Trump says Putin offered to broker a new U.S.–Iran nuclear deal. Could the Russian president really help? And what’s in it for him?
Talks on a potential new nuclear deal between the U.S. and Iran have once again hit a deadlock. But they haven’t broken down completely — instead, both parties appear to be focused on negotiating better terms for themselves. Amid this impasse, Russian President Vladimir Putin has offered to help broker an agreement, telling Trump he’d be willing to serve as a mediator. But what would Moscow’s involvement in these negotiations do for Washington and Tehran? And does the Kremlin really want to see Iran get out from under U.S. sanctions? To answer these questions and more, Meduza turned to Middle East expert Nikita Smagin, author of the Telegram channel Islamism from a Foreign Agent.
A long-standing problem
Iran’s nuclear program has been a persistent concern for U.S. policymakers throughout the 21st century. Every American president in this period — George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, Joe Biden, and then Trump again — has tried, in one way or another, to persuade or pressure Tehran to prevent it from becoming an additional nuclear threat in the region.
Iran’s nuclear aspirations date all the way back to the 1960s. The country’s last Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, steadily worked to turn Iran into the leading nuclear power in the Middle East. At the time, Tehran imported all its technology from the U.S. and Europe, meaning the entire process was under strict international supervision. Because of this, Iran’s nuclear program didn’t raise concerns among the world’s major powers.
After the 1979 revolution, all of the Shah’s nuclear projects were abandoned — not a single nuclear power plant had been completed during his reign. The issue was revived in the 1990s, when the Islamic Republic invited Russia to build a nuclear power plant in the city of Bushehr. Initially, this didn’t cause much alarm, as countries from the U.S. to China saw it as a limited, supervised project.
The Kremlin crushed Meduza’s business model and wiped out our ad revenue. We’ve been blocked and outlawed in Russia, where donating to us or even sharing our posts is a crime. But we’re still here — bringing independent journalism to millions of our readers inside Russia and around the world.
Meduza’s survival is under threat — again. Donald Trump’s foreign aid freeze has slashed funding for international groups backing press freedom. Meduza was hurt too. It’s yet another blow in our ongoing struggle to survive.
You could be our lifeline. Please, help Meduza survive with a small recurring donation.
Everything changed in 2003, when it was revealed that Iran had secretly been working on developing nuclear weapons. The reformist president at the time, Mohammad Khatami, sought to ease tensions by agreeing to let European inspectors into the country. But the inspectors never arrived before the 2005 elections brought ultraconservative Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to power. He declared Iran’s nuclear program an inalienable right and barred any inspections. That’s when the issue began to worry many.
Ahmadinejad’s aggressive rhetoric toward the U.S. and Israel escalated tensions so much that the entire international community — including the U.S., Russia, and China — began exerting coordinated pressure on Iran. This culminated during Obama’s presidency, when in 2011–2012 he imposed crippling sanctions, including an oil export ban and disconnecting Iran from SWIFT. Even Moscow and Beijing supported these measures.
Sign up for Meduza’s daily newsletter
A digest of Russia’s investigative reports and news analysis. If it matters, we summarize it.
The sanctions caused Iran’s currency to collapse and triggered the country’s first recessions since the 1980s. This quickly convinced Iran’s leadership that negotiations with the U.S. were necessary. In 2013, reformist Hassan Rouhani won the presidency and launched talks with Washington. By 2015, the parties had reached a nuclear deal: Iran committed to a peaceful nuclear program and allowed an unprecedented level of inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In exchange, the U.S. and E.U. lifted all nuclear-related sanctions.
In 2018, President Donald Trump, confident he could secure a better deal than Obama, unilaterally withdrew from the agreement and reinstated all sanctions. He demanded an expanded deal covering not just the nuclear program but also Iran’s missile program and regional activities. Tehran refused to negotiate, hoping instead for a change in the U.S. presidency. But under President Joe Biden, Washington and Tehran failed to reach an agreement on de-escalation. In 2025, Trump returned to the White House and resumed dialogue with Iran.
Current points of contention
When Trump returned to office, many expected him to resume the hardline stance he had taken during his first term. Back then, he laid out a sweeping list of demands for Tehran, including halting uranium enrichment, ending its missile program, cutting ties with proxy forces in the region, and reining in its expansionist foreign policy. In Iran, these demands were seen as a call for surrender without war — and unsurprisingly, no talks occurred.
This time, however, Trump started from a more moderate position, naming just two areas for negotiation: the missile program and uranium enrichment. Even so, the White House paired this with tough rhetoric, threatening strikes on Iranian nuclear sites if Tehran refused to engage. Nonetheless, talks did begin — though almost immediately, Iran’s missile program dropped out of the conversation, leaving uranium enrichment as the main sticking point.
Sign up for The Beet
Underreported stories. Fresh perspectives. From Budapest to Bishkek.
While the full details of the negotiations remain unclear, it’s evident that uranium enrichment is the core issue. The U.S. insists that while Tehran has the right to a peaceful nuclear program, it should rely solely on imported nuclear fuel. That would mean a model similar to the Bushehr plant — which runs on Russian-supplied fuel — with no domestic enrichment. Iran, in contrast, maintains that enrichment is its sovereign right. It says it’s willing to cap enrichment at 3.67 percent and allow international inspections to verify compliance.
Meanwhile, sources cited by Axios claim that Trump may be open to compromise. The latest reported U.S. proposal would allow Iran to temporarily halt centrifuge operations at underground facilities — after which it could resume enrichment at the 3.67 percent level. If true, this would amount to a return to the 2015 deal — the very one Trump abandoned.
Still, the U.S. has not publicly acknowledged any willingness to compromise. Officially, its position remains unchanged: No enrichment at all if Iran wants a deal.
What a U.S. strike on Iran would look like
Despite Trump’s repeated warnings about a possible strike on Iran, that prospect has largely receded. The main reason for this is that Iran has come to the negotiating table — and a deal now seems within reach. In Trump’s view, the threat worked, and it’s now time to move forward. Several other factors also weigh against military action.
First, a strike would carry unpredictable consequences. The baseline scenario would involve Israel, with U.S. backing, targeting key nuclear facilities in Natanz and Fordow. But Tehran would almost certainly retaliate — potentially not only against Israel but also against America’s Arab allies and U.S. bases across the Middle East. The U.S. could find itself drawn into a prolonged cycle of attacks.
Of course, the U.S. and its allies possess overwhelming military superiority. But the war in Yemen has shown that even weaker opponents can pose serious challenges. And Iran’s capabilities far exceed those of the Houthis.
Regional powers like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar — key financial and diplomatic partners for Trump — also want to avoid war. These Gulf states have been prioritizing economic growth, investment, and infrastructure projects. A regional conflict would jeopardize those ambitions. Trump, who signed multibillion-dollar deals with Riyadh, Abu Dhabi, and Doha during his last term, is certainly listening.
There’s also uncertainty over whether military action would even succeed. Destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities is far from guaranteed, especially since many are deep underground. In early June, IAEA chief Rafael Grossi said Iran’s most sensitive infrastructure lies half a mile — roughly 800 meters — below ground. Previous estimates had placed it at just 80–90 meters (262–295 feet).
The only actor still openly advocating for a strike is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He argues that destroying Iran’s above-ground facilities would buy four to five years of non-nuclear status — a better outcome, in his view, than endless negotiations.
Israel’s concerns are long-term. It fears that once sanctions are lifted, the U.S. may continue pulling back from the region, citing reduced threats. That could leave Israel to face its adversaries alone. Trump has already distanced himself from the Houthi conflict, even as they continue launching attacks on Israel. If sanctions were lifted, Tehran might also ramp up support for groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.
Still, for now, Trump seems more aligned with the longstanding U.S. realist view: that America should not act solely in Israel’s interest. He has continued to rein in Netanyahu and has so far blocked any moves toward war. In Trump’s view, a deal is within reach — and a nuclear Iran can be addressed peacefully.
Enter Putin
Amid ongoing bargaining between the U.S. and Iran, rumors have emerged in the American press that Vladimir Putin might help broker a nuclear deal. The speculation began with a statement from Trump himself. After a nearly 90-minute call between the two presidents, Trump announced that the Russian leader had offered to assist in talk with Tehran. The Kremlin confirmed this, adding that Trump had personally asked Putin to get involved — and that Putin was ready to help “if necessary.”
A day later, Rosatom, Russia’s state nuclear corporation, declared it was prepared to “resolve any technical issues” if a deal with Iran were reached. Most likely, this refers to the need to remove excess uranium that Iran has enriched beyond the 3.67 percent limit in recent years. According to the latest IAEA report, Iran currently holds about 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent — just below weapons-grade.
Russia has played this role before. When the 2015 deal was signed, Moscow agreed to take custody of Iran’s spent fuel to prevent its misuse. As then, Russia remains the only country both technically capable and politically willing to take on this task.
But Moscow isn’t particularly eager for a deal — especially if it leads to U.S. sanctions on Iran being lifted. As long as restrictions remain, Tehran remains a reliable partner with few other options. Unlike Turkey or China, Iran doesn’t hesitate to work with a sanctioned Russia, since it’s long been under Western sanctions itself. But if pressure on Iran eases, Tehran might rethink its relationship with Moscow.
At the same time, Russia has no interest in a U.S. or Israeli strike on Iran, which could destabilize or even collapse the Islamic Republic. Just last week, Iran’s embassy pointed out that Russia became its largest foreign investor in 2024. Moscow plans to invest another $8 billion in Iran’s oil and gas sector. There are also major joint projects underway: the Bushehr nuclear plant, a rail line along the North-South corridor, the Sirik power station, and more. The last thing Moscow wants is to see those investments destroyed.
The ideal scenario for Russia would be endless negotiations between Washington and Tehran — without a deal. And in many ways, that’s what we’re seeing now.
Still, Russia has limited influence over the final outcome. If the U.S. and Iran reach an agreement, it will proceed — with or without Moscow’s blessing. That’s why, just as in 2015, the pragmatic approach is to get involved rather than oppose something inevitable. From this perspective, Russia’s role as a mediator — or even a direct participant — seems plausible. Iranian officials have suggested that Putin is expected to visit Tehran soon, and that trip could serve to finalize key arrangements.
For Trump, a deal with Iran brokered with Putin’s help looks far more achievable than any agreement between Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The last round of talks between Moscow and Kyiv in Istanbul showed just how far apart the two sides remain. As a result, Washington and Moscow may pivot their focus to the Middle East — where a breakthrough still seems possible. That may be a gamble the U.S. president is willing to take.
Analysis by Nikita Smagin