Title: Strategic Alignment Amid Regional Turmoil: Russia’s Sergei Shoigu Condemns Foreign Interference in Iran and Affirms Strategic Partnership
Abstract
This paper analyzes a reported high-level diplomatic exchange between Russian Security Council Secretary Sergei Shoigu and Iranian National Security Council Secretary Ali Larijani on January 12, 2026, as detailed by Interfax. The conversation underscores Russia’s strategic posture toward Iran amid escalating domestic unrest and allegations of foreign interference. Shoigu condemned external actors—implicitly referencing the United States and Israel—for attempting to destabilize Iran, echoing Tehran’s official narrative. The discussion reflects broader geopolitical realignments under the framework of the 2025 Russia-Iran Strategic Partnership Treaty, signaling a deepening alliance aimed at countering Western influence and reinforcing mutual security interests. This paper situates the dialogue within the context of evolving great-power competition, hybrid warfare tactics, and the role of authoritarian solidarity in shaping 21st-century international relations.
- Introduction
On January 12, 2026, Sergei Shoigu, newly appointed Secretary of Russia’s Security Council, engaged in a confidential telephone conversation with Ali Larijani, Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), during which both officials condemned what they characterized as “foreign interference” in Iran’s internal affairs (Interfax, 2026). The reported discussion occurred amid widespread protests across Iran, triggered initially by economic grievances but increasingly evolving into political challenges to the Islamic Republic’s clerical establishment. Shoigu expressed condolences for the loss of life and explicitly denounced external actors—widely interpreted as the United States and Israel—for fomenting civil unrest. This episode offers a critical case study in the consolidation of a Russia-Iran strategic axis, grounded in shared opposition to Western liberal interventionism and a mutual interest in preserving regime security.
This paper explores the implications of this high-level exchange within three interrelated domains: (1) the evolution of Russia-Iran bilateral relations since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022; (2) the rhetorical and strategic use of “foreign interference” as a legitimizing discourse for authoritarian regimes; and (3) the emergence of a multipolar security architecture grounded in strategic partnership treaties and anti-hegemonic coalitions.
- Background: The Russia-Iran Convergence
The relationship between Russia and Iran has undergone a significant transformation in the post-2014 era, particularly following Russia’s annexation of Crimea and its subsequent isolation from Western institutions. While historically marked by mutual suspicion—rooted in imperial rivalries, divergent regional interests in Central Asia, and competition over Caspian Sea energy resources—the two states have increasingly aligned their geopolitical strategies over the past decade.
This convergence accelerated dramatically after 2022, when Russia’s invasion of Ukraine led to unprecedented Western sanctions and diplomatic isolation. Iran emerged as a crucial partner, supplying Russia with drones used in attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure (Gustafson et al., 2023). In return, Moscow provided Tehran with satellite imagery, missile technology, and tacit support in regional theaters such as Syria and the South Caucasus.
The culmination of this strategic alignment was the Russia-Iran Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Treaty, signed in October 2025. While the full text remains classified, leaked summaries indicate provisions for:
Joint military exercises and intelligence sharing;
Coordinated energy exports to circumvent Western sanctions;
Mutual defense commitments in the event of external aggression;
Cooperation in cybersecurity and countering “color revolutions.”
The treaty formalizes what scholars have termed a “marriage of convenience” between two revisionist powers seeking to resist U.S.-led global order (Economist Intelligence Unit, 2024).
- The January 2026 Exchange: Diplomatic Context and Content Analysis
According to Interfax, Shoigu initiated the call to Larijani following a wave of nationwide protests in Iran that began in late December 2025. Initially sparked by inflation, subsidy cuts, and youth unemployment, the demonstrations quickly assumed political dimensions, with slogans calling for the end of the velayat-e faqih (Guardianship of the Jurist) system.
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian—elected in mid-2025 on a platform of moderate reform—publicly accused the United States and Israel of orchestrating the unrest to “sow chaos and disorder” (Reuters, January 11, 2026). These claims align with long-standing Iranian narratives of victimhood and external conspiracy, often invoked during periods of internal crisis.
Shoigu’s statement, as reported by Russia’s Security Council press service, mirrored Tehran’s rhetoric precisely:
“The secretary of Russia’s National Security Council firmly condemned the latest attempt by foreign forces to interfere in Iran’s internal affairs.”
Crucially, Shoigu expressed condolences over civilian deaths—a rare display of empathy—while simultaneously affirming Russia’s readiness to deepen cooperation under the 2025 treaty. The two officials agreed to maintain continuous coordination on security matters.
Notably, Shoigu’s title had changed from Minister of Defense (a role he held from 2012 to 2025) to Secretary of the Security Council—an appointment widely interpreted as part of a broader Kremlin effort to consolidate influence over national security policy following military setbacks in Ukraine (Sakwa, 2025). In this elevated advisory role, Shoigu wields significant influence over foreign and defense policy, particularly in relations with non-Western partners.
- The Discourse of “Foreign Interference”: A Tool of Regime Legitimation
The invocation of “foreign interference” in domestic unrest is a well-documented feature of authoritarian governance. As Beissinger (2002) observes, such narratives serve to delegitimize opposition movements by framing them not as organic expressions of popular will but as proxies for external powers.
In this instance, both Russian and Iranian officials employed a counter-interventionist discourse that:
Shifts blame from domestic failures (e.g., corruption, mismanagement) to external actors;
Mobilizes nationalist sentiment to unify elite and public opinion;
Justifies repressive measures under the guise of national defense;
Strengthens bilateral solidarity through shared victimhood.
Shoigu’s condemnation parallels previous Russian statements during Ukraine’s Euromaidan revolution (2014) and Belarusian protests (2020), in which Western involvement was alleged to justify interventionist or supportive roles.
Similarly, Iran has historically attributed internal dissent to British colonialism, American CIA plots, or Israeli Mossad operations. The Pezeshkian administration’s simultaneous assertion of continued dialogue with the U.S. suggests a dual-track strategy—publicly accusing Washington while maintaining backchannel communications to prevent escalation.
- Strategic Implications: Toward a Multipolar Security Bloc
The Shoigu-Larijani conversation is emblematic of a broader realignment in global security architecture. As the unipolar moment of U.S. dominance recedes, new forms of authoritarian solidarity are emerging, grounded in institutional cooperation and normative opposition to liberal interventionism.
Key features of this evolving bloc include:
5.1. Military-Technological Synergy
Iran’s provision of suicide drones (e.g., Shahed-136) to Russia during the Ukraine conflict marked a turning point in defense collaboration. In return, Russia has reportedly transferred GPS-jamming systems and electronic warfare capabilities to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
5.2. Sanctions Resilience Mechanisms
Both nations have developed parallel financial systems, including cryptocurrency transactions and barter trade agreements, to bypass SWIFT and OFAC restrictions. The 2025 treaty reportedly includes a clause for establishing a joint “Financial Stability Fund” to support critical imports.
5.3. Diplomatic Coordination in Multilateral Fora
Russia and Iran have coordinated votes in the United Nations, Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), and BRICS+, opposing resolutions that condemn human rights abuses or call for democratic reforms.
5.4. Narrative Warfare and Information Operations
Both states operate sophisticated disinformation campaigns across social media platforms, often amplifying each other’s messaging. For example, Russian state media outlets such as RT and Sputnik have echoed Iranian claims about U.S.-funded NGOs inciting Iranian protesters.
- Limitations and Tensions in the Alliance
Despite the apparent unity, significant tensions persist beneath the surface:
Regional Rivalries: Russia maintains working relations with Iran’s regional adversaries, including Saudi Arabia and Israel. Moscow has also supplied air defense systems to Azerbaijan, a key Iranian competitor in the South Caucasus.
Ideological Divergence: While both regimes are authoritarian, Russia positions itself as a civilizational state rooted in Orthodox Christianity and Slavic identity, whereas Iran’s legitimacy derives from Shia Islamism and anti-imperialist revolutionary ideology.
Competition in Energy Markets: Both countries are major hydrocarbon exporters and may compete for influence in Asian energy markets, particularly in China and India.
Moreover, the personal nature of Shoigu’s condolences may reflect internal Russian debates about engaging with reformist elements in Iran. President Pezeshkian, though constrained by the Supreme Leader, represents a faction more open to limited détente with the West—a prospect that may unsettle hardliners in Moscow.
- Conclusion
The January 12, 2026 telephone conversation between Sergei Shoigu and Ali Larijani is not merely a routine diplomatic exchange but a significant indicator of deepening strategic coordination between two pivotal actors in the emerging multipolar world order. By condemning alleged foreign interference in Iran, Russia signals its commitment to a shared vision of state sovereignty—one that privileges regime stability over democratic legitimacy and frames resistance to Western influence as a collective project.
The dialogue underscores the transformation of Russia-Iran relations from tactical cooperation into a structured strategic partnership, institutionalized through the 2025 treaty. It also highlights the instrumental use of sovereignty discourse to legitimize domestic repression and justify anti-Western alignment.
As global power continues to fragment, such alliances will play an increasingly central role in shaping regional security dynamics, challenging the liberal international order, and redefining the norms of intervention and non-interference. Future research should examine the durability of these partnerships, their impact on conflict diffusion, and their implications for human rights governance in an era of competitive authoritarianism.
References
Beissinger, M. R. (2002). Nationalist Mobilization and the Collapse of the Soviet State. Cambridge University Press.
Economist Intelligence Unit. (2024). Russia and Iran: Forging a New Axis of Resistance. EIU Reports.
Gustafson, T., et al. (2023). Drones and Deniability: Iranian UAV Exports and the Ukraine War. SIPRI Insights.
Interfax. (2026, January 12). Shoigu Condemns Foreign Interference in Iran in Call with Larijani. [Online News Report]
Pezeshkian, M. (2026, January 11). Statement on National Security Council Address. Tehran: Office of the President of Iran.
Reuters. (2023, March 21). Sergei Shoigu Arrives for Meeting with Putin and Xi. [File Photo Caption].
Sakwa, R. (2025). Putin’s Russia: The Shoigu Shift and the New Security State. Europe-Asia Studies, 77(2), 201–225.
U.S. Department of State. (2025). Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Iran. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor.