KKN Gurugram Desk | Dmitry Medvedev, former Russian President and now deputy head of Putin’s Security Council, sharply criticized President Trump’s decision to authorise U.S. airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Medvedev said Trump “has dragged America into a new war”, warning that several countries are now “prepared to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads.”

 Medvedev’s Warning: Proxy War or Direct Threat?

Speaking after the U.S. raid on Iran’s Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan nuclear sites, Medvedev said, “Trump has entangled the United States in another war,” claiming the strikes failed to halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions. He suggested that a number of nations could now supply nuclear warheads to Tehran.

Experts Protest: ‘An Impractical Bluff’

Nuclear arms experts dismissed his claim as unrealistic. They explained that warhead delivery is not just about handing over bombs—it requires trained personnel, complex maintenance systems, and existing stockpiles. Transferring weapons would also violate the UN Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Only nuclear-armed powers like North Korea, China, or Russia could theoretically consider it—but such a move would risk major retaliation from the U.S. and Israel, experts argue.

 Global Reactions: U.S. and Allies Push Back

U.S. officials and Israel have not reacted directly to Medvedev’s statement, focusing instead on praising the airstrikes. Ukraine also backed the strikes, affirming that Iran must not gain nuclear weapons. Meanwhile:

• Nations like Australia, the United Kingdom, the European Union, and Japan expressed concern about escalation, and called for diplomatic solutions.

• China and Russia condemned the strikes as violations of international law and the UN Charter

• Some Middle Eastern and Latin American countries called for de-escalation and diplomacy.

 Context: U.S.–Israel Strike Raises Regional Tensions

On June 22, the U.S. joined Israeli strikes targeting Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan nuclear facilities. U.S. President Trump declared the attack “very successful.” Iran has denounced the strikes as aggression and vowed a strong response.

Medvedev’s warning followed this escalation, underlining how the action inflamed fears of a broader regional or global conflict involving nuclear dynamics.

 Medvedev’s Track Record: Hawkish Rhetoric

Medvedev has repeatedly employed aggressive rhetoric, especially since the Ukraine war began. He’s known for using threats and warnings as diplomatic tools but often with little follow-through. Analysts see his latest statement as strategic posturing rather than a real threat.

 Russia’s Official Position: Condemnation, Not Military Support

Despite Medvedev’s claims, President Putin and the Kremlin have not indicated any intent to physically arm Iran. High-level diplomatic exchange is underway, with Iran’s Foreign Minister planning discussions in Moscow. But analysts note that Russia’s current resources—stretched by the Ukraine war—mean it is unlikely to provide military support.

 Geopolitical Implications: What Could Happen Next?

• Global security risk: If any country actually transfers nuclear warheads to Iran, it would spark a severe escalation, violating treaties and likely drawing strong U.S. and Israeli retaliation.

• Deterrence message: Medvedev’s warning may be intended to deter further Western military action by raising the specter of nuclear proliferation.

• Diplomatic rifts: The divergence between Russia/China and Western nations highlights a continuing geopolitical split over how to address Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Dmitry Medvedev has sharply criticised Trump, accusing him of launching a new war and threatening that multiple countries may supply nuclear warheads to Iran. However, experts and analysts widely judge this claim as unrealistic and symbolic, rather than actionable. Russia’s official stance remains diplomatic and condemnatory, not military. The situation lays bare the growing geopolitical tensions and the nuclear anxieties surrounding the U.S.–Israeli strike on Iran—highlighting how dangerous rhetoric can risk escalating conflict further.