Global Politics: Comparison Between Russia’s and America’s Attempts to Impose Hegemony, Applied to the Nuclear Deal and the Russia-Ukraine War Negotiations

Monica William

International relations analyst

Global Politics: Comparison Between Russia’s and America’s Attempts to Impose Hegemony, Applied to the Nuclear Deal and the Russia-Ukraine War Negotiations

(Objectives and Tactics)

“Diplomacy is no longer just a means to avoid war, it’s a battlefield in itself”

In today’s shifting world order, major powers don’t just sit at the negotiating table to solve crises, they come to dominate the conversation, reshape alliances, and tip the balance of global influence. Nowhere is this clearer than in two of the most strategically charged diplomatic theaters: the U.S.-led Iran nuclear talks and Russia’s grip on negotiations over the Ukraine war.

While the United States reasserts its influence in the Middle East under President Donald Trump’s second term, Russia is entrenched in Europe’s most volatile conflict zone since World War II. Each power plays the lead in one arena while maneuvering strategically in the other a diplomatic dance that reveals a deeper ambition: global hegemony through negotiation.

Accordingly, this article offers a comparative analysis of the hegemonic strategies employed by the United States and Russia through two of the most consequential diplomatic mentioned arenas of the 21st century, By exploring the asymmetric roles, wherein U.S. is a central negotiator with Iran, while Russia plays a secondary yet strategic role; conversely, in the Ukraine war, Russia is the principal actor, with the U.S. participating as a supporter of Ukraine and a mediator in global diplomatic discussions, it also reveals how both powers pursue broader strategic objectives of global dominance, It tackles approaches each state uses to transform negotiation processes into tools of influence, demonstrating the intersection of diplomacy, power projection, and transactional statecraft in the post-unipolar world order.

From Conflict Resolution to Power Projection

“Negotiations today are less about compromise…and more about who sets the rules.”

The nature of diplomacy is evolving. Gone are the days of Cold War-era superpower summits designed to de-escalate tensions. In the post-unipolar age, diplomacy has become an extension of geopolitical competition. It’s not just about making peace, it’s about making gains.

Both the United States and Russia use negotiations as strategic tools to extend their spheres of influence, not simply to resolve disputes. This duality is starkly visible in:

The Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA), where the U.S. is reasserting leadership, and Russia plays an essential supporting role.

The Russia–Ukraine conflict, where Moscow leads the war effort while Washington supports Ukraine militarily and diplomatically, often through indirect channels.

Each negotiation table, in essence, becomes a front line of 21st-century great power rivalry.

In this context, a key question arises: What are the most prominent indicators of this approach?

The post-Cold War world, often mischaracterized as unipolar, has gradually shifted toward a more complex, multipolar or competitive multipolar order. Within this landscape, diplomatic negotiations are not merely avenues for conflict resolution but are increasingly instrumentalized for hegemonic goals, shaping outcomes in a way that aligns with national interests.

While the U.S. has traditionally exerted power through multilateralism and institution-building, Russia has leaned toward bilateralism, and energy diplomacy. However, both states converge on one objective is to convert strategic negotiations into geopolitical capital.

Given that the basis of hegemony is typically rooted in both military and economic capabilities. The United States, for instance, possesses a defense budget exceeding $849.8 billion 2025, with a global network of military bases and advanced technologies. Russia, while comparatively smaller in military expenditure, approximately $100 billion annually but Preparing for a Fourth Year of War, Military Spending in Russia’s Budget for 2025 can be estimated at 15.5 trillion roubles, a real-terms increase of 3.4 per cent over 2024 and equivalent to 7.2 per cent of gross domestic product according to Stockholm international peace research institute It also maintains significant strategic capabilities, including nuclear power and regional influence, especially in Eastern Europe and Central Asia.

When examining the global map of influence, it becomes evident that both the U.S. and Russia play decisive roles in shaping the international order. The United States exercises its influence through institutions, alliances such as NATO, and economic tools like sanctions and aid. Russia, on the other hand, leverages its energy exports, military presence, and strategic diplomacy to assert its role, particularly in conflict zones and regions historically tied to its sphere of influence. These power structures manifest differently but ultimately serve the mutual interests shaping the nature of international regime.

This dynamic has been particularly apparent in two of the most consequential diplomatic arenas recently: the first one is the negotiations over the Iran nuclear deal, while the second is the ongoing efforts to resolve the Russia–Ukraine war. These negotiations are not just isolated diplomatic events; they are pivotal in the restructuring of global power dynamics. Both the U.S. and Russia have utilized these political issues to project their influence, assert strategic priorities, and shape the emerging world order. Through these negotiations, the true extent of each power’s global leverage is being tested and revealed.

In this regard, it will be tackled these two files as follows:

Case I: Washington’s Hard Bargain with Tehran

the first case is the United States role in context of Iran Nuclear Deal which is formalized in 2015, it marked a milestone in U.S. diplomacy under the Obama administration. The JCPOA was designed to curtail Iran’s nuclear capabilities in return for lifting international sanctions. The U.S. played the lead role in negotiations, not merely due to its economic and military weight but also because of its hegemonic imperative to preserve a rules-based order and prevent the emergence of rival regional powers.

in 2018, President Trump withdrew the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), criticizing it as inadequate for preventing Iran’s nuclear ambitions and for failing to address Iran’s ballistic missile program and regional activities.

recently, during his second term, President Trump expressed a desire to negotiate a new, more comprehensive deal with Iran. He emphasized the necessity of stringent verification mechanisms to ensure Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons, highlighting concerns about regional proliferation.

In early 2025, the U.S. and Iran engaged in a series of negotiations, with initial meetings held in Oman and subsequent discussions in Rome. These talks, mediated by Oman, aimed to address not only Iran’s nuclear program but also its ballistic missile development and support for proxy groups.

Despite these efforts, challenges persisted, Iran accused the U.S. of contradictory behavior and provocative statements particularly in light of new U.S. sanctions targeting entities involved in Iran’s oil and petrochemical trade.

In other word, the U.S. approach under Trump combined economic pressure with diplomatic overtures. The reinstatement of the “maximum pressure” campaign aimed to compel Iran to negotiate a more favorable deal while curbing its regional influence.

This strategy reflects a broader hegemonic goal and tactics to reassert U.S. dominance in the Middle East by limiting Iran’s capabilities and influence, thereby reinforcing the U.S.’s role as a global leader in non-proliferation and regional stability.

Russia’s Steady Hand in the Nuclear File

In return, Russia played a decisive role in the nuclear file in reaching the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). It helped moderate some of the West’s more stringent demands while simultaneously ensuring that Iran retained its right to develop a peaceful nuclear program. Moscow also participated in practical arrangements such as converting the Fordow facility into a research center for nuclear, scientific, and physical technologies. This repurposed the 1,044 centrifuges for non-enrichment activities, such as the production of stable isotopes with various civilian uses. Additionally, Russia received Iran’s surplus low-enriched uranium, further reinforcing its position as both a technical and political guarantor of the agreement.

When the Trump administration unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018, Russia found itself in a pivotal position as a bridge in ongoing negotiations aimed at salvaging the deal. Alongside European powers and China, Moscow sought to keep Iran committed at least partially to the core provisions of the agreement. Russia capitalized on the U.S. withdrawal to portray itself as a more reliable actor in the international system, in contrast to the United States, which had reneged on its commitments.

During the negotiations held in Vienna since 2021 to revive the JCPOA, Russia emerged as an indirect mediator between Tehran and Washington, particularly as the U.S. initially refused to engage in direct talks. Moscow participated in crafting compromises on contentious issues such as lifting sanctions and addressing future guarantees, as well Russia maintained active communication channels with both parties, even amid mounting tensions between them.

But the game changed after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022.

However, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 introduced a new set of dynamics. Western trust in Russia as a neutral mediator declined significantly, with growing concerns that Moscow might use the nuclear file as leverage in its broader standoff with the West. Some analysts suggested that Russia deliberately stalled progress in advanced negotiation phases as in March 2022, when it demanded U.S. guarantees for its economic cooperation with Iran despite sanctions as a way to hold the deal hostage within the larger geopolitical confrontation.

Despite these shifts, Iran did not abandon coordination with Moscow. Instead, it deepened its military and economic partnership with Russia, particularly under the weight of mutual sanctions. As cooperation expanded in areas such as drone technology, it became increasingly difficult to separate the nuclear, political, and strategic dimensions of the Iran-Russia relationship.

When considering any potential agreement between the U.S. and Iran, Russia’s continued involvement becomes easier to understand. A deeper look into the evolving political dynamics among the negotiating parties reveals a complex backdrop. The American administration has been consumed by internal challenges, with President Biden’s approval rating dropping from 47% to 42%, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll. Iran, meanwhile, is preoccupied with regional developments involving the so-called “Axis of Resistance, and there is growing recognition within the Iranian leadership of the severe risks posed by economic collapse if sanctions persist. There appears to be a growing consensus among the Iranian elite that negotiating with the U.S. has become a necessary step` toward alleviating economic pressures.

Yet, despite Russia’s seemingly influential role in the Iranian nuclear file, its position faces several constraints. Chief among them is the erosion of Western trust. Moscow’s perceived exploitation of the nuclear issue as a bargaining maybe undermines its ability to maintain a delicate balance between supporting Iran and avoiding excessive provocation of the West.

Thus, Russia’s involvement in the nuclear negotiations should be understood within the broader context of its foreign policy doctrine. Moscow consistently seeks to exploit regional and international contradictions, transforming crises into opportunities to enhance its influence. It positions itself as a non-Western, independent power aiming to reshape the global order in line with its own interests and tools.

Based on current dynamics, it is likely that a new agreement - currently under development- will be able to address the core interests of all parties: preventing Iran’s nuclear program from turning militaristic, gradually lifting economic sanctions, and restoring regional balance in a way that reduces tensions. For Russia, the success of such an agreement carries added strategic value. It enhances Moscow’s role as a central mediator in major international crises, strengthens its negotiating position on other fronts such as the Ukraine conflict and opens the door for limited temporarily repose from sanctions, particularly in terms of financial transactions with certain Russian companies.

In this context, Western sources have indicated that the Kremlin may be leveraging its cooperation on the Iran file in exchange for easing some restrictions imposed after the Ukraine invasion. Thus, Moscow’s objective is not merely short-term gain but to entrench its status as an indispensable player in global crisis management.

Case II : Russia’s Terms in the Ukraine War Talks

On the other hand, the situation we can see from different perspective, as Russia has been the primary actor in the conflict, seeking to reassert its influence and challenge the post-Cold War European security system.

And if we want to analyze the Russia’s Principal Role in the Russia–Ukraine War Negotiations in 2025, Russia engaged in negotiations with the U.S. and other stakeholders to address the ongoing conflict. Notably, a summit in Saudi Arabia between U.S. and Russian officials aimed to explore pathways to end the war, as well it serves its hegemonic objectives by legitimizing its actions in Ukraine and seeking recognition of its sphere of influence. By participating in high-level talks, Russia positions itself as an indispensable power in European security matters, challenging Western dominance and attempting to reshape the international order to its advantage.

The U.S.’s Shadow Role in the Ukraine Conflict

In this context, the United States plays a diplomatic Maneuvering and dual role: provider of critical support to Ukraine and indirect negotiator with Russia via allies and multilateral fora. Hence balancing its commitment to Ukrainian sovereignty with broader strategic interests, including managing relations with Russia and maintaining European stability. Unlike its direct role in the Iran deal, the U.S. here operates primarily through NATO, the EU, and the G7.

President Trump’s administration has faced scrutiny for its approach, with some analysts suggesting that U.S.-led peace efforts appeared to lean favorably toward Russian interests, potentially at the expense of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and aspirations for NATO membership.

Diplomacy or Leverage? A Global Game of Influence

From Tehran to Donbas, and considering the interdependence between international issues, these two negotiations are intertwined. Russia’s support for Iran undercuts U.S. sanctions efforts. U.S. weapons in Ukraine weaken Russian morale. Both powers exploit regional crises to advance global positioning. “These aren’t separate stories, they’re chapters in the same book, the rewriting of the global order.”

On the level of Interconnectedness and Global Implications, and considering the interdependence between international issues, the U.S. and Russia’s actions in these negotiations are not isolated; they are influenced by broader geopolitical dynamics. For instance, Russia’s support for Iran undermines U.S. efforts to isolate Tehran, while U.S. involvement in Ukraine challenges Russia’s ambitions in Eastern Europe.

As outlined above, these intertwined strategies contribute to a complex international sphere where major powers leverage regional conflicts and negotiations to pursue global hegemonic objectives, often at the expense of smaller nations’ sovereignty and stability.

So, this overlap between diplomacy and hegemony has several far-reaching implications:

▪ Erosion of Trust in Multilateralism: When negotiations are instrumentalized as tools of leverage rather than platforms for genuine consensus, their legitimacy diminishes. Both the U.S. and Russia increasingly approach diplomacy as a transactional process aimed at securing unilateral gains, thereby weakening the spirit of collective international commitments.

▪ Entrenchment of Spheres of Influence: Particularly in Eurasia and the Middle East, such hegemonic bargaining reinforces rigid geopolitical boundaries, making diplomatic flexibility and regional autonomy more difficult to achieve.

▪ Economic Implications: The geopolitical rivalry between major powers, and their use of negotiations as strategic leverage, has a ripple effect on global economic stability. According to recent OECD projections, global economic growth is expected to slow to 3.1% in 2025 and 3.0% in 2026, with notable disparities across regions. The U.S. economy is forecast to decelerate from 2.2% in 2025 to 1.6% in 2026, while the eurozone is anticipated to grow by only 1.0% and 1.2% respectively. China, too, faces a gradual slowdown, from 4.8% in 2024 to 4.4% by 2026, due to ongoing structural challenges.

Ultimately, these geopolitical and economic tensions have a tangible effect on the daily lives of people around the world. Economic uncertainty, high inflation, and political instability undermine access to essential services, diminish economic opportunities, and weaken social safety nets. As a result, the quality of life , particularly in developing and conflict-affected regions, with growing disparities.

These trends underscore how strategic competition between global powers, manifested through economic sanctions, military posturing, and manipulated negotiations, contributes to global economic uncertainty. The weaponization of diplomacy not only complicates conflict resolution but also destabilizes markets, increases fiscal pressures, and weakens investor confidence, especially in vulnerable regions.

In sum, The United States and Russia, through their respective roles in the Iran nuclear deal and the Russia–Ukraine war negotiations, demonstrate distinct yet converging strategies aimed at asserting their dominance on the world stage. By analyzing their approaches, tools, and objectives, we gain insight into the mechanisms of modern hegemony and the intricate interplay between diplomacy and power in contemporary international relations.