Russia Plays Quiet Chess as Iran and U.S. Weigh Snapback Sanctions

According to Saed News, Moscow’s stance on the Iran-U.S. confrontation reflects calibrated detachment rather than central influence, according to Qiuomars Yazdanpanah, a geopolitics professor at the University of Tehran. Speaking to Etemad daily, Yazdanpanah remarked that while Russia and Iran maintain long-standing strategic ties, Moscow is not seen as a decisive player by other global powers. He warned that exaggerated portrayals of Iran’s nuclear threat—especially following the recent Israel-U.S. 12-day war against Iran—could serve as a pretext for escalating international pressure. Yazdanpanah advised Tehran to base its responses on verified evidence when addressing Russian positions regarding its nuclear program, noting “the enemy is looking for excuses.”

Meanwhile, Shargh newspaper explored Europe’s influence on the negotiation process with Middle East analyst Mohammad Irani. With France, Germany, and Britain considering activation of the snapback sanctions mechanism, Irani highlighted Tehran’s threat to withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) if sanctions return. He suggested both Washington and Tehran may be seeking a temporary agreement to avoid such escalation. “Whether we like it or not,” Irani stated, “if the European trio trigger the mechanism, it will influence the talks.”

Arman-e-Melli interviewed political affairs expert Mehdi Pazoki, who emphasized that active diplomacy is not optional but essential. Pazoki cautioned against emotional reactions, noting Israel’s strategy to leverage the snapback mechanism as a means to secure U.S. and European backing for further sanctions. “Iran, relying on its strategic dominance and diplomatic capability, can manage the crisis intelligently to improve its economic situation and international interactions,” he said.

Finally, Khorasan daily offered a reflective note on the character of future negotiations. The paper argued that while the 12-day war exposed the unchanging nature of hegemonic pressures, Iran’s response must be rooted in strategic rationality rather than emotion or ideology. It stated: “Negotiations are not only permissible but necessary—provided they serve Iran’s strategic interests and align with Islamic political rationality.”