A Reading of Alexander Dugin’s Commentary on the U.S.–Iran Memorandum of Understanding

Prepared by Dr. Badra Gaaloul

I continue to reflect on the news, trying to understand and interpret what is happening in the Middle East, the Zionist-American aggression against Iran, and the implications of the U.S.–Iran Memorandum of Understanding. The devil, as always, lies in the details. Every word, whisper, and movement carries layers of consequences, interpretations, and readings. I have never trusted what the West says, nor what the cunning Trump and his entourage proclaim. Everyone appears to have reached an understanding—except Arab leaders, who have rarely achieved either consensus or genuine awareness.

The world today stands at a crossroads, living through one of the dirtiest and most difficult periods of moral and ethical decay. No standards or laws seem capable of governing it. We are witnessing an era of distortions, sharp turns, and continuous decline.

Russian philosopher and political thinker Alexander Dugin considers the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding and the ceasefire agreement to be a reflection of the collapse of international law and the triumph of American brute force. In his view, the agreement also serves as a rescue mechanism for the United States at a moment when it faces a significant strategic predicament.

Dugin’s principal positions regarding the agreement can be summarized as follows:

Rejection of Negotiations

Dugin had previously warned the Iranian leadership against any form of settlement, arguing that merely sitting at the negotiating table with the United States constitutes a concession. In his view, maintaining pressure on Washington was the only path toward achieving a genuine victory against American power.

A Shift in the Balance of Power

He believes that the joint American-Israeli attack, followed by the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding, has fundamentally altered the rules of international politics.

The Collapse of International Legitimacy

Dugin sharply criticized the contents of the agreement. He argues that the United States’ decision to strike Iran—a sovereign state that later accepted negotiations—demonstrates that the world has entered an era governed by the law of the jungle rather than international law.

A Threat to Russia

He warns that if the United States succeeds in subduing Iran, Western powers will be encouraged to undertake similar interventions against other sovereign states, foremost among them Russia.

Dugin’s analysis is rooted in his broader Eurasianist theory, which advocates the strategic unity of Russia, Iran, and Asian nations in a common front against American hegemony.

Since the beginning of the war on February 28, 2026, Dugin has argued that the American-Israeli attack on Iran signaled the collapse of international law and the beginning of a new era in which global politics would be governed by brute force. Today, following the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding between the United States and Iran, he reiterates the same assessment, viewing the agreement as fragile and ultimately serving Zionist-American interests more than Iranian interests.

Dugin also warns that Iran could fall into what he describes as a Zionist-American trap, a development that would encourage Western powers to target and violate the sovereignty of other states, particularly Russia.

In the same context, Dugin argues that the first day of the American-Israeli war against Iran fundamentally transformed global power relations and the rules of international politics, stripping away what he sees as the illusion of international legitimacy.

He recalls a statement attributed to Trump: “International law does not exist. What I consider moral is what I consider moral.

” According to Dugin, after attempts to impose external control over Venezuela and the subsequent attack on Iran—a sovereign and independent state—along with the targeted destruction of the country’s military, political, and religious leadership, as well as historical landmarks, universities, and schools, it is no longer possible to speak of rules, laws, or meaningful standards governing international relations.

Those who betray agreements once, he argues, will do so again. Therefore, the current talks in Switzerland should not necessarily be viewed as the end of aggression or hostilities. In his view, those responsible for such actions are skilled in betrayal and are capable of returning to the negotiating table afterward without hesitation.

According to Alexander Dugin, the only principle now operating in this unbalanced world is the right of the strongest, the fastest, and the most ruthless. It is not merely the law of the jungle, but rather the law of a savage humanity unconstrained by ethical, legal, or legitimate standards.

We seem to be living in a world where whoever strikes first and acts fastest is automatically considered “right,” even though concepts such as justice, legitimacy, strength, and, above all, human morality have become increasingly blurred. Everything else becomes little more than an additional justification.

In this framework, Dugin suggests that the priority becomes delivering a decisive blow to the enemy, breaking its resistance, destroying its leadership, and targeting its military, strategic, and energy infrastructure. Afterward, one can justify the action in any manner desired, rationalize it however one wishes, and sign agreements whenever convenient. No one, he argues, will hold the perpetrators accountable.

Perhaps only centuries from now will historians pass judgment. Future professors of history and students of politics may ask:

How did these societies live? By what standards did they govern themselves?

MOU or Capitulation? How IAEA Dictates Insult Iranian Sovereignty

The recent statements by the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) regarding the upcoming inspections in Iran do not reflect a diplomatic compromise; they represent a flagrant violation of national sovereignty and a blow to the principles of a multipolar world order.

For a nation anchoring the Axis of Resistance, accepting these concessions via the latest Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the United States is a dangerous step backward.

Here is how these dictates directly insult Iran’s sovereignty:

The Re-Establishment of Unilateral Oversight:

The IAEA’s aggressive demand to track down highly enriched uranium stockpiles

"as soon as possible"

treats Iran not as a sovereign state with legitimate defense and scientific rights, but as a rogue entity under international trusteeship.

The Trap of Western Tech-Bureaucracy:

By reducing a profound geopolitical struggle to technical "procedural files," Tehran risks falling into a Western-designed trap. Allowing foreign inspectors unfettered access to strategic facilities compromises military security and intelligence under the guise of "verification."

Inviting the Hegemon:

The agency's suggestion that Tehran can

"invite Washington or other observers"

to the inspections is a psychological insult. It attempts to normalize the presence of the very Western hegemony that the Axis of Resistance has spent decades fighting to expel from the region.

The Critique from a Multipolar Perspective:

True multipolarity requires sovereign centers of power that refuse to bow to biased international institutions functioning as arms of Western foreign policy. By conceding to these aggressive inspection timelines and metrics under US pressure, Tehran undermines its own leverage and compromises the collective security posture of the regional resistance network.

Technical settlements with a hostile hegemon never guarantee security; they only expose a nation's strategic depth to its adversaries.