Claims Russia helping Iran target US assets are credible

The Washington Post, AP and others have reported that Russia is providing Iran with intelligence to target US forces, including the locations of American warships and aircraft in the Middle East.

This is plausible even if the disclosure is part of a broader gambit to rally public support for the war the US and Israel are waging on Iran. A related goal may be to discredit Putin as a potential mediator after he recently spoke with several Gulf leaders about ending the war.

Although Russia was never Iran’s formal ally in the sense of having mutual defense obligations, it understandably has an interest in retaliating against the US for helping Ukraine strike its assets, particularly following last summer’s Operation Spiderweb.

As a reminder, Ukraine targeted elements of Russia’s nuclear triad in that operation, and few believe it did so without US targeting assistance, given that such assistance is already provided in less significant operations.

From a Russian perspective, the entire Ukrainian conflict reduces to the US using Ukraine as a proxy against it — one capable of carrying out increasingly audacious attacks without triggering World War III, since the US is not directly involved even though its role is indisputably indispensable.

By the same logic, using Iran as a proxy serves the same purpose, with the same guardrails against World War III breaking out – though this would not come without risks if the report is accurate.

As noted earlier, Putin’s credibility as a mediator would be discredited if the Washington Post report is accurate. So, too, would Russia’s carefully maintained regional balancing act, in which the Gulf states play an important role, if it emerged that Russia provided Iran with intelligence for targeting the US bases on their territories.

Unless the US shares evidence with them directly, however, the Gulf states are unlikely to distance themselves meaningfully from Russia, even though suspicions may linger.

The greatest risk lies in how Trump responds to the news, which he said was a “stupid question” when asked by a Fox News reporter on Friday. If pressed, he may eventually dismiss it as fake news, downplay it – perhaps even cheekily referencing US assistance to Ukraine against Russia – or overreact.

Overreaction is possible if his close political allies such as Senator Lindsey Graham, the CIA or other security agencies pressure him to do so, in which case Trump might escalate the Ukraine war.

What form that escalation might take is difficult to predict, given that America’s current priority is the Iran war, but at a minimum, Trump might suspend his mediation efforts between Russia and Ukraine. More extreme responses could include stricter secondary sanctions enforcement or even the transfer of Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine.

Russia’s strategy since Trump returned to office has been to dangle the prospect of a resource-centric strategic partnership before the US in hopes that Trump will coerce Ukraine into accepting more, if not all, of Putin’s demanded concessions for peace.

That effort would be wasted if Trump is pushed by anti-Russian hawks to withdraw from the peace process and bilateral talks with Russia in response to reports that Moscow is helping Iran target US regional assets and military facilities.

No credible evidence has been made public but the report aligns with the fears of Russia’s adversaries and allies alike, which suggests it may have some basis in fact.

This article was first published on Andrew Korybko’s Substack and is republished here with editing for clarity, fluency and updates on Trump’s response on Friday. Become an Andrew Korybko Newsletter subscriber here.