The recent U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities have further exposed the stark and growing divide between Washington and Moscow, with both powers offering sharply contrasting narratives on the scope, legality, and consequences of the attack.
While U.S. President Donald Trump, speaking at the NATO summit in The Hague, claimed the assault had severely damaged Iran’s nuclear program, even he admitted that the available intelligence remained “inconclusive.”
Trump told reporters that U.S. intelligence agencies “don’t know” the full extent of the damage, but he insisted that the blow dealt to Iran’s nuclear ambitions could set the program back “decades.”
Trump, flanked by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, asserted that the U.S. would not hesitate to launch further strikes if Iran attempted to rebuild its enrichment capability.
“Sure,” he said when asked about the possibility of another military intervention.
However, the credibility of these assertions was questioned within the U.S. itself. Reports surfaced suggesting that the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) assessed the damage as limited, potentially setting Iran back by only a few months.
Rubio dismissed the leak of the DIA report as “deeply problematic,” suggesting its findings had been exaggerated or misinterpreted by the press. He confirmed that an investigation into the leak was underway.
On the other side of the geopolitical spectrum, Russia struck a very different tone, rejecting Washington’s narrative outright and urging restraint.
The Kremlin called the U.S. strike “illegal, unprovoked, and unjustified,” and voiced skepticism over any assessments made so soon after the incident. “No one can realistically claim to know the full extent of the damage at this point.”
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov stated. He added that it was “too early” to conclude and noted that Moscow had no verified data of its own yet.
Russia has remained a vocal critic of the West’s approach to Iran. Just months ago, it signed a strategic cooperation agreement with Tehran, strengthening bilateral ties across military, economic, and technological domains.
The U.S. strikes, viewed in Moscow as another example of unilateral aggression, risk further straining already tense relations between the two powers.
While the U.S. hinted at quiet backchannel communications with Iran, Russia made clear it is actively engaging with Tehran, monitoring developments closely, and maintaining open lines of dialogue.
In response to the airstrikes, Iran’s parliament passed a bill to suspend cooperation with the UN’s nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, according to state-affiliated media outlet Nournews.
The decision still awaits approval from Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, but it signals Tehran’s escalating defiance in the face of Western pressure.
Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf was quoted as saying Iran would accelerate its civilian nuclear program, further deepening international concerns.
At the same time, IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi is urgently seeking to return inspectors to Iranian nuclear facilities, including the three main enrichment plants allegedly targeted in the June 13 Israeli strikes. Grossi emphasized that verifying Iran’s stockpiles — especially uranium enriched up to 60% purity — is his “number one priority.”
Iran, for its part, has informed the IAEA that it intends to take “special measures” to safeguard its nuclear materials and infrastructure, though the exact nature of these steps remains unclear.
As global attention fixates on the fallout from the strikes, the clash in responses from Washington and Moscow underscores a broader ideological and strategic divide.
Where the U.S. views military pressure as a tool for deterrence, Russia sees it as destabilizing adventurism — a split that may shape the future of global nuclear diplomacy and redefine power dynamics in West Asia for years to come.
