US-Russia Phone Call and the Situation in Iran —
The phone call between Trump and Putin is not mere diplomatic courtesy. Behind the US and Russia's performance of "cooperation" on the Iran issue, a structural transformation is underway: the re-division of spheres of influence in the Middle East and the establishment of a new power balance after the complete collapse of the Iran nuclear deal.
── Understand in 3 points ─────────
- • On March 9, 2026, President Trump and President Putin held a phone call focusing on the situation in Iran.
- • President Trump described the talks as "meaningful" and emphasized President Putin's cooperative stance on the Middle East situation.
- • The main topic of the talks was the situation in Iran, and themes related to the overall security order of the Middle East were discussed.
── NOW PATTERN ─────────
Behind the US and Russia's performance of "cooperation" on the Iran issue, three structural dynamics are simultaneously at play: the struggle for narrative hegemony, the fracturing of existing alliances, and the spiral of conflict in the Middle East.
── Probability and Response ──────
• Base case 50% — US-Russia summit meetings are held regularly but yield no concrete results; Iran's enrichment activities remain flat at current levels; China's imports of Iranian crude oil continue.
• Bull case 20% — Russia officially restricts arms supplies to Iran; Iran makes positive statements regarding expanded acceptance of IAEA inspections; the US presents specific conditions for sanctions relief.
• Bear case 30% — Breakdown of US-Russia negotiations on Ukraine; acceleration of Russia's supply of advanced weapons to Iran; signs of Iran increasing enrichment levels; large-scale Israeli Air Force exercises.
📡 Signal — What Happened
Why it matters: The phone call between Trump and Putin is not mere diplomatic courtesy. Behind the US and Russia's performance of "cooperation" on the Iran issue, a structural transformation is underway: the re-division of spheres of influence in the Middle East and the establishment of a new power balance after the complete collapse of the Iran nuclear deal.
- Diplomacy — On March 9, 2026, President Trump and President Putin held a phone call focusing on the situation in Iran.
- Diplomacy — President Trump described the talks as "meaningful" and emphasized President Putin's cooperative stance on the Middle East situation.
- Geopolitics — The main topic of the talks was the situation in Iran, and themes related to the overall security order of the Middle East were discussed.
- Nuclear Issue — Iran's nuclear development program has accelerated since 2025, and its enriched uranium stockpile is increasing.
- Military — The US has deployed a carrier strike group to the Persian Gulf region, maintaining military pressure on Iran.
- Energy — Iran's crude oil exports remain at approximately 1.3 million barrels per day despite sanctions, primarily exported to China.
- Diplomacy — Russia has signed a security cooperation agreement with Iran and has deepened military ties, including arms supplies.
- Regional Situation — Israel has not ruled out the option of a preemptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, and regional tensions remain high.
- Economy — The effectiveness of sanctions against Iran has been reduced by transactions via third countries such as China and India.
- Diplomacy — The situation in Ukraine is also being discussed in parallel between the US and Russia, making the Iran issue part of a broader geopolitical bargain.
- Institutions — The JCPOA (Iran nuclear deal) is effectively defunct, and the urgent establishment of an alternative framework is needed.
- Domestic Politics — The Trump administration is reviving its "maximum pressure" policy while simultaneously exploring room for deal-making diplomacy.
To understand the recent US-Russia phone call, it is necessary to survey the structural changes in US-Russia relations in the Middle East since the end of the Cold War.
During the Cold War, the Middle East was one of the main battlegrounds for the US-Soviet proxy war. The Soviet Union supported Egypt (Nasser regime), Syria, and Iraq, while the US backed Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Iran (Pahlavi dynasty). The 1979 Iranian Revolution brought a fundamental change to this bipolar structure. With the collapse of the pro-US Shah's regime and the birth of an Islamic Republic pursuing an independent anti-US and anti-Soviet path, Iran became a "third pole" that did not fit into the Cold War framework.
In the 1990s, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia largely lost its influence in the Middle East. However, when Putin came to power in the 2000s, Russia gradually began to restore its involvement in the region. The turning point was its military intervention in the Syrian civil war in 2015. Russia supported the Assad regime, secured military bases, and re-established its status as an "indispensable player" in the Middle East. In this process, Russia and Iran formed a "marriage of convenience." The two countries cooperated based on common interests in Syria (maintaining the Assad regime), but their long-term strategic goals did not necessarily align.
The 2015 JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) was the culmination of multilateral diplomacy on the Iranian nuclear issue. Six countries—the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany—reached an agreement with Iran, establishing a framework that limited Iran's nuclear development in exchange for sanctions relief. However, in 2018, President Trump (first term) unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA and initiated a "maximum pressure" policy, dealing a fatal blow to this framework.
During the Biden administration (2021-2025), negotiations to return to the JCPOA were attempted, but they stalled due to the advancement of Iran's nuclear development, the collapse of cooperation with Russia due to the war in Ukraine, and the escalation of the Gaza conflict since 2023. During this period, Iran increased its uranium enrichment level to 60%, technically approaching the 90% required for nuclear weapons production.
President Trump, who was re-inaugurated in January 2025, once again launched a "maximum pressure" policy against Iran. However, the decisive difference from his first term is the fundamental change in US-Russia relations against the backdrop of the Ukraine war. President Trump has pledged an "early resolution" to the Ukraine conflict and prioritizes direct dialogue with President Putin. In this context, the Iran issue takes on the character of a "bargaining chip" between the US and Russia.
For Russia, Iran is a complex partner. While military cooperation deepened during the Ukraine war, including receiving Iranian-made drones (Shahed), Iran's nuclear armament runs counter to Russia's national interests. A nuclear-armed Iran would relatively diminish Russia's influence in the Middle East and undermine the NPT regime (where Russia holds a privileged position).
This structural contradiction lies behind the recent phone call. President Trump's emphasis on President Putin's "cooperative stance" can be interpreted as an indication that Russia might narrow the distance to the US side on the Iran issue. This could be the nascent stage of a "grand bargain" to elicit Russia's cooperation in the Middle East in exchange for concessions on the Ukraine issue.
Historically, such "sphere of influence deals" between great powers are not uncommon. From the Yalta Conference in 1945 to the Helsinki Final Act in 1975, and even the "Great Game" of the 19th century, great powers have reshaped geopolitical order over the heads of smaller states. However, in the 21st-century Middle East, regional powers like Iran, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia possess their own will and capabilities, meaning that bilateral agreements between the US and Russia alone will not solve the problem. This phone call is merely one move in such a multi-layered power game.
The delta: The biggest change indicated by this phone call is the partial restart of strategic dialogue between the US and Russia, which had been frozen since the Ukraine war, with the Iran issue serving as a mediator. This suggests the possibility that the reshaping of the Middle East order has begun to be treated as part of a bilateral "grand bargain" between the US and Russia, which could lead to a fundamental transformation of the existing nuclear non-proliferation regime based on multilateralism.
🔍 Reading Between the Lines — What the Reports Aren't Saying
While official announcements state that "the situation in Iran" was the main topic of the talks, the actual core agenda is likely negotiations on the terms of a ceasefire in Ukraine. The Trump administration is using the Iran issue as a "wrapper" to construct a narrative to justify concessions in Ukraine to domestic public opinion. Putin's "cooperative stance" is likely a response to signals of concessions from the US on the Ukraine issue, and it is unlikely that Russia has changed its position on the Iran issue itself. In short, this phone call is not about Iran, but about Ukraine.
NOW PATTERN
Narrative Hegemony × Alliance Fracture × Spiral of Conflict
Behind the US and Russia's performance of "cooperation" on the Iran issue, three structural dynamics are simultaneously at play: the struggle for narrative hegemony, the fracturing of existing alliances, and the spiral of conflict in the Middle East.
Intersection of Dynamics
The three structural dynamics—"narrative hegemony," "alliance fracture," and "spiral of conflict"—form a dangerous interrelationship that mutually amplifies each other.
First, the US and Russia constructing a narrative of "cooperation" directly expands alliance fractures. Allies such as Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Europe are likely to grow distrustful of bilateral deals from which they are excluded and pursue their own actions. A unilateral Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, Saudi Arabia's inclination towards independent nuclear development, and Europe's acceleration of an independent path from the US—all are scenarios that could arise from alliance fractures.
Furthermore, alliance fractures accelerate the spiral of conflict. If US allies pursue independent actions, the regional security environment will become even more unstable, Iran's perception of threat will increase, and its motivation for nuclear development will be further strengthened. If Iran moves closer to nuclear armament, Saudi Arabia and Turkey may also pursue nuclear options, potentially initiating a nuclear domino effect in the Middle East.
Moreover, as the spiral of conflict intensifies, each actor escalates the narrative war to assert its own legitimacy, making the struggle for "narrative hegemony" even fiercer. This information warfare, where countries disseminate narratives favorable to themselves and deny those of their opponents, narrows the scope for diplomatic solutions and fosters public opinion that views compromise as "weakness."
At the intersection of these three dynamics, the most dangerous is the emergence of a "self-fulfilling prophecy." A circular logic is established: "Iran is aiming for nuclear armament" → "Therefore, pressure is intensified" → "Under pressure, Iran accelerates nuclear development" → "Indeed, Iran was aiming for nuclear armament," leading to the disappearance of diplomatic exits. Whether this US-Russia phone call becomes an opportunity to break this vicious cycle or elevates it to a new stage will be determined by concrete actions in the coming months.
📚 History of Patterns
1945: Yalta Conference (Division of Post-War Order by US, Soviet Union, and UK)
Reshaping of spheres of influence through "over-the-heads" deals between great powers
Structural Similarity to Present: Great power agreements were made by excluding the parties involved, and the interests of smaller states were treated as secondary. The precedent of Poland and the Baltic states' fates being decided by US-Soviet deals shows a structural commonality with the current US-Russia discussions concerning Iran.
1972: Nixon's Visit to China and US-China Rapprochement
Great power rapprochement as a means of pressure on a third country (Soviet Union)
Structural Similarity to Present: Nixon's rapprochement with China served as strategic pressure on the Soviet Union. Similarly, Trump's rapprochement with Russia could function as a pressure card against Iran. However, even then, the "Nixon Shock" occurred, where allies (Taiwan, Japan) were surprised by diplomacy conducted over their heads.
1994: US-DPRK Agreed Framework (Freezing North Korea's Nuclear Development)
Temporary containment of nuclear issues through great power "cooperation" and its subsequent collapse
Structural Similarity to Present: The US, Russia, and China temporarily cooperated to contain North Korea's nuclear development, but due to insufficient implementation mechanisms for the agreement, North Korea ultimately succeeded in nuclear armament. A similar risk exists for the Iran issue.
2015: Conclusion of the JCPOA (Iran Nuclear Deal) and its Subsequent Collapse
Vulnerability of multilateral agreements and destruction by domestic politics
Structural Similarity to Present: The multilateral agreement achieved by the Obama administration collapsed due to the Trump administration's (first term) withdrawal. The lesson that the pendulum of domestic politics can easily overturn international agreements casts doubt on the sustainability of current US-Russia "cooperation."
2023: Saudi Arabia-Iran Diplomatic Normalization (China-Mediated)
Reshaping of regional order by actors other than existing hegemons
Structural Similarity to Present: China's mediation of Saudi-Iran normalization demonstrated a structure where other countries fill the vacuum created by reduced US engagement in the Middle East. If US-Russia "cooperation" lacks substance, there will be room for China to further expand its influence in the Middle East.
Patterns Shown by History
The consistent pattern shown by historical precedents is that "coordination" or "deals" between great powers are often superficial and do not lead to the resolution of structural problems. From Yalta to the JCPOA, great power agreements have been formed without fully reflecting the interests of the parties involved or regional realities, and have contained internal contradictions. Particularly noteworthy is the extreme fragility of such agreements to domestic political fluctuations. As the collapse of the JCPOA demonstrates, diplomatic achievements by one administration can be easily overturned by the next. Even if President Trump were to reach some agreement with President Putin on the Iran issue, the sustainability of that agreement would be highly uncertain. Furthermore, the North Korean precedent shows that "containment" against a state pursuing nuclear development is insufficient to make that state withdraw its intention to acquire nuclear weapons. The lesson of history is that great power "cooperation" can postpone problems, but it does not lead to fundamental solutions.
🔮 Next Scenarios
Dialogue between the US and Russia regarding Iran continues, but no substantive agreement is reached, and the status quo persists. President Trump and President Putin hold regular phone calls, staging "constructive dialogue," but fail to formulate concrete action plans. Russia gradually adjusts its arms supplies to Iran but does not commit to a complete halt, maintaining its relationship with Iran.
Iran's nuclear development remains "frozen" at current levels. That is, the breakout time (the time required to produce a nuclear weapon) remains several weeks, but Iran does not proceed to the final stage of actually manufacturing a nuclear weapon. Iran strategically maintains its status as a "threshold state" and uses it as leverage in negotiations.
The US maintains and strengthens sanctions against Iran, but cannot completely block crude oil exports via China, meaning the Iranian economy, though facing difficulties, does not collapse. Overall tension levels in the Middle East remain high but do not escalate into large-scale military conflict. Crude oil prices fluctuate in the range of $75-85 per barrel, with geopolitical risk premiums factored into the price. In this scenario, no decisive changes occur within 2026, and the postponement of problems becomes the norm.
Implications for Investment/Action: US-Russia summit meetings are held regularly but yield no concrete results; Iran's enrichment activities remain flat at current levels; China's imports of Iranian crude oil continue.
US-Russia "cooperation" becomes more substantial than expected, leading to concrete progress towards a diplomatic resolution of the Iranian nuclear issue. A "grand bargain" is struck where President Putin directly pressures Iran to accept nuclear development restrictions, and the US offers certain concessions on the Ukraine issue (such as gradual sanctions relief) in return.
Specifically, a new framework is broadly agreed upon by the end of 2026, where Iran reduces its enrichment level to below 20% and accepts enhanced IAEA inspections, in exchange for the US easing some oil sanctions and allowing the gradual unfreezing of assets. China also participates in this framework, and P5+1-like multilateral negotiations resume.
In this scenario, overall tensions in the Middle East ease, and crude oil prices fall to the $65-70 per barrel range. The risk of an Israeli military attack on Iran also significantly decreases, and the normalization of relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran further progresses. However, the realization of this scenario requires President Trump to simultaneously persuade both domestic hardliners against Iran and hardliners against Russia, making the political hurdles extremely high. Furthermore, strong opposition to relinquishing "nuclear rights" is expected within Iran.
Implications for Investment/Action: Russia officially restricts arms supplies to Iran; Iran makes positive statements regarding expanded acceptance of IAEA inspections; the US presents specific conditions for sanctions relief.
US-Russia "cooperation" collapses, and the situation in the Middle East rapidly deteriorates. US-Russia negotiations on the Ukraine issue break down, and President Putin counters the US by accelerating the supply of advanced weapons (such as S-400 air defense systems) to Iran. This significantly strengthens Iran's military capabilities, altering the military balance with Israel.
The possibility of Iran taking a decisive step towards nuclear armament, such as increasing uranium enrichment to 90% or declaring withdrawal from the IAEA, becomes realistic. In response, Israel, disregarding US restraint, carries out a limited military attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. The attack targets key facilities such as Natanz and Fordow but fails to completely destroy Iran's nuclear program, leading to Iranian retaliation.
Iran mobilizes Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Iraqi Shiite militias to attack Israel and Persian Gulf states from multiple directions, temporarily threatening passage through the Strait of Hormuz. Crude oil prices exceed $100 per barrel, delivering a severe shock to the global economy. The US is forced to intervene militarily to defend Israel, increasing the risk of a full-scale military conflict in the Middle East. This scenario is the worst-case if the spiral of conflict becomes uncontrollable and could be a historical turning point.
Implications for Investment/Action: Breakdown of US-Russia negotiations on Ukraine; acceleration of Russia's supply of advanced weapons to Iran; signs of Iran increasing enrichment levels; large-scale Israeli Air Force exercises.
Key Triggers to Watch
- Holding of the next US-Russia summit (in-person or online) and its agenda: April-June 2026
- Publication of the next IAEA Iran inspection report and the latest figures for enriched uranium stockpiles: May-June 2026
- Final decision on Russia's supply of S-400 air defense systems to Iran: Within 2026
- Announcement of additional sanctions or sanctions relief against Iran by the Trump administration: April-September 2026
- Conduct of large-scale Israeli military exercises (simulating an attack on Iran): Summer 2026
🔄 Tracking Loop
Next Trigger: IAEA Quarterly Report May 2026 — The latest estimate of Iran's enriched uranium stockpile will be the first indicator to measure the effectiveness of US-Russia "cooperation."
Continuation of this pattern: Tracking Theme: Feasibility of a US-Russia "Grand Bargain" — The next milestone is whether a US-Russia in-person summit is held by summer 2026.
>How do you read this? Participate in Prediction →
