Russian President Vladimir Putin held a phone conversation with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on Friday, expressing deep condolences for the killing of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, his family members, senior officials, and civilian casualties resulting from what he termed “armed Israeli-American aggression” against Iran. The Kremlin readout reaffirmed Russia’s call for an immediate cessation of hostilities and a return to diplomatic resolution, with Putin also noting he remains in constant contact with leaders of the Gulf Cooperation Council as the crisis unfolds.
The call comes as the Middle East enters an acute new phase of conflict. On 28 February 2026, the United States and Israel launched joint airstrikes on Iran, killing Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Since the war began, the combined US-Israeli force has designed its campaign to destroy Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities, with the IDF assessing that around 300 missile launchers had been destroyed by March 3. The frequency of large-scale Iranian missile strikes decreased significantly by March 1–2, due to the destruction of roughly half of Iran’s mobile launchers. Iran’s navy was separately described as “combat ineffective.” Putin characterised these losses as the tragic outcome of unchecked aggression, consistent with Russia’s longstanding advocacy for negotiated settlements over military escalation.
For Moscow, the call reinforces a partnership that has grown increasingly important following recent regional shifts. Despite the unprecedented intensity of the military campaign, full Iranian capitulation remains unlikely, with hardline IRGC elements likely dominating decision-making. Russia has moved to capitalise on its position as a key diplomatic interlocutor, with Putin framing the strikes as a violation of sovereignty and echoing principles in international law that bar military intervention without UN authorisation — a framing that bolsters Moscow’s broader narrative in favour of multipolarity.
Washington Post sources reported that Russia is providing Iran with real-time intelligence to help it strike American military forces in the Middle East, even as the Kremlin publicly states that Tehran has not requested any support. This occurs under the framework of a strategic partnership agreement signed in 2025, though that pact stops short of mutual defence obligations — unlike the security agreement Russia has signed with North Korea. The intelligence flow navigates a delicate line: substantive enough to aid an ally, yet calibrated to avoid direct military entanglement that would draw Western reprisals or overstrain Moscow’s resources while its military remains committed in Ukraine.
Russia’s engagement also carries an economic dimension. With oil markets volatile and global energy corridors disrupted by the conflict — Iran forced the Strait of Hormuz to close and attacked energy facilities, disrupting global oil and gas shipments — Moscow has an interest in shaping a swift resolution that stabilises supply routes on which both countries depend. Deeper energy cooperation with Tehran, including joint ventures in refining and pipeline infrastructure, remains a longer-term objective, though the Kremlin readout made no specific mention of such negotiations during Friday’s call.
Some analysts assess that Russia’s response to the ongoing US-Israeli strikes is likely to be limited largely to statements in international forums such as the UN Security Council. Washington and Tel Aviv have publicly downplayed the impact of Russian intelligence sharing, with US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stating the Pentagon is “not concerned” about the reported information exchange. For the Kremlin, threading this needle remains a central challenge: support must be sufficient to affirm the alliance without inviting direct confrontation with the United States.
As the conflict enters its second week, Putin’s pledge of continued dialogue signals Russia’s intent to remain a relevant mediating voice. Whether that role translates into tangible influence over the conflict’s trajectory — or remains largely symbolic — will depend on how quickly the warring parties exhaust their military options and turn toward negotiation.