
Tuesday briefing: What Israel really wants in Iran – and what might come next
Good morning. As the conflict between Iran and Israel has heated up in the days since Israel's surprise attack last week, a consensus has emerged that, while Tehran's nuclear ambitions have been severely compromised, it is all but impossible for Israel to extinguish them permanently without American support.
Nonetheless, Israel hopes that scuttling Iran's nuclear talks with the US and severely weakening the regime as a military threat will make its gambit worthwhile. And there is another goal that Benjamin Netanyahu appears to believe is possible: regime change.
That phrase, associated as it is with the US-led coalition's disastrous military adventure in Iraq, is something of a taboo in western capitals. But Netanyahu has been publicly bullish about the end of Ayatollah Khamenei's rule: 'I can tell you this, we have indications that senior leaders in Iran are already packing their bags,' he said on Saturday. 'They sense what's coming.'
In other statements, Netanyahu has been more ambiguous – and there are good reasons to think that Israel's attacks, extending yesterday to Iran's state broadcaster, may have the opposite effect. For today's newsletter, I spoke to Sanam Vakil, director of the Middle East and north Africa programme at Chatham House, about what Israel really wants, and why a sudden transformation in Tehran still looks very unlikely. Here are the headlines.
Grooming gangs | A culture of 'blindness, ignorance and prejudice' led to repeated failures over decades to properly investigate cases in which children were abused by grooming gangs, a report has said. Louise Casey said that the authorities had shied away from collecting data on the ethnicity of perpetrators.
Gaza | At least 37 Palestinians were killed on Monday in new shootings near food distribution centres run by private US contractors, local authorities said. The death toll, blamed by witnesses on Israeli troops, was the highest yet reported in the near-daily shootings since the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation began operations three weeks ago.
India | Investigators are preparing to study the pilots' last words for clues as to the cause of the Air India plane crash, after recovering the cockpit voice recorder from the wreckage. The voice recorder was in the Boeing 787 aircraft's second black box, which Indian authorities said they had found on Sunday.
Carers | The mother of a teenager with cerebral palsy has demanded an end to the 'sickening harassment' of unpaid carers after a significant legal victory against the government. Nicola Green was pursued by the Department for Work and Pensions for more than a year after she was accused of fraudulently claiming nearly £3,000 in carer's allowance.
UK news | A second person who died in a tandem skydiving incident in Devon has been identified as Adam Harrison, 30, from Bournemouth. Emergency services were called to the area around Dunkeswell aerodrome on Friday. Harrison, who was a tandem skydive instructor, and Belinda Taylor, 48, from Totnes, were confirmed dead at the scene.
In much of the discussion around the 'existential threat' that Israel says it faces from Iran, the focus has been on the risk of Tehran developing nuclear weapons. Benjamin Netanyahu said on Sunday that nuclear weapons and Iran's existing ballistic missiles were the primary targets of the Israeli operation.
But his comments have also left plenty of space to ask whether there is another goal: the removal of the Iranian regime. Israel acted 'to not only protect ourselves, but protect the world from this incendiary regime', he said. And after the first wave of attacks, he called for 'the Iranian people to unite around its flag and its historic legacy, by standing up for your freedom from the evil and oppressive regime'.
So is that a serious aim – and what might Iran's future look like if it happened?
Does Israel want regime change in Iran?
There is little doubt that it 'would be a dreamlike scenario for the Israeli political establishment', Sanam Vakil said. But there is a difference between a dream outcome and a realistic strategic goal. 'Since the 7 October attacks, there has been a consensus in Israel that Iran has to be cut down to size. But privately, military and intelligence officials tend to see regime change itself as very hard to achieve.'
What is less clear is what Netanyahu and his political allies really want, or believe to be feasible. 'Seeing Iran as the primary security threat and enemy of Israel is something he's spoken about for two decades,' Vakil said.
His foreign policy has generally focused on containment rather than direct confrontation – but that is partly because previous US presidents, and even Trump in his first term, have been less tolerant of Israeli aggression than the White House now appears. 'Since October 7, Israel's calculations have shifted, and it's unclear how serious he is about this now. At best, they can try to weaken the regime and let the dominoes fall.'
Some analysts have voiced the view that while it suits Israel to call for regime change now, as a way to destabilise Iran, it is less clear that it would be its preferred outcome in reality. In an X post that she acknowledged presented an 'increasingly unpopular opinion', Maryam Alemzadeh, a professor of Iranian politics at Oxford, argued that Israel 'wants a hardliner state who tries to retaliate and make Israel the victim, but fails to inflict much damage'. She said that regime change would ultimately mean that 'Iran as the straw man enemy that Israel relies on would disappear'.
Has Israel's attack changed the views of ordinary Iranians?
On its face, Netanyahu's appeal to the Iranian people would appear to suggest that he hopes the instability created by Israel's attacks will stoke the already significant discontent in Iran – and bring about a popular uprising.
In a country of more than 90 million people who have limited opportunities for public expression, it is obviously foolish to claim knowledge of what 'the Iranian people' want. 'I don't have a handle on the diversity of views in Iran, and I doubt that Israel does, either,' Vakil said. But it is perhaps more likely that the attacks will have the opposite effect.
The Iranian health ministry claims that 90% of casualties so far are civilians; the Israeli defence minister, Israel Katz, has threatened that 'the residents of Tehran will pay the price, and soon' for Iranian retaliation against Israeli residential areas.
'That doesn't play well in Iran,' Vakil said. 'There is, perhaps, an arrogance in asking people who have long been suppressed by their government to come out and topple the regime in response to an Israeli attack.' This piece by William Christou and Deepa Parent, reporting on emergency admissions to a Tehran hospital, gives a sense of how unconvincing a messenger Israel is now likely to appear to many Iranians.
In general, Iranians have not appeared supportive of their government's 'axis of resistance' anti-Israel strategy in recent years. But now there may well be a 'rebound effect', Vakil said: 'What Israel and Netanyahu are doing is creating more antipathy among a civilian population that wasn't very animated about Israel at all.'
Could Israel topple the regime without Iranian civilian support?
Set aside the slim prospects of a sudden popular uprising: Israel might also hope that its attacks will precipitate the regime's removal by other means. And, Vakil said, the Islamic republic has clearly been weakened by Israel's attack: 'This could certainly be the beginning of a transformation, and you can imagine a domino effect that leads to new people at the top.'
But while Israel's success in killing senior military leaders has shocked the Iranian establishment, there was little impact on civilian and clerical leadership. In any case, Vakil said, the Iranian state is not so shaky that the loss of individuals would be likely to precipitate a wholesale change. 'The symbolism of taking out the top echelon of the IRGC [Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps], which is enshrined in the Iranian constitution as the protector against external and internal threats, is not lost on people. It reveals a system that can not manage its own security.
'It is important and deeply traumatic and embarrassing for the Islamic republic, but it would be a little too triumphant to think that it means the regime is going to collapse as a result.'
There is another problem: the vector of the Israeli assault. The historic evidence of regime change brought about through war suggests that it is rarely the result of aerial attack alone, Vakil said. 'Unless the United States suddenly decides that it wants to roll in with boots on the ground, and that it is prepared to engage in a military operation like the one in Iraq, it is very hard to see the Islamic republic being toppled overnight.'
Would the death of Ayatollah Khamenei change that?
On Sunday, Reuters reported a remarkable claim from senior US administration officials: that Israel had a plan to kill the Iranian supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, but that it was vetoed by the White House. If such an operation had been successful – the same report said that Israel believed it had an opportunity to take Khamenei out – the rupture to Iran's political structures would clearly have been even more profound.
But, Vakil said, Iran is not like Iraq under Saddam Hussein or Libya under Muammar Gaddafi, where so much power was vested in a single person that their removal could be expected to bring about a fundamental change. 'Power in Iran is institutionalised, not personalised,' she said. 'It would be a massive blow, of course. But the regime would quickly convene and decide what to do.'
One good reason to be sceptical that Khamenei's removal would be transformative: Iran is already planning for a future without the 86-year-old. Under the pressure of international sanctions, there has been little public discussion of succession, Vakil said: 'Part of why the regime had agreed to negotiate with Trump is that they wanted to create the space for that process to play out in the public domain.'
Sign up to First Edition
Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters
after newsletter promotion
What might a new regime look like?
In this thread on X on Saturday, Vakil laid out some scenarios that might unfold, ranging from a sectarian civil war with a power vacuum at the centre to a coup by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. A pluralistic democracy does not make the list.
'It's not readily apparent that it's a possibility,' she said, as there is no organised opposition in Tehran, while the exiled opposition has few friends at home. 'Even among the diaspora, there are so many opinions about what a revolutionary regime change moment should look like. And within the country there is paralysis. You can confidently say that the majority of the country is deeply unhappy with the leadership of the Islamic republic – but I don't have a sense that Iranians can articulate a coherent view of what they want instead.'
Over the past five days, the UK Aids Memorial Quilt, which commemorates those who have died of the disease, has been viewed by thousands of deeply moved people at London's Tate Modern – revealing it to be, argues Charlie Porter, one of the most significant artworks of the past 40 years. Alex Needham, acting head of newsletters
Ahead of Friday's vote on assisted dying, Gordon Brown writes that 'there is no effective freedom to choose if the alternative option, the freedom to draw on high-quality end-of-life care, is not available'. For MPs, he argues, that makes the moral duty to vote no inescapable. Archie
The fact that Donald Trump's military parade turned out to be a washout shouldn't cheer his opponents too much, writes Moira Doneghan. While we can laugh at his intensely naff attempts to ape strongman dictators, the sinister intent behind them is all too sincere. Alex
If you've spent any time on the internet, you've probably seen a competition to win a house in a raffle. Kate McCusker talks to some of the people who tried to sell their properties in this unconventional way – with mixed results. Alex
Ross Minor has a singular ambition: to make it possible for blind people to play any video game they want. This Wired profile is a totally fascinating read about accessibility, bloody-minded determination, and the life-changing power of Pokémon. Archie
Football | Pedro Neto and Enzo Fernández both scored and Liam Delap made his Chelsea debut as Chelsea beat Los Angeles FC 2-0 in the Club World Cup. The match was played in front of 22,137 fans in a 75,000 capacity stadium in Atlanta.
Tennis | Dan Evans opened up the men's tournament at Queen's Club with his biggest win for more than two years, toppling Frances Tiafoe – the world No 13 – 7-5, 6-2. Cameron Norrie, meanwhile, endured a difficult defeat against the 19-year-old eighth seed Jakub Mensik, losing 7-6 (6), 1-6, 6-1.
Athletics | The father of the double Olympic champion Jakob Ingebrigtsen has been found guilty of hitting the Norwegian runner's younger sister, Ingrid, with a wet towel, and handed a 15-day suspended sentence. However, Gjert Ingebrigtsen, who coached Jakob to 1500-metre gold at the Tokyo Games in 2021 before an acrimonious split a year later, was acquitted of charges of physical and verbal abuse against his son.
'Israel warns Iranians to flee as deadly air raids continue' says today's Guardian front page, while the Financial Times has 'Israel claims 'control' of Tehran skies'. Many other newspapers lead on the Casey report on grooming gangs. 'Blindness Ignorance Prejudice Defensiveness' – the four things that failed the victims, says the Metro, while the i paper reports 'Generation of girls let down by police, councils and MPs who ignored UK grooming gangs'. 'Conspiracy of silence over race doomed thousands of girls to abuse' – that's the Daily Mail, while the Express has 'Let's 'uncover a lot of truth' in sex gangs inquiry'. The Times runs with 'Ethnicity 'brushed aside' in grooming gang inquiries' while the Mirror insists 'Never again'. The Telegraph's version is 'Asylum seekers behind new grooming gang cases'.
Israel's war with Iran: what does it want?
It has been five days since Israel attacked Iran and the civilian death toll is rising, but its war aims seem to have changed. Julian Borger reports
A bit of good news to remind you that the world's not all bad
Each one of the millions of parents and children who have enjoyed the books of Julia Donaldson will have their own unique ranking of her works. From The Gruffalo to Superworm, Room on the Broom to Zog, there are almost limitless combinations – but in this piece, Stuart Heritage gives it his best shot at naming the 15 very best.
And whether you agree or disagree with Stuart, here's a chance to tell the Guardian community team about the most revered Donaldson text in your household.
Sign up here for a weekly roundup of The Upside, sent to you every Sunday
And finally, the Guardian's puzzles are here to keep you entertained throughout the day. Until tomorrow.
Quick crossword
Cryptic crossword
Wordiply
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Sky News
24 minutes ago
- Sky News
UK attorney general concerns over Iran-Israel war
The UK government's top legal adviser has raised questions over whether Israel's actions in Iran are lawful, according to a source familiar with discussions inside the government. The source suggested to Sky News that Attorney General Richard Hermer's thinking, which has not been published, complicates the UK's potential involvement in the Iran-Israel conflict. If the attorney general deems Israel's actions in Iran to be unlawful then the UK is restricted in its ability to help to defend Israel or support the United States in any planned attacks on Iran. Speaking on condition of anonymity, the source said that the attorney general's concerns limit UK involvement in the conflict "unless our personnel are targeted". US President Donald Trump is currently weighing up his options for Iran and has repeatedly suggested the US could get involved militarily. This would likely involve the use of US B-2 bombers to drop bunker-busting bombs to destroy Iran's nuclear facility built deep into the side of a mountain at Fordow. These B-2 bombers could be flown from the UK base at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, strategically close to Iran. The US could also choose to fly them the far greater distance from the US mainland. Under a longstanding convention, the UK grants permission to the US for the base to be used for military operations. The US military could also request the use of the UK military base in Cyprus, for refuelling planes. Any refusal by the British could complicate US military action and, diplomatically, put pressure on the trans-Atlantic relationship. Israel's justification Israel has justified its war by claiming that Iran poses an "imminent" and "existential" threat to Israel. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has cited his country's own undisclosed intelligence claiming Iran was on the brink of obtaining a nuclear weapon. The Israeli government also claimed, without publishing evidence, that Iran was planning an imminent attack on Israel. They also cited the recent International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report which concluded that Iran had been "less than satisfactory" in "a number of respects" on its international compliance over its nuclear activities. It is not clear what aspect of Israel's justification for military action the attorney general has concerns over. The Attorney General's Office has told Sky News: "By long standing Convention, reflected in the ministerial code, whether the law officers have been asked to provide legal advice and the content of any advice is not routinely disclosed. "The Convention provides the fullest guarantee that government business will be conducted at all times in light of thorough and candid legal advice." The UK armed forces have previously rallied to help defend Israel from Iranian missile and drone strikes when the two sides engaged in direct confrontation last year. 34:31 In April 2024, RAF typhoon jets shot down drones fired from Iran. The UK military was also involved in efforts to defend Israel from a ballistic missile attack in October 2024. But the UK has not been involved in the current conflict, which began when Israel targeted Iranian nuclear facilities and scientists as well as more definitive military targets such as missile launchers and commanders. The UN's nuclear watchdog has previously raised concerns about any attack against nuclear facilities because of the inherent danger but also the legality. A number of resolutions passed by the IAEA's general conference has said "any armed attack on and threat against nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful purposes constitutes a violation of the principles of the United Nations Charter, international law and the Statute of the Agency". Israel believes that Iran's nuclear programme has a military use, which makes it a legitimate target. It believes the regime is aimed to enrich uranium to develop nuclear weapons. Tehran, however, has always insisted its nuclear programme is for civilian use. The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) has also condemned Israel's use of armed force against Iran as a violation of the United Nations (UN) Charter and international law. Interpretations of International Law Different countries adopt varying interpretations on the use of force in response to future attacks. The first legal position is that nations can act preventatively to deflect threats. The second is that they can act to deflect future armed attacks that are imminent. The third is that states can only act to deflect attacks that have occurred. That third position is generally considered to be too restrictive and the first as too broad. The grey area lies with the second position, and it rests with the definition of "imminent". The concepts of 'proportionality', 'necessity' and 'imminence' are key considerations. International law scholars have told Sky News that Israel may pass the 'proportionality' test in its actions against Iran because its targets appear to have been military and nuclear. But whether there was the 'necessity' to attack Iran at this point is more questionable. The attorney general would likely be considering the key legal test of the 'imminence' of the Iranian threat against Israel - and whether it is reasonable to conclude that an attack from Iran was "imminent" - as he weighs the legal advice issued to UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer. There is always nuance with legal advice, judgements rest on a variety of factors and advice can evolve. In the run up to the 2003 Gulf War, the US and UK justified their action by arguing that Saddam Hussein possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction - a claim that turned out to be wrong. The then-attorney general's advice, which evolved, was central to Tony Blair's decision to join President Bush in attacking Iraq. The concerns of the attorney general emerged from enquiries by Sky News about whether the UK would help Israel to defend itself from attack by Iran. A separate source told Sky News that they would not steer us away from the claim over the attorney general's views. But the source said there is always nuance with legal advice and that it likely included other factors.


The Guardian
33 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Europe must stand without the US – but the latest war in the Middle East shows it has no idea how
The rupture in the transatlantic relationship has left European leaders struggling to know how to think, let alone act, with any autonomy. Europe most urgently needs a mind of its own on the Middle East. Tragically, EU governments were just beginning to turn the page after a year and a half of complicity with the Israeli government's war crimes in Gaza. Donald Trump's obscene plans for a Gaza 'riviera' and 'humanitarian' initiatives that breach humanitarian principles were creating distance with the US, and European governments were starting to craft their own course. France and Saudi Arabia had planned a conference on the two-state solution, which might have led to Paris's recognition of Palestinian statehood. More significantly, the EU had accepted a review of the EU-Israel association agreement, which, in light of Israel's war crimes, should lead to the suspension of EU preferential trade with Tel Aviv, but now may not. However, Israel's military attack on Iran and the US's ambiguous yet evident support for this belligerence have upended Europe's shift towards greater autonomy and moral clarity. Of course, there is no love for the Iranian regime in EU capitals because of its human rights violations and military cooperation with Russia, notably in the war in Ukraine. Moreover, Europe rightly remains adamant that Iran should not have nuclear weapons. There is particular alarm over the International Atomic Energy Agency's most recent report on Iran's breaches of the non-proliferation treaty. But we have traditionally stood firm on the need to resolve the Iranian nuclear question through diplomacy. This is why in the early 2000s European negotiators invented the 'E3/EU format', comprising diplomats from France, Germany and the UK alongside the EU high representative to mediate on Iran's nuclear file. Today that world is gone. When Trump launched a direct negotiation with Iran, Europe was sidelined, excluded from any mediation process. Now, with Israel's military assault on Iran, we have failed to position ourselves with the necessary clarity: where was the denunciation of the bombing as a breach of the UN charter (article 2), and the additional protocol to the Geneva conventions (article 56), which specifically prohibits attacks against a state's nuclear facilities? It is one thing to uphold Israel's (or any other state's) right to self-defence. Quite another to legitimise pre-emptive strikes. This chronic impotence arises because Europe has traditionally viewed the world through a transatlantic lens. On most international issues, it has, for decades, worked hand-in-glove with Washington, using aid, trade, diplomacy, sanctions, defence and EU integration to support US foreign policy aims, convinced that the overarching values and interests were shared. Only on rare occasions have European countries openly opposed the US – as France and Germany did with the Bush administration over the US-led war on Iraq in 2003. Even where there is a difference of approach, Europe has sought to influence US foreign policy by mitigating its hard edges rather than thwarting it. European mediation on the Iran nuclear weapons question, for example, led to the joint comprehensive plan of action in 2015. And as the global rivalry between the US and China deepened, EU governments distanced themselves from US calls for decoupling the western and Chinese economies, instead promoting the softer alternative of 'de-risking'. Trump's foreign policy wrecking ball, however, has created a world in which Europeans have to stand on their own feet. And they are struggling. On Ukraine, Europe has learned the hard way and stands firm, maintaining financial and military assistance to Kyiv while exploring ways of filling the gaps in the event of US disengagement. But apart from Ukraine, we are at a loss. It is true that Europe has toughened up on Beijing; it is no longer starry-eyed about China's belt and road initiative and the strategic risk posed by Beijing's policies in Europe. The EU has started screening Chinese investments in Europe and raised tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles. But Trump's mixed signals mean that Europe needs to figure out alone what it thinks and wants from Beijing. The EU cannot afford a trade war on multiple fronts, especially if its own trade talks with Washington derail. European governments also know that there is no way they can meet climate neutrality by 2050, now enshrined in law, without cooperating with China, which is a leader in the green economy. Even in the unlikely event of a comprehensive 'deal' between Trump and Xi Jinping, it's hard to imagine Europeans reverting to the old days in which China was solely viewed as an economic partner and ally in defence of multilateralism. Europeans need to develop their own ideas and policies independently of an erratic White House, but they don't know how to get there. In its political wavering on the latest war, Europe has neither won favour from Washington nor improved its standing with Israel. In the meantime, it has lost all credibility as an honest broker with Iran. The cherry on the cake is that Russia has angled itself as a possible mediator instead, with Trump winking at this preposterous proposition. The risk is that Europe will also now block its own route to a more morally principled approach to the horrors in Gaza: the coming days will tell if the EU suspends its trade agreement with Israel, or if that too is put on the back burner. Ukraine is Europe's foremost security interest. Yet war, chaos and nuclear proliferation in the Middle East – which could be the unwanted consequence of the Israel-Iran war – are more consequential for Europe than for the US. So far, the European response is a far cry from thought or action, independent of the US. Nathalie Tocci is a Guardian Europe columnist


Powys County Times
2 hours ago
- Powys County Times
Trump will not say whether he will move forward with US strikes on Iran
President Donald Trump would not say whether he has decided to order a US strike on Iran, a move that Tehran warned anew would be greeted with stiff retaliation if it happens. 'I may do it, I may not do it,' Mr Trump said in an exchange with reporters at the White House. 'I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do.' Mr Trump added that it is not 'too late' for Iran to give up its nuclear programme as he continues to weigh direct US involvement in Israel's military operations aimed at crushing Tehran's options. 'Nothing's too late,' Mr Trump said. 'I can tell you this. Iran's got a lot of trouble.' 'Nothing is finished until it is finished,' Mr Trump added. But 'the next week is going to be very big — maybe less than a week'. Mr Trump also offered a terse response to Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's refusal to heed to his call for Iran to submit to an unconditional surrender. 'I say good luck,' Mr Trump said. Mr Khamenei earlier warned that any United States strikes targeting the Islamic Republic will 'result in irreparable damage for them' and that his country would not bow to Mr Trump's call for surrender. Mr Trump said on Tuesday the US knows where Iran's Mr Khamenei is hiding as the the Israel-Iran conflict escalates but does not want him killed — 'for now'. 'He is an easy target, but is safe there – We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now,' Mr Trump said. In a video address to Israelis, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu expressed appreciation for Mr Trump's support, calling him 'a great friend of Israel' and praising US help defending Israel's skies. 'We speak constantly, including last night,' Mr Netanyahu said on Wednesday. 'We had a very warm conversation.' Mr Trump's increasingly muscular comments toward the Iranian government come after he urged Tehran's 9.5 million residents to flee for their lives as he cut short his participation in an international summit earlier this week to return to Washington for urgent talks with his national security team. Mr Trump said that the Iranian officials continue to reach out to the White House as they are 'getting the hell beaten out of them' by Israel. But he added there is a 'big difference between now and a week ago' in Tehran's negotiating position. 'They've suggested that they come to the White House — that's, you know, courageous,' Mr Trump said. Iran's mission to the United Nations refuted Mr Trump's claim in a statement on social media. 'No Iranian official has ever asked to grovel at the gates of the White House. The only thing more despicable than his lies is his cowardly threat to 'take out' Iran's Supreme Leader.' Vladimir Putin offered on Wednesday to help mediate an end to the conflict, suggesting Moscow could help negotiate a settlement that could allow Tehran to pursue a peaceful atomic programme while assuaging Israeli security concerns. The Russian president noted that 'it's a delicate issue' but added that 'in my view, a solution could be found'. He said he had shared Moscow's proposals with Iran, Israel and the US. His comments follow a mediation offer he made in a call with Mr Trump last weekend. Mr Trump said he told Mr Putin to keep focused on finding a solution to his own conflict with Ukraine. 'I said, 'Do me a favour, mediate your own',' Mr Trump said he told Mr Putin. 'I said, 'Vladimir, let's mediate Russia first. You can worry about this later'.' The Russia-Iran relationship has deepened since Mr Putin launched a war on Ukraine in February 2022, with Tehran providing Moscow with drones, ballistic missiles, and other support, according to US intelligence findings.