PSCRP-BESA Reports No 140 (July 9, 2025)
by Maxim Starchak
The current article provides a glimpse into Russia’s reaction and comprehension of the 12-day war in the Middle East.
Israel and the United States targeted Iran’s nuclear program to reduce the threat to the nuclear nonproliferation regime. However, Russian experts believe that this approach also carries the risk of favoring military force over diplomatic solutions.
The risks of Iran’s nuclear program
According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reports, Iran has dramatically stepped up production of enriched uranium. By November 2024, 182 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent had been produced, and in May 2025, IAEA inspectors stated that Iran had at least 408 kg. This amount of weapons-grade uranium is enough to produce nine nuclear warheads, the inspectors concluded.
As a result, in June 2025, the IAEA Board of Governors adopted a resolution officially accusing Iran of failing to comply with its nonproliferation obligations for the first time since 2005. Mikhail Ulyanov, the Russian representative at the IAEA, considered the resolution very bad and unfair and believed that it would further worsen the current situation.
On the other hand, when enrichment of uranium of 60% to 90% is a quick process to create modern nuclear weapons, Israel felt there was little time to address Iran’s nuclear program, says a former Foreign Ministry adviser, Mikhail Gavrilov.
The military solution
On June 13, 2025, the IDF launched an attack on dozens of Iranian nuclear facilities, military bases, and infrastructure, as well as several key military commanders. Without weapons capable of penetrating Iran’s underground factories, Israel has received the support of the United States, and on June 22, B-2 strategic bombers fired twelve GBU-57 bombs at the Fordow facility and two more bombs at underground facilities in Natanz.
Russia’s representative to the UN, Vasily Nebenzia, has accused the United States and Israel of violating the UN Charter and its Security Council resolutions, as well as the IAEA Charter and relevant resolutions of the General Conference. According to the Foreign Ministry, Iran has been subjected to unjustified aggression, which is a direct and dangerous violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), particularly Iran’s right to peaceful use of atomic energy guaranteed by Article 4 of the treaty.
The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has also regarded these attacks as an attempt to change the Iranian regime. However, Pavel Luzin, a military expert, notes that while Israel may indeed want to see a change in the Iranian government, the main objective of the attacks was to eliminate Iran’s nuclear program.
The IAEA crisis
The Russian Foreign Ministry believes that attacks by Israel and the United States against Iran negatively impact the effectiveness and credibility of the IAEA, an organization that should support the rights of NPT member states to peaceful nuclear energy.
The MFA emphasizes that IAEA documents do not provide evidence of Iran’s nuclear weapons development, which has resulted in a loss of credibility for the agency due to its failure to convince Israel and the U.S. of the peaceful nature of Iran’s program.
Iran has already suspended cooperation with the IAEA. This means that the international community will not have reliable information about the current state and progress of Iran’s nuclear program for several years, if not decades, Mikhail Gavrilov says.
Potential damage
Russian nuclear experts agree that the main centrifuge production facilities and enrichment plants were heavily damaged or destroyed as a result of the attacks.
According to the IAEA and satellite images, aboveground and underground uranium enrichment facilities in Natanz have been destroyed. The nuclear power plant in Isfahan has sustained extensive damage to its buildings and infrastructure. Tunnels that were used to store uranium materials have also been damaged. Given the dynamics of the attack, they might not have time to remove the uranium reserves from there. The facilities also suffered blows to their electric power infrastructure, which disables centrifuges that were not damaged by the impact, and now they require months of repair because of the volume of damage, says a physicist at the Kurchatov Institute.
If the Fordow facility were indeed seriously damaged, it would be a significant setback for Iran’s ability to produce nuclear weapons materials. Attacks on Natanz and Isfahan would further delay the program. In general, experts from the Institute for Nuclear Safety of the Academy of Sciences note that Iran could lose both its operating centrifuges and the potential for their reproduction.
Technical prospects of Iran‘s nuclear potential
U.S. President Trump and Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu have already declared that Iran‘s nuclear program has been eliminated and the threat is gone. However, this seems as an overly optimistic assessment. The future of Iran’s nuclear program depends on the extent of the damage caused and the likelihood of any secret nuclear facilities or materials that Iran may still have.
A few days before the attack in the Fordow area, satellites recorded truck convoy traffic in the region. This may confirm Iran‘s claims that it has removed stocks of enriched uranium. Iran has not allowed the IAEA to monitor or verify the production of centrifuges since the beginning of 2021. Consequently, the IAEA does not know how many centrifuges Iran has and where they are located. It could have a site with hundreds of new centrifuges in another secret location, nuclear experts from the Russian Foreign Ministry say.
According to the latest reports, the facility at Fordow could have up to 2,700 centrifuges and at Natanz up to 15,000. In addition, Iran continued to build new, more efficient centrifuges, which could allow it to set up a secret small enrichment plant, which houses up to 1,000 centrifuges and produces weapons-grade uranium to 90%. This can be relatively easy for Iran, as it could produce at least 1,500-2,000 centrifuges per year, according to experts from the Kurchatov Institute. If Iran has managed to move uranium enriched to 60% and has retained its enrichment facilities elsewhere, this may cause concern.
Given that the enrichment facilities at Natanz and Fordow were constructed in secret and remained undetected for approximately seven years, it is likely that a smaller facility would be more challenging to detect. Mikhail Gavrilov, a former advisor to the Foreign Ministry, has suggested that such a facility may already exist.
Dmitry Smirnov, a military expert, expresses doubts about Iran’s ability to have taken the uranium out before the US strike. He argues that Iran may not have had enough time to do so, as the attack was unexpected. If they did manage to remove the uranium, Israeli intelligence, which has knowledge of the whereabouts of the entire Iranian leadership, would be able to successfully locate the transported uranium.
There is still time to analyze the damage and discover possible uranium reserves. The resulting highly enriched uranium is not sufficient to create nuclear weapons. Additional time will be needed to convert the uranium into a metallic form and prepare it for use in weapon components. It will also be necessary to develop special explosives, detonators, and warheads for installation on Iran’s missiles. Iran has reportedly attempted to undertake these tasks, although there is no evidence of success, according to Mikhail Gavrilov, a former Foreign Ministry adviser.
Political prospects for Iran‘s nuclear program
The U.S. is willing to negotiate a deal with Iran in hopes that it will completely abandon its uranium enrichment program. However, Mikhail Gavrilov, a former adviser to the Russian Foreign Ministry, has suggested that such a deal is unlikely. He argues that even after losing its nuclear facilities, Iran still has scientific expertise and human resources that can be used to recreate a nuclear program within a few years. If nuclear facilities were preserved in another secret facility, then Iran may decide to accelerate the development of nuclear weapons.
Russian Orientalist Ruslan Suleymanov says that forces in Iran advocating a tightening of their domestic and foreign policies became stronger. They also insist on the prompt development of nuclear weapons. The Iranian Foreign Ministry has already officially stated that Iran will continue enriching uranium.
Vladimir Orlov, the director of the PIR Center and a nuclear expert, agrees with this view. According to him, such attacks could potentially slow down Iran’s nuclear program by a year or two. However, he also points out that such attacks could lead Iran to restructure its nuclear program, making it more secretive and focused on developing nuclear weapons.
Israel has a radical approach to Iran’s nuclear program, Suleymanov says. Israel has shown that it is willing to pay a high price to eliminate Iran’s nuclear potential, which means that new strikes can easily occur if Iran’s nuclear program is revived. President Trump also confirmed that the United States is ready to carry out strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities again if its nuclear program continues to exist. The fear of attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities has disappeared. If this does not stop the nuclear program, it significantly delays its development. This practice will continue if necessary, say experts from Russian Defense Ministry.
However, Dmitry Polikanov, Deputy Head of Federal Agency for the Commonwealth of Independent States Affairs and International Humanitarian Cooperation (Rossotrudnichestvo), states that the presence of nuclear weapons in Iran will no longer impact security in the region. He argues that nuclear weapons are no longer a guarantee of protection against attacks, as they are not some sort of magical solution. For instance, India and Pakistan continue to engage in military conflicts despite having nuclear weapons, so the expert believes that the situation in the Middle East is unlikely to change.
Ruslan Suleymanov points out that there are also forces in Iran who would like to take a tactical break and reach a deal in order to prevent the opponents from bombing the country. They fear that if the situation continues to escalate, a ground operation against Iran may be possible. Previously, Iran was strong with its proxies such as Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis, Shiites in Iraq, and the Assad regime in Syria. Now these forces are greatly weakened, which means that Iran is also weakened.
The Russian Foreign Ministry calls the enrichment of uranium to 60% a direct result of the policy of the United States and Israel. That is, Iran did not agree to stop uranium enrichment, fearing that such a decision would affect the country’s security, some Russian experts explained. However, Iran has been hit for continuing enrichment. In other words, any decision by Iran on the future of its nuclear program will be risky for it.
Whether Iran will be willing to risk potential attacks on its territory or would prefer to abandon its nuclear program in exchange for some guarantees and the lifting of sanctions remains to be seen.
Risks of proliferation
Iran‘s development of nuclear weapons will threaten not only Israel, but also other countries in the Middle East. Such a strengthening of Iran is not beneficial to many neighboring countries. This situation may encourage other states in the region, such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey, to develop their own nuclear weapons, says Anton Khlopkov, Director of the Center for Energy and Security. Iran‘s creation of nuclear weapons can show that even with a dangerous neighbor, being subjected to sanctions and missile attacks, it is realistic to implement a military nuclear program.
Despite the official rhetoric, Moscow would not want Iran to acquire nuclear weapons and would be satisfied with maintaining the nonproliferation regime. Under Medvedev’s presidency, Iran was seen by Russia as more of an enemy than an ally. Despite public statements of friendship and cooperation, Russia never deviated from its position that Iran should not possess nuclear weapons. Since at least 2010, the Kremlin has favored Israel. Iran’s conflict with Israel has placed the Kremlin in a difficult position, sources in the Russian special services say.
Russia also does not benefit from a nuclear-armed Iran, because it remains the only Caspian country that has not ratified the Convention on the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea. According to Adlan Mardoev, a researcher at MGIMO University, it will be more difficult to negotiate with nuclear Iran on any controversial issues in bilateral relations and in neighboring regions.
Iran’s war with Israel has put the Kremlin in a difficult position. Moscow is now much more concerned about internal problems, and there is simply not enough attention to Middle East diplomacy.
Economic risks
Representatives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs emphasized that the actions of the United States and Israel are undermining the nuclear non-proliferation regime. They also stated that, unfortunately, the slow and weak response of the IAEA contributes to this process. Thus, Russia says that it understands Iran’s dissatisfaction with the IAEA. However, Minister Sergey Lavrov is seeking to convince Iran not to halt cooperation with the IAEA, as this would interfere with Russia’s economic interests.
A potential withdrawal from the NPT could lead to new anti-Iranian sanctions by the UN Security Council. Russia, which supports the nuclear non-proliferation regime, could stop supplying nuclear fuel for the Bushehr nuclear power plant and freeze the construction of the second and third power units. It could also halt scientific and educational projects in Iran related to the peaceful use of atomic energy, says MGIMO expert Margoev. In addition, Rosatom had plans to build another new nuclear power plant in Iran, which is why Russia is not interested in severing Iran’s relations with the IAEA.
Military results
In general, military experts agree that Israel, even without the support of the United States, has shown military superiority over Iran. Ruslan Pukhov, Director of the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, said that in the military sphere, Iran has been engaged in simulating the creation of a supposedly high-tech military, but without having a sufficient level of technological and industrial development to support it. As a result, when truly modern technologies came to the battlefield, the Iranian military failed.
According to a colonel Mikhail Khodarenok, the Israeli Air Force has completely overwhelmed Iran‘s air defenses and had total air dominance. Iran’s response to the bombings within its territory has been unusual. It appears that Iran’s military capabilities have been undermined. The Iranian air force was unable to quickly identify and neutralize Israeli planes or prevent U.S. bomber attacks. Iran was also unable to conduct an immediate retaliatory strike against Israel. To counter Israel, Iran has only ballistic missiles, which, although they have hit Israeli territory, have had no impact on the enemy’s military forces and its bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities. The ceasefire has brought a temporary respite, according to Russian military analyst.
The attacks on Iran have weakened its military power, but the country still has the potential to cause a global political and economic crisis. For this reason, it is crucial that the parties reach a peaceful agreement with Iran, said Igor Korotchenko, the adviser of the Defense Ministry.
According to Andrey Frolov, associate professor at the Higher School of Economics, Iran will not be able to overcome the technological gap on its own. Iran can reduce this gap by directly purchasing arms and military equipment from Russia and possibly China, specifically in those categories that are the most expensive. Iran will need at least 100 Su-35 fighter jets and, in the future, possibly Su-57E, as well as various air defense systems, radars, advanced electronic intelligence and electronic warfare systems, and non-nuclear submarines equipped with missile systems. The expert estimates that this will require tens of billions of dollars. This puts Tehran in a difficult situation: it must either develop its conventional military forces to deter a potential future attack or focus all its efforts on its nuclear program. Given Iran’s historical reluctance to engage in military-technical cooperation, it may simply try to return to its previous status quo.
The role of Russia
The Iranian Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, arrived in Moscow on June 23 for consultations with the Russian leadership, hoping to secure Moscow’s support both internationally and regionally. However, despite these hopes, Moscow failed to provide the support he had sought. According to Nikita Smagin, a Russian expert on the Middle East believes that the current conflict in the region is actually beneficial for Russia. Firstly, oil prices are rising. Secondly, the West has temporarily shifted its attention from Ukraine to the Middle East. In addition, it is not possible to directly intervene in the conflict, and it would be pointless to transfer advanced weapons to Iran at this point.
Moscow understands that since the ideology of complete rejection of Israel is still being promoted in Tehran and the conflict is not over, military operations may resume. Russian President Vladimir Putin has stated that Russia is ready to mediate the conflict between Israel and Iran. However, Ruslan Suleymanov admits that there is distrust of Moscow in Tehran. Iran believes that Moscow shared information with Israel about Iranian generals in Syria and supports the UAE on the disputed islands in the Strait of Hormuz.
In addition, Russian experts are aware of the opinion in Iran that Russia has sought to disrupt negotiations with the United States to maintain anti-Iranian sanctions and to isolate Tehran from the West both politically and economically.
At the same time, there are also anti-Israeli voices who call the Israeli nuclear program the reason for Iran’s nuclear ambitions. For example, Konstantin Kosachev, vice speaker of the Federation Council, suggests that Israel should join the NPT and put its nuclear program under the control of the IAEA. Agreeing with this premise, Anatoly Antonov, former deputy defense minister, first suggests that Israel should join the Chemical Weapons Convention and Convention on the Prohibition of Biological Weapons, and then return to the idea of creating a weapons of mass destruction-free zone in the Middle East. In other words, Moscow can hardly claim any mediating role in the conflict between Iran and Israel.
Conclusions
Many experts interviewed note that the attack on Iran sets a dangerous precedent. Under the pretext of solving the problem of nuclear proliferation, these or other forces may continue to threaten other states with missile attacks, especially those that have nuclear programs or are about to develop them.
Israel understands that diplomacy is being used by Iran to achieve its economic interests and preserve its nuclear program. Similarly, North Korea has also used diplomacy while simultaneously developing its nuclear missile forces. This demonstrates that it is possible for states to preserve the nuclear non-proliferation regime through force. On the one hand, this is a positive outcome. On the other hand, this could have a negative impact, as the nuclear programs of other countries may be seen as a threat by their neighbors.
The Russian experts underscore that Israel’s success could make it a potential hegemon in the region. This is something that Arab countries like Qatar, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia would not want. Due to this, they may develop their military capabilities and increase their arsenals in order to counter Israel’s aspirations. The Russians view a military approach to Israel’s nuclear proliferation as becoming a dangerous precedent that could destabilize the situation in this region and others around the world.
Dr. Maxim Starchak is a Fellow of the Centre for International and Defence Policy at Queen’s University, Canada, and a Russia Correspondent for the European Security & Defence magazine