US-Russia Phone Talks and the Encirc
Behind Trump and Putin's staged "cooperation" on the Iran issue lies their mutual desire to break the deadlock in Ukraine ceasefire negotiations using the Middle East as a bargaining chip. This phone call symbolizes a turning point where the post-Cold War multilateral order is being replaced by bilateral deals.
── Understand in 3 points ─────────
- • On March 9, 2026, Presidents Trump and Putin held a phone call regarding the situation in Iran.
- • President Trump described the call as "meaningful" and emphasized President Putin's cooperative stance on the Middle East situation.
- • The United States continues its "maximum pressure" policy regarding Iran's nuclear development issue and has not ruled out military options.
── NOW PATTERN ─────────
Behind the staged "cooperation" between the US and Russian leaders on the Iran issue, great power bargaining over a Ukraine ceasefire is underway, accelerating a structural erosion of multilateral institutions' legitimacy.
── Probability and Response ──────
• Base case 55% — US-Russia presidential phone calls continue monthly without concrete joint statements, IAEA quarterly reports show gradual progress in Iran's enrichment activities, and proxy wars in the Middle East persist at low intensity.
• Bull case 20% — US-Russia presidential face-to-face meeting arranged, concrete progress in Ukraine ceasefire negotiations, reports of Russia reducing arms exports to Iran, Iran declares strengthened cooperation with IAEA.
• Bear case 25% — IAEA reports a sharp increase in Iran's highly enriched uranium activities, expansion of Israeli military exercises, accidental military incidents in the Persian Gulf, activation of additional US sanctions and China's backlash.
📡 THE SIGNAL — What Happened
Why it matters: Behind Trump and Putin's staged "cooperation" on the Iran issue lies their mutual desire to break the deadlock in Ukraine ceasefire negotiations using the Middle East as a bargaining chip. This phone call symbolizes a turning point where the post-Cold War multilateral order is being replaced by bilateral deals.
- Diplomacy — On March 9, 2026, Presidents Trump and Putin held a phone call regarding the situation in Iran.
- Diplomacy — President Trump described the call as "meaningful" and emphasized President Putin's cooperative stance on the Middle East situation.
- Military — The United States continues its "maximum pressure" policy regarding Iran's nuclear development issue and has not ruled out military options.
- Geopolitics — Russia is seeking an opening for improved relations with the United States, while maintaining its strategic partnership with Iran.
- Security — The IAEA reported that Iran has increased its uranium enrichment purity to 60% since late 2025.
- Energy — Iran's crude oil exports have maintained approximately 1.3 million barrels per day under sanctions (primarily to China).
- Diplomacy — Ukraine ceasefire negotiations have been deadlocked since early 2026, and a new breakthrough is needed.
- Regional Affairs — Regional reorganization is underway in the Middle East following the Israel-Hamas conflict, with Iran's influence becoming a focal point.
- Economy — Due to strengthened sanctions against Iran, crude oil prices have hovered in the high $80s per barrel for Brent crude.
- Diplomacy — This marks the third direct dialogue between the US and Russian leaders in 2026, confirming the maintenance of communication channels.
- Security — The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps conducted military exercises in the Persian Gulf in February 2026, demonstrating deterrence.
- Diplomacy — China is wary of the US-Russia rapprochement on the Iran issue and has indicated its intention to explore its own mediation diplomacy.
To understand the US-Russia phone call in March 2026, it is necessary to trace the evolution of great power politics in the Middle East since the end of the Cold War.
During the Cold War, the Middle East was a stage for US-Soviet proxy wars. In the 1990s, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States reigned as the sole superpower in the Middle East, unilaterally shaping regional order through events such as the 1991 Gulf War, the 1993 Oslo Accords, and the 2003 Iraq War. However, the prolonged Iraq War and the Arab Spring in 2011 dramatically increased the cost of US engagement in the Middle East.
The Obama administration established the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) in 2015, attempting to maintain the nuclear non-proliferation regime through multilateral diplomacy. This symbolized problem-solving through a multilateral framework known as the P5+1 (US, UK, France, China, Russia + Germany). However, when the first Trump administration withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018, this multilateral approach collapsed. Trump sought to corner Iran with a "maximum pressure" policy, but ironically, this led Iran to accelerate its nuclear development.
The Biden administration attempted to rejoin the nuclear deal, but negotiations stalled due to political changes within Iran (the Mahsa Amini protests in 2022 and their suppression) and the outbreak of the war in Ukraine. The Ukraine war, in particular, deepened military cooperation between Russia and Iran (Iran's provision of drones to Russia), directly linking the security environments of the Middle East and Europe.
The inauguration of the second Trump administration in 2025 introduced new variables to this dynamic. Trump advocates "deal diplomacy," prioritizing direct negotiations between leaders over multilateral frameworks. US-Russia dialogue towards a Ukraine ceasefire intensified from late 2025, but no agreement has been reached on territorial issues or NATO expansion. To break this deadlock, it is highly likely that both leaders found a "common agenda" in the Iran issue.
For Putin, a "cooperative stance" on the Iran issue is a bargaining chip to extract concessions on the Ukraine issue. While Russia maintains its relationship with Iran, it fundamentally does not desire Iran to approach nuclear armament, as an increase in nuclear-armed states would dilute Russia's own strategic advantage. For Trump, bringing Putin into the encirclement of Iran would isolate China and allow him to showcase diplomatic achievements ahead of the midterm elections.
Historically, "linkage diplomacy," where great powers feign cooperation on an issue in one region while actually exchanging interests in another, is not uncommon. Nixon's visit to China in 1972 was a multi-layered strategy to find an exit from the Vietnam War while simultaneously deterring the Soviet Union. Similarly, the current US-Russia dialogue likely involves multiple strategic calculations beneath the superficial agenda of Iran, including Ukraine, energy markets, and the triangular relationship with China.
Even more importantly, this development is accelerating the decline of the post-Cold War multilateral international order. The Iran nuclear issue was once managed within a multi-layered institutional framework involving the P5+1, IAEA, and UN Security Council. However, its substantive decision-making power is now shifting towards bilateral summit dialogues between the US and Russia. The institutional roles of the European Union, Japan, and even the IAEA are being marginalized, and a 19th-century diplomatic paradigm where "great power bargains" determine regional order is returning. This structural transformation severely constrains the strategic autonomy of small and medium-sized states and carries serious implications for eroding the legitimacy of an order based on international law.
The delta: The signal of "cooperation" from the US and Russian leaders on the Iran issue signifies the activation of strategic linkage aimed at breaking the deadlock in Ukraine ceasefire negotiations using the Middle East as a bargaining chip. This indicates an acceleration of the structural transformation where the post-Cold War multilateral order in the Middle East is being replaced by bilateral great power bargains.
🔍 Between the Lines — What the Reports Aren't Saying
What official statements conceal is that the true purpose of this phone call is not the Iran issue itself, but rather an "agenda shift" to break the deadlock in Ukraine ceasefire negotiations. Putin's "cooperative stance" is a signal that he is prepared to offer his influence over Iran as a bargaining chip, with the quid pro quo being the recognition of the territorial status quo in Ukraine. Trump's immediate reaction of "meaningful" was a political calculation to appeal to domestic and international audiences about the possibility of this deal. The most critical aspect to observe is the structural injustice where European, Japanese, and Middle Eastern nations, completely excluded from this dialogue, are not at the negotiating table to decide their own destinies.
NOW PATTERN
Narrative Hegemony × Spiral of Conflict × Alliance Fracture
Behind the staged "cooperation" between the US and Russian leaders on the Iran issue, great power bargaining over a Ukraine ceasefire is underway, accelerating a structural erosion of multilateral institutions' legitimacy.
Intersection of Dynamics
The three structural patterns of "Narrative Hegemony," "Spiral of Conflict," and "Alliance Fracture" are mutually reinforcing, acting to destabilize the international order.
The struggle for narrative hegemony serves to conceal the spiral of conflict. By foregrounding a narrative of "cooperation," the US and Russian leaders temporarily push their structural conflicts (Ukraine, NATO expansion, nuclear arms control) into the background. However, this concealment is not a resolution but a postponement, and the spiral continues to turn beneath the surface. When the divergence between narrative and reality eventually reaches a critical point, conflict is likely to resurface in a more intense form than before.
Furthermore, the struggle for narrative hegemony accelerates alliance fractures. Each time the US and Russian leaders emphasize "meaningful dialogue," NATO allies and Iran deepen their sense of alienation. While Trump's narrative construction may function domestically in the US, it paradoxically fuels anxiety among allies and deepens suspicion among adversaries.
The interaction between the spiral of conflict and alliance fractures is also crucial. If US-Iran tensions escalate, Russia will be forced to choose between strengthening solidarity with Iran or coordinating with the United States. Whichever path it chooses, one alliance relationship will be strained. Similarly, European NATO allies will be divided over whether to support US Iran policy or pursue their own course. This "alliance dilemma" reduces the predictability of each actor's actions and increases the risk of escalation due to miscalculation.
The most dangerous scenario, where the three patterns converge, is when the divergence between narrative and reality ignites the spiral of conflict through alliance fractures. For example, if Israel, believing the narrative of US-Russia "cooperation," refrains from independent military action while Iran crosses the nuclear development threshold, and this is revealed, multiple conflicts could simultaneously escalate—a situation entirely plausible given historical precedents.
📚 Pattern History
1972: Nixon's Visit to China and Détente Diplomacy
Order Restructuring through Great Power Linkage Diplomacy
Structural similarities with the present: Nixon used reconciliation with China as leverage against the Soviet Union, seeking an exit from the Vietnam War. The current Trump-Putin dialogue is also a typical example of linkage diplomacy, using the Iran issue as a superficial agenda while simultaneously negotiating multiple issues such as Ukraine and energy. However, history shows that this type of deal often sacrifices the interests of involved third countries (South Vietnam then, Ukraine and Iran now).
1938: Munich Agreement and the Cession of Czechoslovakia
Sacrifice of Small State Interests through Great Power Bargains
Structural similarities with the present: The case where Britain and France sacrificed Czechoslovakia to prioritize "peace" with Nazi Germany demonstrates the risk of direct great power bargains disregarding the sovereignty of third countries. If the US and Russia make a "deal" on the Iran issue now, the interests of small and medium-sized states in the Middle East and Ukraine could be sacrificed. The optimistic phrase "meaningful dialogue" should be remembered as a historical precedent that later led to severe consequences.
2013-2015: Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA) Negotiations
Shift from Multilateral Framework to Bilateral Bargain
Structural similarities with the present: While the JCPOA was established within the multilateral P5+1 framework, its substance was determined by back-channel negotiations between Obama and Rouhani. The dynamic of substantive bilateral negotiations proceeding behind a facade of formal multilateralism is similar to the present. However, the JCPOA was ultimately legitimized by a multilateral framework, whereas the current US-Russia dialogue lacks such institutional backing, making the sustainability of any agreement even more fragile.
1945: Yalta Conference and the Division of the Post-War Order
Demarcation of Spheres of Influence through Direct Negotiations between Great Power Leaders
Structural similarities with the present: The Yalta Conference, where Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin "divided" the post-war world, is the ultimate example of great power summit diplomacy determining international order. The decisions made then shaped the destinies of millions in Eastern Europe. There is a structural similarity in that the current US-Russia summit dialogue could influence the future of Iran and the Middle East. The difference is that today, variables such as nuclear weapons, social media, and the global economy are added, making unpredictability far higher.
2018: Trump's First Term JCPOA Withdrawal and Maximum Pressure
Unilateral Abrogation and Activation of the Spiral of Conflict
Structural similarities with the present: The first Trump administration's withdrawal from the nuclear deal triggered a triple spiral of conflict: accelerated Iranian nuclear development, military tensions in the Persian Gulf, and friction with US allies. The fact that, eight years later, the same Trump is re-approaching the Iran issue, involving Russia, indicates that this spiral continues to turn unresolved. The danger of a pattern of repeatedly applying symptomatic treatment to structural problems is condensed here.
Patterns Revealed by History
The patterns revealed by historical precedents are clear. Direct summit negotiations between great powers are effective for short-term tension reduction and the staging of "achievements," but they tend to sacrifice the interests of involved third countries and postpone fundamental structural problems rather than solving them. From Nixon's visit to China to the Yalta Conference, great power deals have consistently produced "winners" and "victims."
Particularly noteworthy is the recurring pattern of profound disillusionment and renewed conflict following optimistic summit diplomacy. The "peace with honor" of the Munich Agreement led to World War II a year later, and the "historic agreement" of the JCPOA was unilaterally abrogated three years later. It cannot be denied that Trump's assessment of the call as "meaningful" could be the starting point for a similar cycle of optimism leading to disillusionment.
Another important lesson history teaches is that inter-leader agreements lacking institutional backing are extremely fragile. The JCPOA collapsed despite having a multilateral institutional framework. The current US-Russia dialogue lacks even such an institutional foundation. Diplomacy dependent on personal relationships between leaders is highly vulnerable to changes in administration and domestic political shifts, making it unsuitable for sustainable order building. This structural fragility defines the inherent limits of the current "meaningful" dialogue.
🔮 Next Scenarios
Dialogue between US and Russian leaders continues, but no concrete agreement is reached on the Iran issue. Trump and Putin continue to emphasize "constructive dialogue," but this does not lead to substantive actions (such as joint sanctions against Iran or joint demands for nuclear development restrictions). The highest probability for this scenario stems from the unresolved structural conflicts between the US and Russia (Ukraine issue, NATO expansion), as genuine cooperation on the Iran issue presupposes their resolution. For Putin, Iran is a crucial bargaining chip in negotiations with the US, and he has no incentive to easily relinquish it. For Trump, maintaining the status quo—appealing to domestic and international audiences with "cooperation" with Russia while avoiding substantive policy changes—is politically the lowest-risk option. In this scenario, Iran continues its gradual nuclear development, and tensions with the IAEA persist, but Iran refrains from crossing a clear "red line" (transitioning to weapons-grade enrichment). The regional conflict structure in the Middle East is largely maintained, with sporadic tensions but avoiding large-scale military conflict. Crude oil prices fluctuate in the $80-90 Brent range, with limited impact on energy markets. The greatest risk in this scenario is the accumulation of uncertainty due to the postponement of issues. The predictability of each actor's actions decreases, and the risk of accidental incidents triggering escalation gradually increases.
Implications for Investment/Action: US-Russia presidential phone calls continue monthly without concrete joint statements, IAEA quarterly reports show gradual progress in Iran's enrichment activities, and proxy wars in the Middle East persist at low intensity.
The US and Russia embark on substantive cooperation on the Iran issue, which also becomes a breakthrough in Ukraine ceasefire negotiations. Specifically, a "grand bargain" is realized where Russia urges Iran to exercise restraint in nuclear development, and in return, the US offers certain concessions on the Ukraine issue (e.g., gradual easing of sanctions, freezing NATO expansion). The conditions for this scenario are stringent but not impossible. First, Putin must recognize the military stalemate in Ukraine and reach a stage where he seriously seeks a diplomatic exit. Second, Trump needs significant diplomatic achievements ahead of the midterm elections and desires to secure both "peace in Ukraine" and "progress on the Iran nuclear issue" simultaneously. Third, a political environment must be established within Iran where moderates, such as President Pezeshkian, can lead negotiations against a backdrop of economic hardship. If this scenario materializes, it would be a significant step towards stabilizing the Middle East, crude oil prices would stabilize, and there would be a positive impact on the global economy. However, such grand bargains are historically extremely rare, and the coordination costs for an agreement are very high due to the large number of actors involved. Whether Israel and Saudi Arabia would tolerate an agreement contrary to their own interests is also a major variable.
Implications for Investment/Action: US-Russia presidential face-to-face meeting arranged, concrete progress in Ukraine ceasefire negotiations, reports of Russia reducing arms exports to Iran, Iran declares strengthened cooperation with IAEA.
The narrative of US-Russia "cooperation" collapses, and the situation in Iran rapidly escalates. The most likely trigger for this scenario is Iran taking decisive action, such as embarking on weapons-grade uranium enrichment (over 90% purity) or refusing IAEA inspections. In this case, the United States would accelerate its consideration of military options in coordination with Israel. Russia would be torn between "cooperation" with the US and its traditional relationship with Iran, likely ultimately siding with Iran. This would deteriorate US-Russia relations to levels seen immediately after the 2022 Ukraine invasion, and Ukraine ceasefire negotiations would completely collapse. In the Middle East, a limited Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities emerges as a realistic option. Iranian retaliation (attacks on merchant ships in the Persian Gulf, indirect attacks via Hezbollah or the Houthis) carries the risk of escalating into a regional military conflict. Crude oil prices would surge above $120 per barrel, and the global economy would face severe stagflationary pressures. As a further pessimistic sub-scenario, if Iran's nuclear armament becomes a fait accompli, a "nuclear domino" effect could begin, with Saudi Arabia and Turkey exploring their own nuclear development. This would signify the de facto collapse of the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) regime, ushering in the most dangerous era of nuclear proliferation since the Cold War.
Implications for Investment/Action: IAEA reports a sharp increase in Iran's highly enriched uranium activities, expansion of Israeli military exercises, accidental military incidents in the Persian Gulf, activation of additional US sanctions and China's backlash.
Key Triggers to Watch
- Publication of changes in Iran's enriched uranium stockpile and purity in the IAEA quarterly report: June 2026 (next report due)
- Arrangement or failure to arrange a US-Russia presidential face-to-face meeting (summit): April-June 2026
- Concrete progress or breakdown in Ukraine ceasefire negotiations: By May 2026
- Shift in Trump's foreign policy priorities ahead of the 2026 US midterm elections: July-November 2026
- Iran's domestic political developments (stability of the Pezeshkian administration, Supreme Leader's health issues): Throughout 2026
🔄 Tracking Loop
Next Trigger: Next IAEA Quarterly Report, June 2026 — Whether Iran's enriched uranium stockpile reaches a "level of significant concern" will be the first litmus test for the effectiveness of US-Russia cooperation.
Continuation of this pattern: Tracking Theme: The Reality of US-Russia "Iran Cooperation" — The next milestones are the anticipated next contact between US and Russian leaders (phone or in-person) in April-May 2026, and the IAEA report in June.
>How do you read it? Participate in Prediction →
