Politics
Russia Cozying Up To Iran, Serious Implications For Ukraine. How Will The Trump Administration Handle This New Found Friendship And What It Means For America?
The geopolitical chessboard is shifting yet again as Russia and Iran move closer to formalizing their partnership. The anticipated signing of a “comprehensive partnership agreement,” months in the making, signals a critical development in the war in Ukraine and poses significant challenges for the United States.
As the Trump administration prepares to serve this new axis of cooperation, the implications for American foreign policy and the international order are deep.
A Partnership Born of Necessity
Russia and Iran’s relationship has long been marked by a delicate balance of cooperation and mistrust, shaped by historical conflicts and competing interests. Yet, the war in Ukraine has acted as a catalyst, pushing these uneasy allies closer. Their shared goal of undermining the US-led global order has transformed their partnership from opportunistic collaboration to strategic alignment.
This convergence became evident in July 2022, when Russian President Vladimir Putin visited Tehran—a significant wartime gesture signaling Moscow’s pivot toward its regional ally. At the time, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was faltering. Initial gains were reversed as Ukrainian forces pushed back Russian troops in a series of counteroffensives. Desperate for resources and tactical support, Putin found a willing partner in Iran.
The Role of Iranian Drones in Ukraine
The fruits of this alliance are most visible on the battlefields of Ukraine. Following Putin’s Tehran visit, Russia secured a deal to produce Iranian-designed Shahed attack drones domestically. By 2024, production rates at Russia’s Tatarstan facility had more than doubled.
These drones have become a cornerstone of Moscow’s strategy, used extensively to target Ukrainian civilian infrastructure and energy grids. Their deployment aims to sap Ukraine’s morale, strain its air defenses, and stretch its Western allies’ support. For Iran, the partnership offers an opportunity to project power beyond its borders and showcase its military technology on a global stage.
Implications for the United States
The growing Russia-Iran axis presents a direct challenge to American interests. Both nations are united in their desire to counter US influence, and their partnership has implications that extend far beyond Ukraine. Thus for the incoming Trump administration, this development raises several critical questions –
How to Contain the Partnership?
The US must determine whether to address the Russia-Iran relationship through sanctions, diplomatic engagement, or military deterrence. The Trump administration’s previous approach to Iran, characterized by maximum pressure, may need recalibration in light of its alignment with Moscow.
Impact on NATO and Ukraine?
The durability of NATO’s support for Ukraine is being tested as the war drags on. Russia’s drone campaigns, bolstered by Iranian technology, could weaken Ukrainian resistance and strain Western unity. The US will need to lead efforts to replenish Ukraine’s air defenses and sustain allied commitment.
Middle East Dynamics?
Iran’s deepening ties with Russia could embolden its regional ambitions, from its influence in Syria to its adversarial stance toward Israel. This development complicates US efforts to stabilize the Middle East while also countering Russian aggression in Europe.
Russia’s Escalation in Ukraine
According to an analysis of air force reports, Russia deployed over 11,000 aerial missions in Ukraine last year—more than four times the 2,500 estimated in 2023 by Ukrainian defense intelligence. Moscow’s growing reliance on Iranian technology, including the alleged acquisition of ballistic missiles, shows the deepening military ties between the two nations.
While there is no confirmed evidence of Iranian ballistic missile deployment, reports of their delivery have already influenced Western decision-making. The mere prospect of such escalation has shifted debates in NATO capitals, leading to increased support for Ukraine, including permission to deploy Western-supplied long-range missiles against Russian targets.
A Partnership of Unequals?
Despite the appearance of a strategic alliance, the Russia-Iran relationship remains asymmetrical. Moscow views Tehran as a junior partner—a regional player rather than an equal on the global stage. Experts suggest that Russia’s support for Iran is not without ulterior motives, Moscow is adept at exploiting vulnerabilities. As Iran seeks reassurance, Russia appears poised to extract concessions, leveraging its position as a “bigger partner.”
Indigenizing Iranian Technology
Russia’s production of Iranian-designed Shahed drones has entered a new phase, with Moscow reducing its reliance on direct Iranian involvement. Having fulfilled its obligations under an initial franchise deal, Russia now manufactures these drones domestically. This self-sufficiency enhances Moscow’s ability to sustain its war efforts in Ukraine while keeping Tehran at arm’s length.
However, Russia’s military gains have come at a steep human cost. While Moscow’s manpower issues are less severe than Ukraine’s, the need for additional troops persists. Experts, however, doubt Iran’s willingness to provide boots on the ground, citing Tehran’s historical reluctance to commit its soldiers, even in its own proxy wars. Instead, Russia has turned to North Korea, which, according to Western and Ukrainian assessments, has deployed approximately 11,000 troops in Russia’s Kursk region.
The Trump Administration’s Dilemma
The incoming administration faces a complex and precarious situation. The extent of American support for Ukraine will determine the trajectory of the conflict, yet Trump’s inner circle appears reluctant to maintain even the current level of assistance provided under Biden. This hesitancy raises concerns among Kyiv and NATO allies, who fear that any perceived weakening of US resolve could embolden Moscow further.
Keith Kellogg, Trump’s Ukraine envoy, has proposed a peace framework that includes a ceasefire, negotiations, and the establishment of a demilitarized zone. While these proposals have garnered some interest among US allies, they hinge on Moscow’s cooperation—a prospect that history suggests warrants skepticism.
Lessons from Russia’s Playbook
Russia’s history of ceasefires in Ukraine is a cautionary tale, riddled with deception and military opportunism. From the annexation of Crimea in 2014 to the recent warfront stalemates, Moscow’s actions have consistently shown that peace agreements are often strategic pauses rather than genuine commitments.
In 2014, Russia’s annexation of Crimea was spearheaded by “green men”—unmarked soldiers who overwhelmed Ukrainian forces while Moscow denied their affiliation with the Russian military. Only later did President Vladimir Putin admit their identity. This same playbook was evident in the Donbas region, where Moscow orchestrated mercenary-led “uprisings” as a facade for its annexation.
Alexander Hug, who oversaw the OSCE monitoring mission during those years, recalled the inherent flaws in the ceasefire process:
“No ceasefire is perfect. Violations are bound to occur. The key question is what the agreement foresees in terms of sanctions and remedial action. If either side gets away with it, you have an open invitation for more of the same.”
While the dynamics today differ from a decade ago, Hug emphasized that the lessons of 2014-15 remain relevant. A ceasefire without enforceable consequences is an invitation for further violations.
A War of Attrition
Moscow’s story around the conflict has evolved significantly. In 2014, Putin sought to distance himself from the “separatist uprisings” in eastern Ukraine, portraying them as grassroots movements. Casualties were relatively low, and territorial gains were substantial.
Fast forward to 2024, and the war’s toll has been catastrophic. According to UK defense ministry estimates, Russia suffers up to 1,500 casualties daily, with the total nearing 700,000. This staggering loss has forced the Kremlin to reframe the conflict as an existential battle against NATO, likely to mask its faltering military performance and rally domestic support.
Yet, NATO’s involvement remains limited to supplying equipment—often outdated—rather than deploying troops. This asymmetry in commitment skews the negotiating table. For Russia, the war is existential; for NATO, it is a strategic concern. This imbalance makes meaningful concessions from Moscow less likely, as Putin may view the stakes as too high to settle for anything short of significant gains.
Peace Through Strength or Paralysis?
Kyiv and NATO allies often tout the doctrine of “peace through strength,” but this principle faces significant challenges in practice. The greater danger this year lies in a protracted diplomatic process during which Russia’s piecemeal adherence to any ceasefire—combined with minor territorial advances—erodes unity among Ukraine’s allies. The inability to agree on what constitutes a sufficient violation to warrant NATO’s full involvement could leave Ukraine vulnerable.
The Kremlin is well-versed in exploiting cracks in Western unity. Putin’s strategy has long relied on slow, methodical pressure—testing boundaries without provoking full-scale retaliation. This year, with a seemingly sympathetic Trump administration and the possibility of shifting European political ecosystem, Putin may feel emboldened. Once NATO’s cohesion falters, it could prove difficult to restore the strong support Ukraine has relied upon.
Russia’s Race Against Time
Despite these advantages, time is not entirely on Putin’s side. The toll of the war on Russian lives is staggering, with casualty rates soaring and the economy straining under the weight of military expenses. Financial reserves are depleting, and the Kremlin’s strategy of offering lucrative sign-on bonuses and death payouts is unsustainable.
Yet, the Kremlin’s tenacity on the battlefield—brutal, unyielding, and slow-paced—coupled with the prospect of a fragmented NATO response, may provide the opening Putin needs. The shift from a unified NATO stance to a protracted diplomatic process could replicate the environment that allowed Russia to secure key territorial gains in 2014.
A Test for US Leadership
The Trump administration faces a complex challenge in addressing this evolving dynamic. Striking a balance between containing this partnership and avoiding further escalation will require a nuanced approach even as the global order increasingly contested, how Washington chooses to respond could impact the broader balance of power in the years to come.
As Russia and Iran formalize their alliance, the United States must prepare for a more multipolar and unpredictable world—one where adversarial partnerships are not just temporary expedients but deliberate strategies to reshape global power structures.