When top-level delegations from the US and Iran met on April 12 in Muscat, the capital of Oman, it marked a thaw in ties between the two countries after years of sabre-rattling amid a high-profile stand-off over Tehran’s nuclear programme.

The Muscat meeting between the Iranian delegation led by Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and the American team led by Steve Whitkoff, the US President’s Special Envoy for Middle Eastern Affairs, was a big success, to put it mildly. 

According to available reports, both sides reached a consensus on the continuation of diplomatic engagements and consultations, with each party characterising the prevailing atmosphere of this round of talks as constructive and conducive to further dialogue. 

The meeting marks a notable shift in US policy, especially considering Donald Trump’s unilateral withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal in 2018. 

The meeting also assumed significance as it came amid feverish speculation over potential Israeli military action, potentially with US support, against Iran should diplomatic efforts fail.

A day after the Oman meeting, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, in an interview with Fox News, said that President Trump was fully committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. He noted that the President has maintained a consistent stance on this issue for the past two decades and remains resolute in his position. 

Hegseth emphasised that Trump is seeking a resolution through diplomatic means, which is why he has chosen to engage directly in the negotiations. 

He described the recent talks as a positive step and commended Steve Whitkoff for his effective efforts during the discussions. 

While refraining from making concrete predictions, he acknowledged that if diplomacy fails to yield results, alternative options, including military action, remain on the table to ensure that Iran does not obtain nuclear weapons.

Ahead of the second round of talks, Araghchi undertook a diplomatic visit to Russia on April 17, when he met with President Vladimir Putin. 

According to reports from Iranian media, Araghchi engaged in discussions and consultations with senior Russian officials and delivered a letter from Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, to Putin.

Araghchi termed the meeting with Putin as productive and constructive and said all strategic issues between the two nations were thoroughly discussed and examined.

The US-Iran talks come at a crucial juncture for global diplomacy, with hopes of a quick end to the Russia-Ukraine war hitting a wall and the China-US trade war threatening to upend global trade. 

In the context of these developments, the approach of Russia and China towards the ongoing negotiations between Iran and US needs a closer look.

Moscow and Beijing: Where do they stand?

After the confirmation of commencement of US-Iran talks, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov announced Russia's support for the planned negotiations, and hoped that these discussions would help ease tensions between the two nations.

Speaking to reporters, Peskov reiterated that Russia backs a diplomatic solution based on political measures. "We know that certain contacts, direct and indirect, are planned in Oman. And, of course, this can only be welcomed, because it may lead to a de-escalation of tensions around Iran" he said.

In contrast, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Andrei Rudenko made it clear that Russia would not provide military assistance to Iran in the event of war with the US. 

Speaking to members of Russia's lower house of parliament, the State Duma, on April 8, Rudenko stated, "In such a scenario, Russia is not obligated to provide military assistance. I believe we would prefer to avoid such a situation due to the catastrophic consequences it could have for the region. We do not want to be drawn into yet another conflict in the region."

Following the negotiations, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Andrey Rudenko stated in an interview with RIA Novosti on April that Russia consistently evaluates any negotiation based on its outcomes. 

He noted that, as far as he was informed, the talks are set to continue next week, and therefore, concrete results are expected. He welcomed the very fact that such negotiations are taking place and added that if they lead to positive outcomes, it would be a source of satisfaction.

China, too, voiced its support for the discussions while urging the US to demonstrate honesty in its engagement with Tehran. 

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Liu Jian, emphasised that the US, having unilaterally withdrawn from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), should take responsibility for the current deadlock and show political sincerity. 

"As a country that unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA and contributed to the current impasse, the United States must demonstrate political sincerity, engage in dialogue and consultation based on mutual respect, and abandon the use of force and maximum pressure tactics," Liu stated. 

Liu reiterated China's firm belief that resolving Iran’s nuclear issue through political and diplomatic means remains the only viable solution. "China firmly believes that the issue of Iran's nuclear program must be addressed through political and diplomatic tools as the only correct approach," he said.

Considering the statements made by Russia and China, the emphasis on diplomacy in resolving the issue stands out, while both countries seem to avoid taking sides. 

But then, what does the Iran nuclear issue mean for these two actors?

Remaining neutral: Is that possible?

As Iran's nuclear issue continues to be one of the most fragile areas of international diplomacy, the positions of China and Russia are becoming increasingly influential. 

As permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, both Beijing and Moscow are not only formal participants in the negotiations but also key actors capable of shaping the process.

In this context, the relationship between Iran and China, although occasionally framed in terms of strategic partnership, reveals itself to be defined and pragmatic when considering Beijing's foreign policy priorities and its goal of becoming a global power. 

China's approach to the Middle East is fundamentally based on geo-economic balances and strategic patience on a global scale, rather than regional competition. 

Therefore, when assessing Iran-China relations, it is crucial to carefully consider Beijing;s broader strategic priorities in the Middle East and how much space Iran occupies in this framework.

First and foremost, China views any sudden disruptions that could threaten economic integration and the continuity of international trade as detrimental to its interests in its race with the US for global power. 

As a result, Beijing exercises caution in its relationships with actors in the Middle East – avoiding escalating tensions, while developing deeper partnerships with countries that prioritise stability and offer high economic returns. 

In this regard, it is noteworthy that the comprehensive 25-year cooperation agreement signed with Iran in 2021 has yet to make significant progress. 

From Beijing's perspective, bureaucratic bottlenecks, slow implementation processes, and uncertainties regarding investment security limit its willingness to establish deep economic ties with countries like Iran. 

China's foreign policy aims for quick results, seeking to convert every agreement into economic gains in a short time; thus, China's foreign investment strategy is framed around high efficiency and low risk. Iran, in its current state, falls short of meeting these criteria.

Beijing, in its relationship with Tehran, seeks to reinforce its image as a "responsible great power" in the international system, while simultaneously constructing a global narrative that prioritises multilateralism and diplomacy over American unilateralism. 

China's emphasis on the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program and its criticisms of US unilateral sanctions not only provide diplomatic support to Tehran but also challenge the legitimacy of the Western-centric international order. 

China's involvement in this area has become more prominent since the 2010s. Beijing has chosen to play an active role in preventing potential military interventions concerning Iran's nuclear activities and in maintaining the status quo in the Middle East. 

Within the framework of its "stability-based rise" doctrine, one of the key pillars of China’s foreign policy, instability in a region as vital as the Middle East for energy security is perceived as a significant threat. 

Therefore, China prefers a controlled approach to Iran’s nuclear program—a balance that allows tensions to persist without escalating into conflict. 

However, it is also clear that China is not in favor of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. Beijing advocates for a limited number of nuclear-armed countries at the global level, believing that the emergence of a new nuclear power would not only undermine international arms control regimes but also trigger regional arms races.

At this point, significant differences can be observed between China and Russia's perspectives on Iran. While Moscow looks to a scenario in which the international order collapses rapidly, Beijing prefers a controlled transformation of the existing system. 

In this context, Russia's primary political goal is to weaken Europe's influence over Iran's nuclear issue and reinforce its own position as a dominant actor in this area. 

After its systemic rupture with the West, Moscow seeks to overcome the isolation it faces on the global stage and position itself as an alternative diplomatic channel. This policy of Moscow is not only an effort to gain an advantage in the geopolitical equation but also part of its broader economic resistance against the West.

While Russia's occupation of Ukraine has presented Europe with its greatest security challenge since World War II, the news of renewed negotiations between Iran and US has introduced new preferences for Russia. 

On one hand, Russia justifies the Ukraine war as part of its strategy for defensive security in response to NATO's expansion, while on the other hand, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, it plays a significant role in the Iran nuclear issue. 

In recent years, Moscow has gained influence by aligning itself with certain factions and creating rifts within the power structure and decision-making bodies of Iran's security and military institutions. 

It has reached a level of influence that makes resolving the Iranian nuclear crisis seem impossible without its involvement. 

Former US president Barrack Obama once praised Putin's important role in securing the 2015 nuclear deal.

It is clear that Moscow has used the threat of Iran's nuclearisation to its own benefit, especially through its influence in Tehran's decision-making structures and its role in managing the crisis, as an effective leverage against the West.