Iranian president says Middle East can solve its problems without United States

Pezeshkian argued that regional countries can manage Middle Eastern problems themselves. His message challenged the idea that the United States must be involved in solving every major regional crisis. It also connected diplomacy with Iran’s expanding relationship with Russia and other states facing unilateral US sanctions.

During talks in Moscow, Pezeshkian said, “We are capable of resolving our problems in the region without relying on the United States.” He added that US actions were making it easier to move toward greater multilateralism. He said Iran’s trade with Russia was expanding “day by day.”

The position points toward more regional and cross-border cooperation. Pezeshkian said both sides wanted deeper work in science, industry, culture, security and military affairs. Putin expressed concern about the regional situation and hope that it would develop positively, while Moscow looked to mediate an end to the war.

The Middle East is a broad geographic and political region around Western Asia, the eastern Mediterranean, and the Arabian Peninsula. It matters because countries there share connected histories, trade routes, security concerns and political disputes. There is no single official list, so the region’s boundaries can change depending on the topic.

Countries commonly included are Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait. Egypt is also often included because it links North Africa with the region. Turkey and Cyprus may be included in some definitions, while others use a narrower list.

In this article, “the Middle East” refers to the regional setting of the war involving Iran, the United States and Israel. The article does not define the region or list its countries. The broad definition above comes from established geographic usage, not from the source text.

Countries that resolve regional problems without relying on the United States would take greater responsibility for negotiations, security arrangements and economic cooperation. They might use direct talks, regional organizations or partnerships with other major powers. The goal would be to reduce dependence on Washington’s diplomacy, military role and economic influence.

Pezeshkian gave a clear example during his meeting with Putin. He said Iran and its neighbors could resolve regional problems without the United States. He also said US actions were pushing Iran toward greater multilateralism and closer cooperation with Russia and other countries facing unilateral US sanctions. The mechanism is collective action rather than dependence on one power.

This does not necessarily mean ending all contact with the United States. It means regional countries would seek more control over solutions. The article presents this as Iran’s political position. It also reports that Moscow was trying to mediate and that negotiations between Washington and Tehran remained stalled.

The source does not give the conflict a formal name. It describes it as the Middle East war that broke out on 28 February, when the United States and Israel launched strikes on Iran. That conflict is the central regional crisis discussed by Pezeshkian and Putin during their Moscow meeting.

The article says negotiations between Washington and Tehran to end the war have been stalled for months. It does not identify a specific failed proposal, disagreement or negotiating incident as the cause. It does state that both the United States and Israel have threatened to resume strikes on Iran, creating continuing pressure around the talks.

Putin said he had discussed the war with Pezeshkian and hoped the situation would improve. Moscow has been seeking to mediate and help end the conflict. The future therefore depends partly on whether talks restart and whether the threat of renewed military action recedes.

Unilateral US sanctions are restrictions imposed by the United States without requiring a broader international agreement. They can target banks, companies, industries, goods or government bodies. Their importance comes from the reach of the US financial system and the pressure placed on businesses that want access to American markets or dollars.

In practice, sanctions can make international payments slower or unavailable. Banks may refuse transactions, insurers may avoid shipments, and companies may limit trade to reduce legal risk. Restrictions can also block or complicate access to advanced technology, spare parts, software and investment. Countries may therefore seek alternative suppliers, currencies and trading partners.

The article says Iran wants stronger cooperation with Russia and other countries subject to unilateral US sanctions. It does not detail the exact effects on Iran’s trade, banking or technology access. Those effects are established consequences of sanctions generally, while the source specifically links sanctions to Iran’s push for greater multilateralism.

Iran and Russia appear politically close in the article, but the source does not measure the relationship’s size. Pezeshkian said trade was expanding day by day, and he described shared interests in science, industry, culture, security and military affairs. Putin also emphasized that the countries are neighbors and have many common interests.

The concrete evidence is therefore qualitative, not numerical. The leaders met in Moscow, discussed the regional war, and supported broader cooperation. Pezeshkian linked Russia to Iran’s effort to work with countries affected by unilateral US sanctions. These details show importance, but they do not reveal trade values, investment totals, military commitments or diplomatic rankings.

The article gives no comparison with China, European countries, neighboring states or other major powers. A reliable judgment about relative scale would require figures and wider evidence. Based only on the source, Russia is an expanding and important partner for Iran, but its position compared with other powers cannot be determined.

Multilateralism is an approach in which several countries cooperate to address shared problems. Decisions and responsibilities are spread across multiple states, rather than centered on one dominant power. It can involve negotiation, joint economic activity, security coordination or international institutions. Its central idea is collective participation.

In the article, Pezeshkian said US actions were making it easier for Iran to move toward greater multilateralism. He connected that shift with stronger cooperation with Russia and other countries subject to unilateral US sanctions. The mechanism is diversification: countries build more partnerships so they are less dependent on US involvement, markets or policies.

A US-led world order gives Washington a particularly influential role in setting agendas, shaping alliances and mediating disputes. Multilateralism does not necessarily exclude the United States, but it seeks a wider distribution of influence. The article presents Pezeshkian’s preference, while Putin’s comments emphasize shared interests and continued cooperation between the neighboring countries.