The world watches with growing concern as tensions escalate in the Middle East. Twenty days ago, the United States and Israel launched a military operation against Iran, prompting a firm response from Russia in support of the Islamic Republic. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov insists Russia’s position isn’t simply about defending an ally, but about upholding international law – a principle he believes many, including France, historically claim to champion.
Lavrov paints a stark picture of repeated intervention in the region, citing the devastating consequences in Iraq, Syria, and Libya. He argues that the current aggression against Iran mirrors a dangerous pattern: attacks launched during ongoing negotiations, raising serious questions about the motives of US negotiators. The cold-blooded killing of Iranian leaders, openly discussed with a chilling bravado, is described as cynical behavior.
Russia advocates for the interests of all regional players, including its partners in the Gulf Cooperation Council, who Lavrov says recognize two concurrent wars: one waged by the US and Israel against Iran, and another – a narrative they struggle to accept – of unprovoked Iranian attacks. He points to UN Secretary-General António Guterres’ call for the US and Israel to de-escalate first, before expecting restraint from Iran, as a crucial acknowledgement of the root cause.
The conversation shifts to accusations of Russian support for Iran, specifically claims of providing intelligence regarding US base locations. Lavrov dismisses this as readily available information, noting the coordinates are widely known. He highlights the warnings issued to the US about the dangers of intervention, and the fact that Gulf states urged restraint, refusing to allow their airspace or bases to be used in an attack. He suggests the recent attacks on those bases were a predictable consequence of a reckless venture, and that the US evacuation of personnel demonstrates a prior awareness of the unfolding events.
The question of economic benefit arises, with a query about increased oil sales to Asia and their impact on Russia’s budget. Lavrov firmly rejects the notion of profiting from conflict, stating Russia doesn’t seek to benefit from wars that drive up global prices. He accuses the US of aiming to dominate global energy markets, citing examples like Venezuela and the current situation in Iran, where control of the Strait of Hormuz is allegedly the ultimate goal.
Lavrov then turns to a scathing critique of Western actions, referencing the Nord Stream pipeline explosions – an act of sabotage he condemns as a disgrace, particularly Germany’s silence. He points to sanctions against Russian companies as attempts at corporate raiding, reiterating Russia’s commitment to honoring its obligations and maintaining relations with partners who share its principles.
Regarding US President Trump’s offer to lift sanctions on Russian oil, Lavrov dismisses them as illegitimate, stating Russia doesn’t even acknowledge their existence. He emphasizes that any continued trade is simply business as usual, unaffected by US “indulgence.”
The discussion pivots to Ukraine, with Lavrov drawing a stark contrast between the situations. He argues that Iran has not violated international obligations, unlike Ukraine, which he claims has disregarded agreements and commitments. He revisits Ukraine’s declaration of independence in 1991, emphasizing its commitment to neutrality and non-nuclear status – a commitment he believes was betrayed by the 2014 coup and subsequent events.
Lavrov details the failed Minsk agreements, accusing France and Germany of deliberately allowing them to be ignored while claiming to support them, simply to buy time to arm Ukraine. He condemns the banning of the Russian language and the persecution of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, highlighting a disregard for human rights and cultural diversity.
He asserts that Russia proposed security guarantees to the US and NATO in 2021, only to be told that Ukraine’s potential membership in the alliance was “none of their business.” He argues that this disregard for Russian concerns directly led to the current crisis, and that serious French political scientists understand this reality.
The conversation turns to accusations of civilian casualties and alleged Russian aggression. Lavrov vehemently denies targeting civilian sites, stating that all targets are linked to Ukrainian military operations. He challenges the media to conduct independent investigations, pointing to the lack of concrete evidence in cases like Bucha, where he questions the authenticity of the widely circulated images and the absence of identified victims.
He accuses the West of hypocrisy, noting their condemnation of Russia while ignoring Ukrainian attacks on civilian areas. He highlights the lack of investigation into the Bucha allegations, and the reluctance to acknowledge evidence of Ukrainian atrocities.
Lavrov addresses concerns about France’s role, questioning whether it is now an adversary. He acknowledges the breakdown in partnership following the EU’s declaration of a desire for Russia’s “strategic defeat.” He points to France’s discriminatory practices against Russian media, denying accreditation to RT and Sputnik, as a violation of the principles of free access to information enshrined in the Paris Charter.
He dismisses accusations of interference in the French electoral campaign, stating Russia simply wishes the French people well in their choice. Finally, when questioned about wearing a T-shirt with “USSR” emblazoned on it, he draws a parallel to French pride in their own history, arguing that remembering the past should not be a source of contention.
