• Research
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie India logoCarnegie lettermark logo
AI
{
  "authors": [
    "Petr Topychkanov"
  ],
  "type": "commentary",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center"
  ],
  "collections": [
    "Iranian Proliferation"
  ],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center",
  "programAffiliation": "",
  "programs": [],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "Middle East",
    "Iran",
    "Russia"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Foreign Policy",
    "Nuclear Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

Commentary
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center

What Does Russia Really Want in Iran?

Russian participation in the nuclear talks has demonstrated that despite the depth of the Ukrainian crisis and all the existing conflicts between Russia and the West, there are no reasons to consider Russia a purely destructive force that is bent on harming the West.

Link Copied
By Petr Topychkanov
Published on Dec 19, 2014

A number of conflicting assessments regarding Russia’s role in the negotiations on the Iranian nuclear program have emerged in the last few days. Some experts say that Russia played a significant role, while others believe it was passive. Some claim that Russia is interested in protracting the negotiations, others argue that it actually wants them to be completed, while yet another group asserts that the Kremlin seeks to derail them. Such are the views expressed by Russian, Iranian, and Western analysts.

The debate on the Russian role in these negotiations sometimes neglects Russia’s established interests:

  • First, it is not in Russia’s interest for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons or the capabilities to develop them;
  • Second, Russia is aware of the threats posed by Iran’s possible involvement in the proliferation of nuclear technologies and materials;
  • Third, Russia is categorically opposed to the use of force in solving the Iranian nuclear problem – whether through missile and air strikes, sabotage, cyberattacks, or any other means;
  • Fourth, Russia does not support unilateral or multilateral sanctions against Iran and would like them to be lifted.

In short, Russia’s interests lie in strengthening the non-proliferation regime, promoting regional stability, and developing multi-faceted cooperation with Iran.

Various interest groups, including those representing the energy and military industrial sectors, impact Russia’s policy toward Iran. However, past experience suggests that while these groups may influence Moscow’s position on Iran, they do not determine it. Besides, Russia has to consider the interests of other regional players, primarily Israel, with which, as the Russian president put it, Russia is bound by “strong ties of friendship.”

Did the Ukraine-triggered crisis in Russia’s relations with the West affect the Kremlin’s position on Iran? It certainly did, but not to the extent feared by many. Russia did not shield Iran, nor did it act as a spoiler in the negotiations. This behavior explains Western satisfaction and Iran’s open dissatisfaction with the quality of Russian participation in the negotiations.

Russia has not abandoned its interests regarding Iran as a result of the current geopolitical crisis. But the crisis has become one of the two reasons for the development of both bilateral and multilateral cooperation initiatives with the Islamic republic.

The most hotly debated development in the bilateral relationship was the expansion of cooperation on the peaceful use of atomic energy. On November 11, Russia and Iran signed the Protocol to the 1992 Intergovernmental Agreement which includes cooperation in the construction of eight WWER-reactor nuclear power plants, as well as a contract to build the second stage of the Bushehr nuclear power plant with between two and four new reactors. Russia is also expanding its cooperation with Iran in other areas including trade, transportation, space exploration, and military technology.

The second reason for developing Russian-Iranian cooperation is the impending conclusion of the negotiations on the Iranian nuclear problem. Evidently, Moscow understands that the sanctions against Iran may be lifted in the foreseeable future. Russia is thus attempting to maximally strengthen its position in the Iranian market before new actors appear on the scene.

The current situation surrounding Iran resembles the situation around India several years ago. When, with help of the George W. Bush administration, India started to emerge from partial international isolation brought on by its 1998 nuclear weapon tests, Russia intensified its already active contacts with India. As a result, Russian companies were able to sign a number of contracts with India shortly after its 2008 agreement with the IAEA.

Russian participation in the nuclear talks has demonstrated that despite the depth of the Ukrainian crisis and all the existing conflicts between Russia and the West, there are no reasons to consider Russia a purely destructive force that is bent on harming the West. The current issues in global politics and economics have forced Russia to take a more pragmatic position, albeit concealed under the cloak of propaganda rhetoric. This position seeks to prevent a further escalation of disagreements into an even sharper confrontation with the West. As part of this strategy, Russia strives to develop large-scale cooperation with other global and regional powers, including Iran.

About the Author

Petr Topychkanov

Former Fellow, Nonproliferation Program, Moscow Center

Topychkanov was a fellow in the Carnegie Moscow Center’s Nonproliferation Program.

    Recent Work

  • Report
    Entanglement: Chinese and Russian Perspectives on Non-nuclear Weapons and Nuclear Risks
      • +3

      James M. Acton, Alexey Arbatov, Vladimir Dvorkin, …

  • In The Media
    Iranian and Russian Perspectives on the Global System

      Petr Topychkanov

Petr Topychkanov
Former Fellow, Nonproliferation Program, Moscow Center
Petr Topychkanov
Foreign PolicyNuclear PolicyMiddle EastIranRussia

Carnegie India does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie India

  • Paper
    Threading the Needle: India’s Path Forward with China

    After the chill in ties between 2020 and 2024 that brought India–China relations to their lowest point in several decades, the two countries have engaged each other afresh. This paper argues that there are predominantly four imperatives guiding India’s approach to China, and they exist in an order of priority.

      Saheb Singh Chadha

  • Article
    Managing Divergence: India’s BRICS Presidency in 2026

    This piece argues that India’s central challenge is not managing a single flashpoint but resolving the underlying tension between expansion and institutional coherency of the BRICS grouping.

      Vrinda Sahai

  • Article
    India–Africa Strategic Partnership: Challenges, Potential, and Possible Pathways

    A partnership between India, a country of subcontinental size, and Africa, a continent of fifty-four countries, may seem asymmetric until one notes that both are home to nearly the same number of people—1.4 billion. This essay spells out the existing challenges to the partnership, its optimal potential, and the possible pathways to realize it over the next quarter-century.

      Rajiv Bhatia

  • Commentary
    Emerging From the “Zombie State” of Trade Agreements: The India-EU FTA

    The India–EU Free Trade Agreement (FTA) is shaping up to be one of the most consequential trade negotiations, both economically and strategically. But, what’s in the agreement, what’s missing, and what will determine its success in the years ahead

      Vrinda Sahai, Nicolas Köhler-Suzuki

  • India and a Changing Global Order: Foreign Policy in the Trump 2.0 Era
    Research
    India and a Changing Global Order: Foreign Policy in the Trump 2.0 Era

    Trump 2.0 has unsettled India’s external environment—but has not overturned its foreign policy strategy, which continues to rely on diversification, hedging, and calibrated partnerships across a fractured order.

      • Sameer Lalwani
      • +6

      Milan Vaishnav, ed., Sameer Lalwani, Tanvi Madan, …

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie India
Carnegie India logo, white
Unit C-4, 5, 6, EdenparkShaheed Jeet Singh MargNew Delhi – 110016, IndiaPhone: 011-40078687
  • Research
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie India
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.