US-Russia Phone Summit and the Iran Situation
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 following the complete collapse of the Iran nuclear deal.
── Understand in 3 points ─────────
- • On March 9, 2026, Presidents Trump and 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 in 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 occur regularly but yield no concrete outcomes, 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.
📡 THE 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 following the complete collapse of the Iran nuclear deal.
- Diplomacy — On March 9, 2026, Presidents Trump and 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 in the Middle East were discussed.
- Nuclear Issue — Iran's nuclear development program has accelerated since 2025, with increasing stockpiles of enriched uranium.
- Military — The US has deployed carrier strike groups to the Persian Gulf region, maintaining military pressure on Iran.
- Energy — Iran's crude oil exports have maintained approximately 1.3 million barrels per day despite sanctions, primarily to China.
- Diplomacy — Russia has signed a security cooperation agreement with Iran and has deepened military ties, including arms supplies.
- Regional Affairs — 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 diminished by transactions via third countries such as China and India.
- Diplomacy — The Ukraine situation 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 this 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, 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 significantly lost influence in the Middle East. However, when Putin came to power in the 2000s, Russia gradually began to restore its involvement in the Middle East. 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 position 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 restricted 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 for a return to the JCPOA were attempted, but they stalled due to the advancement of Iran's nuclear development, the breakdown 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 war in Ukraine. President Trump has pledged an "early resolution" to the Ukraine conflict and emphasizes 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 the supply of 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 (in which Russia holds a privileged position).
This structural contradiction is the background to the current phone call. President Trump's emphasis on President Putin's "cooperative stance" can be read as a suggestion that Russia might move closer to the US position on the Iran issue. This could be the nascent stage of a "grand bargain" to secure 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 reorganized geopolitical order over the heads of smaller nations. 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 cannot resolve the issues. 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 conduit. This suggests the possibility that the reorganization of the Middle East order has begun to be treated as part of a bilateral "grand bargain" between the US and Russia, potentially leading to a fundamental transformation of the existing multilateral nuclear non-proliferation regime.
🔍 Between the Lines — What the Reports Aren't Saying
While official announcements state that the "Iran situation" was the main topic of the talks, it is highly probable that the actual core agenda was negotiations over the terms of a ceasefire in Ukraine. The Trump administration is likely using the Iran issue as a "wrapper" to construct a narrative that justifies concessions in Ukraine to its domestic audience. 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 of "narrative hegemony," "alliance fracture," and "spiral of conflict" form a dangerous interrelationship that mutually amplifies each other.
First, the construction of a US-Russia "cooperation" narrative directly widens alliance fractures. Allies such as Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Europe will grow increasingly distrustful of bilateral deals from which they are excluded, making it more likely they will pursue independent actions. A unilateral Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, Saudi Arabia's inclination towards its own nuclear development, and Europe's acceleration of an independent path from the US—all are scenarios that could emerge 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, heightening Iran's perception of threat and further strengthening its motivation for nuclear development. If Iran moves closer to nuclear armament, Saudi Arabia and Turkey may also pursue nuclear options, potentially triggering a nuclear domino effect in the Middle East.
Moreover, as the spiral of conflict intensifies, each actor will escalate narrative warfare to assert its legitimacy, making the struggle for "narrative hegemony" even fiercer. This information war, where countries disseminate narratives favorable to themselves and deny those of their adversaries, 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 outcome is the emergence of a "self-fulfilling prophecy." A circular logic is established: "Iran aims for nuclear weapons" → "Therefore, pressure is intensified" → "Under pressure, Iran accelerates nuclear development" → "Indeed, Iran was aiming for nuclear weapons," leading to the disappearance of diplomatic exits. Whether this US-Russia phone call serves as an opportunity to break this vicious cycle or elevates it to a new stage will be determined by concrete actions in the coming months.
📚 PATTERN HISTORY
1945: Yalta Conference (Division of Post-War Order by US, USSR, UK)
Reorganization of spheres of influence through "over-the-heads" deals between great powers
Structural similarities with the present: Great power agreements were made by excluding the parties involved, and the interests of smaller nations were treated as secondary. The precedent of Poland and the Baltic states' fates being decided by US-Soviet deals shows a structural commonality with 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 similarities with the present: Nixon's rapprochement with China functioned 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 similarities with the 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: Signing of the JCPOA (Iran Nuclear Deal) and its Subsequent Collapse
Vulnerability of multilateral agreements and destruction by domestic politics
Structural similarities with the 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)
Reorganization of regional order by actors other than existing hegemonic powers
Structural similarities with the present: China's mediation of Saudi-Iran normalization demonstrated a structure where other countries fill the vacuum left by reduced US engagement in the Middle East. If US-Russia "cooperation" lacks substance, it could create further room for China to expand its influence in the Middle East.
Patterns Revealed by History
A consistent pattern revealed by historical precedents is that "cooperation" 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 while containing internal contradictions, without fully reflecting the interests of the parties involved or regional realities. Particularly noteworthy is the extreme vulnerability of such agreements to domestic political shifts. As the collapse of the JCPOA demonstrates, diplomatic achievements by one administration can easily be 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 compel that state to abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions. The lesson of history is that great power "cooperation" can postpone problems but does not lead to fundamental solutions.
🔮 WHAT'S NEXT
Dialogue between the US and Russia regarding Iran will continue, but without reaching a substantive agreement, maintaining the status quo. Presidents Trump and Putin will hold regular phone calls, staging "constructive dialogue," but will not proceed to formulate concrete action plans. Russia will gradually adjust its arms supplies to Iran but will not commit to a complete halt, maintaining its relationship with Iran.
Iran's nuclear development will remain "frozen" at current levels. That is, the breakout time (the time required to produce a nuclear weapon) will remain unchanged at several weeks, but Iran will not proceed to the final stage of actually manufacturing a nuclear weapon. Iran will strategically maintain its status as a "threshold state," utilizing it as leverage in negotiations.
The US will maintain and strengthen sanctions against Iran, but will not be able to completely block crude oil exports via China, meaning the Iranian economy, while facing difficulties, will not collapse. Overall tension levels in the Middle East will remain high but will not escalate into large-scale military conflict. Crude oil prices will fluctuate in the range of $75-85 per barrel, with geopolitical risk premiums factored into the price. In this scenario, no decisive changes will occur within 2026, and the postponement of problems will become the norm.
Implications for Investment/Action: US-Russia summit meetings occur regularly but yield no concrete outcomes, Iran's enrichment activities remain flat at current levels, China's imports of Iranian crude oil continue.
US-Russia "cooperation" becomes more substantive 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 will be 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 for the gradual unfreezing of assets. China will also participate in this framework, and P5+1-like multilateral negotiations will 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 against 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 abandoning "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 Middle East situation 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 strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. The attack targets key facilities like 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 represents the worst-case outcome if the spiral of conflict becomes uncontrollable, potentially marking 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 it? Participate in Prediction →
