{"id":126,"date":"2026-03-22T01:54:20","date_gmt":"2026-03-22T05:54:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/jakony.com\/frontpage\/?p=126"},"modified":"2026-03-22T01:54:20","modified_gmt":"2026-03-22T05:54:20","slug":"russian-state-media-suggests-us-seeking-russian-support-on-iran","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/jakony.com\/frontpage\/video\/russian-state-media-suggests-us-seeking-russian-support-on-iran\/","title":{"rendered":"Russian State Media Suggests US Seeking Russian Support on Iran"},"content":{"rendered":"

(MOSCOW) <\/strong>– Russian political commentators and analysts used a televised discussion to question United States strategy towards Iran, as US President Donald Trump claimed progress while Tehran signalled retaliation and demanded the withdrawal of American forces from the Middle East.<\/p>\n

Speaking on the programme \u201cOne\u2019s Own Truth,\u201d host Roman Babayan opened by noting Trump\u2019s assertion of victory over Iran, contrasting it with Iran\u2019s pledge to avenge what it described as martyrs and its demand for the removal of US military bases from the region. The panel posed a central question: who is winning the conflict.<\/p>\n

Participants said that if Trump\u2019s statements are taken at face value, the United States is close to victory, although they emphasised the conditional nature of that claim. At the same time, they pointed to rising oil prices and increasing criticism within the United States as indicators of a more complex situation.<\/p>\n

Trump\u2019s messaging was described as contradictory. On one hand, he has said operations are proceeding beyond plan and that the Iranian regime is close to collapse. On the other, he has suggested that the United States has not yet fully acted and warned of stronger measures if Iran attempts to block the Strait of Hormuz.<\/p>\n

Panel members argued that such dual messaging reflects a broader pattern seen in other conflicts, where claims of imminent victory coexist with threats of escalation. Comparisons were drawn with previous conflicts, including the Israeli Palestinian situation.<\/p>\n

Discussion then turned to reported contacts between Trump and the Russian dictator Vladimir Putin. One participant suggested Trump approached the conversation in transactional terms, raising the possibility of sanctions relief on Russian oil in exchange for concessions. The response, it was suggested, may have been framed in similar terms, questioning what the United States would offer in return.<\/p>\n

According to the panel, there were indications of limited US concessions, including a temporary easing of sanctions on Russian oil. However, analysts said such measures were likely to remain provisional and subject to extension.<\/p>\n

Participants argued that high oil prices present both an advantage and a constraint for Washington, benefiting US producers while also creating domestic political pressure. They suggested Trump may be forced to make further concessions towards Russia while facing uncertainty over upcoming midterm elections.<\/p>\n

The discussion also referenced an online poll conducted by the broadcaster, in which a majority of respondents said the United States had sought talks with Moscow after failing to achieve a decisive outcome in Iran. Others cited the possibility of a sanctions for oil arrangement, while a smaller share pointed to tensions between Washington and Kyiv.<\/p>\n

American journalist Michael Bohm, speaking on the panel, speculated on the tone of a possible Trump Putin conversation. He suggested Putin may have thanked Trump for policies that contributed to higher oil prices, while acknowledging shared historical tensions with Iran. Bohm further suggested that any cooperation on Iran could be linked to expectations of increased pressure on Ukraine, including demands for Ukrainian troop withdrawals from occupied regions.<\/p>\n

Other panel members said Trump appeared to have misjudged the situation and was now struggling to define a clear course of action. They pointed to what they described as a lack of expertise among decision makers and criticised the apparent failure to fully assess Iran before initiating military action.<\/p>\n

The panel also raised questions about US casualties, citing claims of limited transparency and suggesting losses may be higher than officially reported. They added that financial costs were mounting alongside strategic uncertainty.<\/p>\n