Behind the scenes, Israel and Iran exchanged rare messages via Russia, seeking to contain escalation even as war planning, protests, and U.S. pressure reshaped the region.
Quiet and indirect communications between Israel and Iran, carried through Russian intermediaries, revealed a rare diplomatic channel between two states that publicly define each other as existential enemies. The exchanges, which followed a brief but intense 12-day war in June, reflected a calculated attempt by Israel to limit escalation with Iran at a time when Israeli military planning was increasingly focused on Lebanon and Hezbollah. According to diplomats and regional officials familiar with the matter, Israel sought to convey that it did not intend to initiate new strikes against Iranian territory, even though its public messaging in preceding months had suggested that renewed action against Iran remained an option.
The discreet contacts stood in stark contrast to the public hostility that has long characterized Israel-Iran relations and to Israeli statements late last year that openly hinted at possible attacks aimed at rolling back what Israeli officials described as Iran’s rapidly replenishing ballistic missile stockpile. Privately, however, Israeli officials appeared more concerned with preventing a scenario in which Iran would feel compelled to intervene directly if Israel launched a large-scale military operation against Hezbollah, the Iran-aligned militia in Lebanon that Israel considers its most immediate strategic threat. Analysts have noted that this compartmentalized approach aligns with Israel’s broader effort to isolate Hezbollah while avoiding a simultaneous multi-front confrontation.
Iranian officials responded cautiously to the Israeli outreach, according to individuals with direct knowledge of the exchanges. While the messages were received as a potential opening to reduce immediate tensions, Tehran remained wary of Israel’s intentions and skeptical of the durability of any informal assurances. Iranian decision-makers assessed that even if Israel refrained from direct action, the possibility remained that the United States could strike Iran in coordination with Israel, allowing Washington to take the lead while Israel concentrated its military efforts on Hezbollah. From Tehran’s perspective, such an arrangement would still expose Iran to significant risk.
Despite these concerns, several regional officials said Iran concluded that restraint was preferable under the circumstances. Avoiding direct involvement in an Israel-Hezbollah confrontation reduced the likelihood of a broader regional war and allowed Tehran to focus on pressing internal challenges. One senior regional official described Iran’s decision to stay out of any immediate clash as “a good deal,” given the strategic and domestic pressures facing the Iranian leadership. U.S. officials have also indicated that Iran’s substantive support for Hezbollah has declined in recent months as Tehran grapples with economic strain and political unrest at home.
Those domestic pressures have become increasingly significant. Widespread protests across Iran in recent weeks have posed a serious challenge to the government’s grip on power, forcing Iranian leaders to devote greater attention to internal stability. Analysts say the unrest has complicated Tehran’s foreign policy calculations, making it more cautious about actions that could invite external military pressure while also heightening sensitivity to perceived threats. It remains unclear how these developments have altered Iran’s view of the informal understandings reached with Israel or whether those understandings will endure.
Uncertainty has also been fueled by signals from Washington. President Donald Trump has publicly weighed the possibility of strikes against Iranian regime targets in response to the crackdown on protests, according to U.S. officials cited by Reuters and other outlets. Any such action, analysts warn, could provoke Iranian retaliation and draw U.S. allies into a wider conflict. Israel, despite its efforts to avoid being seen as the instigator of escalation, could find itself targeted in the event of a broader confrontation involving Iran and the United States.
Iranian officials have attempted to clarify their red lines. A senior Iranian official told Reuters that if Iran were attacked, it would retaliate against U.S. military bases in the Middle East, notably without naming Israel as a target. Observers interpreted the omission as a signal that Tehran was seeking to limit escalation and avoid a direct clash with Israel if possible. Whether such restraint would hold under the pressure of actual military strikes remains an open question.
On the Israeli side, there is also ambiguity about how binding the December reassurances truly are. Some analysts argue that Israeli leaders could reconsider their position if they perceived a genuine opportunity to weaken Iran’s leadership or significantly disrupt its regional influence. The prospect of regime change in Tehran has long been viewed favorably by segments of Israel’s security establishment, which see Iran as the central sponsor of hostile actors such as Hezbollah. At the same time, Israeli officials are acutely aware that overt participation in an attack on Iran could trigger missile and drone retaliation against Israeli cities and critical infrastructure.
Publicly, Israeli leaders have been careful to frame their military posture as defensive. As protests intensified inside Iran, Israeli government and security officials largely avoided bellicose language, emphasizing preparedness rather than imminent action. This restraint contrasts with Israel’s conduct in June, when it launched a complex surprise attack against Iran even as nuclear negotiations between Tehran and Washington were underway. That episode reinforced Iranian suspicions that Israel might act unilaterally regardless of diplomatic processes, deepening mistrust on both sides.
Sima Shine, a senior researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv and a former senior official at Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency, has argued that Israel appears content to let the United States take the leading role in any potential strikes against Iran. At the same time, she noted that Israel would welcome political change in Tehran, which could fundamentally alter the regional balance of power and weaken Hezbollah’s strategic backing. Shine also emphasized that Israel remains vulnerable to Iranian retaliation, a reality that has driven extensive investment in missile defense and civil defense measures. Her analysis is consistent with assessments published by the Institute for National Security Studies and other regional security think tanks.
From Israel’s perspective, the outreach to Iran served a narrowly tactical purpose. By signaling a desire to avoid direct confrontation, Israel aimed to reduce the likelihood that Tehran would intervene militarily if Israel escalated against Hezbollah. An Israeli official familiar with the discussions said the same logic continues to guide Israeli thinking, with Jerusalem seeking to prevent immediate direct exchanges with Iran while preserving freedom of action elsewhere. According to the official, a military campaign against Hezbollah remains a real possibility regardless of how events unfold with Iran.
Israeli leaders have repeatedly warned that Hezbollah continues to pose a grave threat because it has not disarmed and retains a substantial arsenal of rockets and missiles along Israel’s northern border. The Israeli official said any campaign in Lebanon would be extensive and designed to significantly degrade Hezbollah’s capabilities. The central question, the official added, is not whether such a campaign will occur, but whether it will take place before, during, or after any broader confrontation involving Iran.
Russia’s role as an intermediary has been a critical element of this diplomatic episode. The most recent exchange of messages reportedly occurred in late December, shortly after Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi visited Moscow. Regional officials said Russia facilitated the communications as part of a broader effort to position itself as an indispensable diplomatic broker in the Middle East while also seeking leverage in its interactions with Washington over the war in Ukraine. Moscow’s relationships with both Israel and Iran have allowed it to play this role, even as its own geopolitical interests shape its mediation efforts.
This was not the first time Russia has sought to mediate between Israel and Iran. According to a Russian academic close to senior diplomats, the Kremlin previously proposed to President Trump that it serve as an intermediary between the two rivals. Trump declined the offer, reportedly telling Russian officials to focus first on Ukraine. It remains unclear whether Washington was fully aware of or involved in the December exchanges that ultimately took place through Russian channels.
Israeli media reporting has added further detail. The Israeli public broadcaster KAN reported that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently asked Russian President Vladimir Putin to convey messages to Iran indicating that Israel did not intend to attack it. Neither Netanyahu’s office nor the Kremlin responded to requests for comment, leaving the precise content of the messages unconfirmed. Still, the reporting aligns with accounts from diplomats and regional officials describing a deliberate Israeli effort to lower tensions with Tehran.
For Russia, facilitating such contacts serves multiple objectives. It reinforces Moscow’s relevance as a power broker in the Middle East, allows it to maintain working relationships with both Israel and Iran, and potentially strengthens its position in negotiations with the United States. For Iran, engaging through a Russian intermediary provides deniability and reduces the political cost of exploring de-escalation with Israel. For Israel, the channel offers a way to manage risk without altering its public stance.
The durability of these quiet understandings, however, remains uncertain. The convergence of domestic unrest in Iran, shifting U.S. policy considerations, and Israel’s ongoing confrontation with Hezbollah creates a volatile environment in which miscalculation is a constant danger. Informal assurances conveyed indirectly can unravel quickly in the face of rapid developments on the ground.
At the same time, the episode illustrates a recurring feature of Middle Eastern geopolitics: even the most hostile adversaries often maintain discreet channels of communication when the costs of open conflict become too high. The Israel-Iran exchanges mediated by Russia do not signal reconciliation or a softening of fundamental positions. Rather, they reflect a narrow and pragmatic effort by both sides to manage immediate risks while pursuing their broader strategic objectives.
Whether this pragmatism will prevail remains to be seen. A major Israeli operation against Hezbollah could still prompt Iranian involvement if Tehran believes its core interests are threatened. Likewise, U.S. strikes on Iranian targets could rapidly collapse the fragile separation Israel and Iran have sought to maintain. For now, the back-channel diplomacy represents a pause rather than a resolution, highlighting the delicate balance that regional and global powers are attempting to strike.
As these dynamics continue to evolve, the quiet messages exchanged through Moscow underscore how diplomacy, even between bitter enemies, often operates in the shadows. Beneath public rhetoric and military posturing, there remains an ongoing effort to avoid uncontrolled escalation in a region where the consequences of miscalculation could be profound. Related analysis on regional security dynamics and U.S. policy choices can be found in World at Net’s Middle East coverage at https://www.worldatnet.com/middle-east and global diplomacy section at https://www.worldatnet.com/global-affairs, while original reporting on these developments continues to be published by Reuters at https://www.reuters.com and regional broadcasters including KAN.
0 Comments