was flying back from California. The air of normalcy masked the imminent shockwave. But inside the Situation Room, the president's loyal cadre assembled. Among them: social media gatekeeper Dan Scavino, press secretary Karoline Leavitt, and even AG Pam Bondi, who hadn't been involved in the planning but was brought in at the eleventh hour. Top US officials in The Situation Room, June 21, 2025 (Pic credit: White House) Outside the government, Trump's populist whisperers, Steve Bannon, Charlie Kirk, and Jack Posobiec, were kept in the loop to shore up political backing. The strike wasn't just a military message, it was a campaign moment in the making. "He was listening to people across the ideological perspective" of his political base, The Washington Post quoted the senior administration official. "Ultimately, the president felt this is a decision the base should support and get behind, because ultimately, he's preventing a conflict that very well could have happened if the supreme leader instructed Iran to create the nuclear weapon," he added. Global fallout and strategic calculations The strike was timed precisely, coming just days after Israel launched its own offensive against Iran on June 13. By midweek, Israeli air dominance helped tilt US military calculations toward optimism. Ret. Lt. Gen. Charlie "Tuna" Moore put it bluntly: "Although we could have executed our operation unilaterally, without a doubt it was beneficial to the United States to have that as the predicate." Even VP Vance, who had privately raised concerns, ultimately signed off. His Iraq War experience made him cautious, but not obstructionist. "He wanted the tires kicked," one official said." Bunker Busters: The bomb that digs to destroy A calculated gamble In the end, Trump's decision marked a sharp pivot from decades of American hesitation. Every president since Carter has baulked at the idea of a full strike on Iranian territory. Trump just did it. Whether it stabilises or further inflames the region remains to be seen. Rubio has begun briefing European allies post-strike. Iran, for now, is unlikely to let this go unanswered. In Sunday interviews, Vance admitted no one truly knew when Trump made the call, not even him. "I don't know that any of us knew exactly when the president made the decision except for the president himself," he said on "Meet the Press."
