[1]
By John Helmer, Moscow
@bears_with [2]
The problem is that rats can leave a sinking ship but they cannot return if their ship has already sunk. They must surrender instead or drown.
This must have been what President Vladimir Putin meant when he instructed his spokesman Dmitry Peskov to announce on Thursday afternoon, March 5 [3]: “Moscow has not received any requests for assistance, including weapons provisions, from Iran, Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov said in a briefing. ‘As for the current situation, there have been no requests from Iran. Our consistent position is well-known to everyone. It remains unchanged,’ he pointed out, when asked if Russia planned to provide any assistance to Iran, particularly by providing weapons, in addition to political support.”
In other words, Russian military intelligence must have told the Kremlin that the war aims of the US, Israel and their allies – the “Epstein Coalition” as the Russian military bloggers are calling them — are failing to decapitate Iran’s civilian and military leadership; failing to destroy their missile stocks and underground launcher capacities; and failing to detect, intercept and prevent the escalating destruction of Iran’s counter-attack targets in the US base system, the Gulf Arab economies, and Israel itself.
Accordingly, the Russian assessment is that Iran will not need to request military resupply and other assistance from Russia. Not yet — because the attrition of the Epstein Coalition forces is so rapid, they will be compelled to ask for a stop before Iran will need to ask for Russian assistance.
This is not the interpretation of Russian plans by the Trump Administration. At his Pentagon briefing on March 4, the US Secretary of War, Peter Hegseth, was asked by a reporter [4]: “What is your message to Iran’s allies, namely Russia and China, who have called for an immediate end to hostilities?” Hegseth replied: “I don’t have a message for them and they’re not really a factor here and we’re – our issue is not with them; it’s with the nuclear ambitions of Iran.”
Peskov’s announcement followed after Hegseth’s. Since Russian and Iranian officials know exactly what they have been discussing with each other, before the war began and since, Peskov cannot have been addressing Iran. Was he then messaging Washington for reassurance that “our consistent position… remains unchanged”? Was Hegseth correct that this means Russia has not entered the war on Iran’s side and will not do so?
This is the sinking ship question. It remains to be answered whose ship is sinking.
[5]Left, Sergei Lavrov; right, Dmitry Peskov.
It is unclear if Peskov’s message is the same as the Russian Foreign Ministry’s. Reading in retrospect and between the lines of the Ministry communiqués after Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov’s first telephone call with Abbas Aragchi, Iran’s Foreign Minister, on February 28 [6] and his second call on March 3 [7], there is ambiguity. In the first call Aragchi briefed [6] Lavrov on Iran’s “steps to repel the aggression by the United States and Israel” and “expressed sincere gratitude to the Russian Federation for invariable and solid support.” That last phrase implies Russian intelligence, air defence radar, missile battery, and electronic countermeasures support, plus missile targeting and guidance in the counter-offensive.
In the second call, Lavrov has reported himself as having “reaffirmed Russia’s principled position in support of de-escalation, rejection of force, and a transition to a political and diplomatic settlement of the conflict.” Transition means not yet.
Lavrov’s spokesman, Maria Zakharova added [8] on the next day, March 4: “We are convinced that the crisis surrounding Iran has no military solution. We strongly call for the abandonment of forceful methods and a return to political and diplomatic resolution of all issues.” Zakharova also announced [8] that a special operation is under way for five border crossings between Iran and Turkmenistan to open for the northbound evacuation of Russians in Iran. This means that the same routes are now open for Russian military supplies to move southward to Iran, when or if they may be needed.
When or if — this is the key to Russian decision-making in the days ahead.
Forty days of political retreat, if to count the time between President Donald Trump’s second ICE killing in Minneapolis and the forced removal of the Homeland Security Secretary, Kristi Noem, on March 5 [9]. “Four to five weeks, but we have capability to go far longer than that” – according to Trump’s projection of military victory on March 2 [10]. Or without end: “we have a virtually unlimited supply of these weapons. Wars can be fought ‘forever,’ and very successfully, using just these supplies”, as Trump tweeted on March 3 [11].
[12]“We are only four days into this, and the results have been incredible, historic really. Only the United States of America could lead this, only us. But when you add the Israeli Defence Forces, a devastatingly capable force, the combination is sheer destruction for our radical Islamist Iranian adversaries. They are toast and they know it, or at least soon enough they will know it. And we have only just begun to hunt, dismantle, demoralize, destroy and defeat their capabilities just four days in. Starting last night and to be completed in a few days, in under a week, the two most powerful Air Forces in the world will have complete control of Iranian skies, uncontested airspace.” Source: https://www.war.gov/Multimedia/Videos/videoid/998145/ [13]
No attrition, no time limit, according [4] to War Secretary Hegseth. “Iran cannot outlast us. The only limits we have on this is President Trump’s desire to achieve specific effects on behalf of the American people. And that’s why we don’t talk about – you know, you can say four weeks, but it could be six, it could be eight, it could be three.”
What, however, can Peskov have meant for the Kremlin’s timing if the US warfighting strategy has reached this point, according to Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, General Daniel Caine, of the defeat of Iran’s air defences?
“We will now begin to expand inland, striking progressively deeper into Iranian territory and creating additional freedom of maneuver for U.S. forces…CENTCOM is now shifting in day four already from large deliberate strike packages using stand-off munitions at range outside an enemy’s ability to shoot at us now into stand-in precision strikes overhead Iran. As the Secretary said, this is a point of munitions transition, from stand-off munitions to stand-in munitions like Joint Direct Attack Munitions, which are GPS aided freefall weapons, and other things like Hellfires, etc. This will allow the joint force to deliver significantly increased precision effects on the target. The throttle is coming up, as the Secretary said, as opposed to – ramping down. This will allow us to maintain consistent pressure on the adversary over the coming days, disrupt their launch timelines and impose costs every day around the clock.”
[14]For a detailed summary through March 4, with maps, of US and Israeli targeting of Iran from outside Iran’s borders: https://understandingwar.org/research/middle-east/iran-update-evening-special-report-march-4-2026/ [15]
“I know there have been a lot of questions about munitions,” Caine said [4], addressing the attrition problem. “We have sufficient precision munitions for the task at hand, both on the offence and defence. But I want to tell you, teammates, as a matter of practice, I don’t want to be talking about quantities. And I know there’s been a great debate about that, and I appreciate the interest, but just know that we consider that an operational security matter.”
The claims [16] by Hegseth and Caine have been disputed by Theodore Postol with detailed video and time-lapse photographic evidence that Iran’s ballistic missile forces are surviving underground, unscathed so far; and that the interception rates of US and Israeli air defence systems are falling below 10%.
[17]Iranian ballistic missile operations from invisible underground launchers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2yQ3kBAQIk [16]
Reporters followed with questions for Hegseth on the role which Iran’s allies, Russia and China, are expected to play in US strategy.
“Q: …what is your message to Iran’s allies, namely Russia and China, who have called for an immediate end to hostilities?
SECRETARY HEGSETH: I don’t have a message for them and they’re not really a factor here and we’re – our issue is not with them; it’s with the nuclear ambitions of Iran…
“Q: …As you know, China is accusing the United States of invading Iran, a sovereign nation. And North Korea, which cooperate with Iran on nuclear development, has declared its commitment to protecting Iran. What is the United States strategic response to this? And I have a second one. How many allies joined with the United States to fighting against Iran? Do you have any number?
SECRETARY HEGSETH: I think what you’re seeing right now is a response in the region to the belligerence of Iran and the willingness of them to target civilian airports, civilian hotels, civilian locations, civilian oil infrastructure of their Gulf neighbors who would have preferred not to be in conflict, didn’t want to, but now realize, that this is something that has to be dealt with.
So whether it’s UAE or Qatar or Bahrain or Kuwait or Saudi [Arabia]. On different levels, they’re reaching out to us, whether they’re going on offence, which they are, whether they’re giving us additional access basing an overflight, we’re getting – we’re working very closely and collaborating with them. Also, on air defences, the air defence capabilities of those countries are significant and when combined with ours and we coordinate, it brings simplicity to the shock doctrine. So we make sure we’re using less munitions, but being more effective with what we shoot at.
And as it pertains to other countries, I’ll sort of give the same question. Uh, they don’t really bear. On the case of Iran. We’re going to deal with Iran’s nuclear ambitions and that will send plenty of signals in the process.”