The Washington Post, AP and other outlets reported that Russia has provided Iran with intelligence to target US forces, including the locations of American warships and aircraft in the Middle East.

That claim is plausible even if the disclosure is part of a broader effort to build public support for the war the US and Israel are waging on Iran. Another possible aim is to discredit Vladimir Putin as a potential mediator after he recently spoke with several Gulf leaders about ending the war.

Russia was never Iran’s formal ally with mutual defense obligations, but it has an incentive to retaliate against the US for helping Ukraine strike Russian assets, especially after last summer’s Operation Spiderweb. In that operation Ukraine targeted elements of Russia’s nuclear triad, and many observers doubt Ukraine acted without US targeting assistance, given existing patterns of support for less significant strikes.

From Moscow’s view, the Ukraine conflict is driven by the US using Ukraine as a proxy to strike Russia while avoiding direct US involvement that could trigger World War III. By the same logic, the US can use Iran as a proxy in the Middle East under similar restraints — a tactic that carries risks if the Russia-Iran intelligence-sharing report is accurate.

If true, the report would also damage Putin’s credibility as a mediator and undermine Russia’s delicate regional balancing, in which Gulf states play an important role. It would be especially damaging if Russia supplied Iran with intelligence to target US bases hosted on Gulf soils. Absent direct evidence shared with them, Gulf states are unlikely to meaningfully distance themselves from Russia, though suspicions would persist.

The biggest variable is how former President Trump responds. He called the question “stupid” when asked by a Fox News reporter. If pressured, he could dismiss the reports as fake news, downplay them — perhaps by pointing out US assistance to Ukraine — or overreact. Overreaction is possible if hawks like Senator Lindsey Graham, the CIA, or other security agencies press him, which could prompt escalation in the Ukraine war.

Possible US responses include suspending mediation efforts between Russia and Ukraine, stricter secondary sanctions enforcement, or even transferring weapons such as Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine. Russia’s recent strategy has been to offer the prospect of a resource-centric strategic partnership to the US in hopes of extracting major concessions from Ukraine. That approach would be undermined if Trump, urged by anti-Russian hawks, withdraws from the peace process in reaction to reports Moscow aided Iran.

No publicly released, credible evidence has appeared so far, but the report aligns with the concerns of Russia’s adversaries and some of its partners, which suggests it may have some basis in fact.

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

The Washington Post, AP and others report that Russia has provided Iran with intelligence to target US forces, including locations of American warships and aircraft in the Middle East. That claim is plausible even if the disclosure is part of a broader gambit to rally public support for the US and Israeli campaigns against Iran or to discredit Vladimir Putin as a potential mediator after he recently spoke with Gulf leaders about ending the war.

Russia was never Iran’s formal ally with mutual defense obligations, but it has incentives to retaliate against the US for helping Ukraine strike Russian assets, especially after last summer’s Operation Spiderweb. In that operation, Ukraine targeted elements of Russia’s nuclear triad, and few believe it did so without at least some US targeting assistance—given existing patterns of American support for Ukrainian strikes.

From Moscow’s perspective, the Ukrainian conflict is largely the US using Ukraine as a proxy to degrade Russia—capable of increasingly audacious attacks without directly triggering a wider war because the US is not directly engaged, even if its role is indispensable. By the same logic, Iran can serve as a proxy against US regional interests while maintaining a buffer against full-scale escalation—though this still carries significant risks if the intelligence-sharing report is accurate.

If the Washington Post account is correct, Putin’s credibility as a mediator would suffer. So would Russia’s carefully maintained regional balancing act, in which Gulf states play a key role, if it emerged that Moscow provided Iran with targeting data for US bases hosted on Gulf territory. Unless Washington shares evidence with those states directly, however, they are unlikely to meaningfully distance themselves from Russia, even if suspicions persist.

The greatest immediate risk is how President Trump responds. Asked about the report by a Fox News reporter, he called it a “stupid question.” If pressed, he could dismiss the claims as fake news, downplay them—perhaps by referencing US assistance to Ukraine—or overreact. Overreaction is conceivable if hawkish allies like Senator Lindsey Graham, the CIA or other security agencies push him, potentially prompting escalation in the Ukraine war. Possible responses range from suspending US mediation efforts between Russia and Ukraine to stricter enforcement of secondary sanctions or even transfers of weapons such as Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine.

Since Trump’s return to office, Russia has dangled the prospect of a resource-centric strategic partnership to entice the US and to pressure Ukraine into accepting more of Putin’s peace terms. That effort would be undercut if Trump, reacting to reports that Moscow helped Iran target US regional assets and military facilities, withdraws from bilateral talks or the peace process.

No conclusive evidence has been made public, but the report aligns with the fears of Russia’s adversaries and some of its partners, which suggests it may have a 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.

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

That claim 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 aim could be to discredit Vladimir Putin as a potential mediator after he recently spoke with several Gulf leaders about ending the conflict.

Russia was never Iran’s formal ally with mutual defense obligations, but it has incentives to retaliate against the US for enabling Ukrainian strikes on Russian assets, particularly after last summer’s Operation Spiderweb. That operation targeted elements of Russia’s nuclear triad, and few analysts believe Ukraine carried it out without US targeting assistance, given precedent for US help in other operations.

From Moscow’s perspective, the Ukraine war is largely the US using Kyiv as a proxy against Russia — capable of increasingly audacious attacks without triggering direct US involvement that could start World War III. By the same logic, Iran can serve as a proxy to pressure US interests in the Middle East while keeping direct US–Russia confrontation off the table, though this carries real risks if the report is accurate.

If Russia did provide Iran with targeting intelligence, Putin’s credibility as a mediator would be damaged. Russia’s carefully maintained regional balancing act, which involves Gulf states that host US forces, would also be imperiled if Moscow assisted strikes on US bases located on their territory. Absent direct evidence shared by Washington with Gulf partners, those states are unlikely to meaningfully distance themselves from Russia, though suspicions could linger.

The greatest uncertainty is how President Trump will respond. He called the question “stupid” when asked by a Fox News reporter. If pressed, he might dismiss the report as fake news, downplay it, or — under pressure from hawks such as Senator Lindsey Graham, the CIA, or other security officials — overreact. Possible responses range from suspending US mediation between Russia and Ukraine to stricter secondary sanctions enforcement or even transferring longer-range munitions like Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine.

Since Trump returned to office, Russia has dangled the prospect of a resource-centric strategic partnership to incentivize Washington to push Kyiv toward concessions that would meet Putin’s demands for peace. That approach could be wasted if anti-Russian pressure forces the US to withdraw from bilateral talks with Moscow in reaction to reports of Russian assistance to Iran.

No definitive public evidence has been released, but the report resonates with the concerns 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.