MOSCOW, March 31. /TASS/. Iran’s talks of withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty could lead Middle Eastern countries to reconsider their own nuclear programs; Russia has uncovered another alleged UK intelligence agent amid broader political tensions between Moscow and London; and G7 countries decided to release part of their strategic oil reserves to stabilize energy markets. These stories topped Tuesday’s newspaper headlines across Russia.
Izvestia: Iran may spark Middle East nuclear race by leaving Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
Withdrawal from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), one of the most radical scenarios in the history of the national nuclear program, is being discussed in Tehran. Key players in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt, may reconsider their approaches to their own nuclear programs if Iran withdraws from the treaty, Izvestia writes. At the same time, official representatives emphasize that Iran remains committed to its international obligations and does not seek to create nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, even the very emergence of such an agenda is already raising concerns that the situation could trigger a chain reaction in the region.
Withdrawal from the NPT does not automatically mean a decision to create nuclear weapons: Tehran could theoretically follow a "nuclear threshold" strategy, developing relevant technologies without moving to the creation of a warhead. According to Andrey Baklanov, Deputy Chairman of the Association of Russian Diplomats and professor at the Higher School of Economics, discussing such an option would become a strategic mistake for Iran.
"Even preliminary decisions in this direction will be perceived by the international community as undermining the non-proliferation regime and will lead to increased external pressure without giving Tehran any practical advantages," he told Izvestia.
The expert also believes that the reaction of regional countries would be clearly negative and could accelerate the development of countermeasures, including military and technological programs.
A separate dimension is Israel’s reaction, as the country possesses an undeclared nuclear arsenal. Its leadership will likely reinforce its policy of preventive actions and the doctrine of "nuclear ambiguity," which could lead to an expansion of military operations against Iranian infrastructure and heightened tensions on all fronts, the newspaper writes.
At the same time, the question of the actual timeframe for Iran to create nuclear weapons remains a matter of debate. According to military expert Alexey Leonkov, Tehran already possesses a developed missile program and is theoretically capable of preserving delivery systems even in the event of strikes on infrastructure. However, the key problem is the creation of the warheads themselves.
Izvestia: Espionage scandals highlight growing Russia-UK tensions
Another agent of British intelligence, Janse van Rensburg, has been identified in Moscow. Since September 2024, this is already the fifth case involving alleged spies operating under the cover of the United Kingdom’s diplomatic mission. The previous episode was uncovered by the Federal Security Service only two months ago, and overall in recent years it has been British diplomats who have been the main figures in such scandals. Experts interviewed by Izvestia noted that at the same time the UK is increasingly using reciprocal expulsions as a political tool to reduce Russia’s presence in Europe.
The new episode of the espionage scandal should be viewed in the context of the ongoing confrontation between Russia and Europe, in which the United Kingdom remains one of the key participants, Ilya Shcherbakov, a member of the presidium of the Council of Young Political Scientists of the Russian Political Science Association, told the newspaper. According to him, amid the ongoing conflict and the pause in the diplomatic track, such activity may increase, including as a tool of pressure ahead of possible negotiations.
"Given that the diplomatic option for resolving the conflict is currently in a suspended state, and the sides continue to search for a platform for new negotiations, the lack of progress on this track in itself creates an additional vacuum," the expert emphasized.
Reciprocal steps from the United Kingdom can be expected in the near future. Diplomatic expulsions often follow politically sensitive events, when it is important for London to take a firm position and draw attention to itself, Natalia Eremina, a professor at St. Petersburg State University, told Izvestia.
"This is a clear example of politicization. When a person is expelled from Russia, it is always clearly stated what exactly they are accused of. But our diplomats, as a rule, are simply presented with a fait accompli: you have 24 hours, pack your things and leave. Without specifics, without clear accusations, or with far-fetched and unsubstantiated wording," the expert stressed.
Nezavisimaya Gazeta: G7 seeks to curb oil prices through strategic reserves
The consequences of the US and Israeli strikes on Iran forced the finance and energy ministers of the Group of Seven (G7) to convene an emergency meeting. Following the meeting, it was decided to release part of the strategic oil reserves. Experts interviewed by Nezavisimaya Gazeta believe decisions taken within this international club, which brings together the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Canada, France, Japan and the United States, are insufficient to eliminate the economic shock caused by the sharp surge in energy prices. This, in turn, forces national governments to independently address the energy crisis.
Among the measures discussed at the meeting were the release of strategic oil reserves and the introduction of a price cap on hydrocarbons. As a result, the countries ultimately agreed solely on the use of their strategic reserves.
Pavel Sevostyanov, Associate Professor of the Department of Political Analysis and Socio-Psychological Processes at the Plekhanov Russian University of Economics, stressed primarily the geopolitical nature of the rise in hydrocarbon prices. "The market is pricing in a ‘risk premium’ due to the threat to supplies from the region through which up to 20% of global oil trade passes," he told Nezavisimaya Gazeta. Against this backdrop, the G7’s discussion of using strategic reserves appears logical. However, the potential of this measure is limited, the expert noted.
The key problem with such measures, according to the expert, is their temporary effect. "In the event of serious supply disruptions, even a large-scale release of strategic reserves covers only a few weeks of a potential deficit. If the conflict drags on, the market will quickly absorb this release. In addition, past interventions show that not all of the offered volume is actually purchased by the market," he said.
At the same time, introducing a price cap appears to be an even more difficult task, he believes. "Unlike the case of Russian oil, for which a price cap was also introduced, a global price cap requires the participation of key producers and traders outside the G7, who account for the majority of global production — about 75%. Without their consent, this measure will either lead to shortages or the emergence of gray markets," he noted.
Sevostyanov concluded that strategic reserves are an instrument for smoothing a price shock, not eliminating it. Sustainable price reductions are only possible with the normalization of supplies and a decrease in geopolitical tensions, he emphasized.
Vedomosti: Trump’s approval of Russian oil shipment to Cuba may signal an attempt to improve dialogue with Moscow
The Russian tanker Anatoly Kolodkin, carrying a humanitarian cargo of 100,000 tons of oil, has arrived in Cuba, according to a statement by the Russian Ministry of Transport. It marks the first vessel to deliver oil to Cuba since US President Donald Trump announced an energy blockade of the island on January 29. On March 30, Trump personally stated that he did not oppose such a shipment. Experts told Vedomosti they believe that Washington’s decision to allow Russian oil shipments to Cuba may be part of broader political bargaining with Moscow, linked to US efforts to negotiate on Ukraine, seek Russia’s role in resolving the Middle East crisis, and prioritize the Iranian issue in US foreign policy.
Limited supplies of Russian oil to Cuba may be the result of agreements between American and Russian lawmakers during their recent talks in Washington, Vladimir Vasiliev, Chief Research Fellow at the Institute for US and Canadian Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, suggested. Obviously, this volume of fuel will not solve the island’s energy supply problem, he added, saying, "Washington is still interested in a change of power in the Latin American republic."
American studies specialist Pavel Koshkin suggested that allowing the Russian tanker to reach Cuba was a gesture by the US authorities toward Russia in order to obtain concessions from the Russian leadership in other areas. In his opinion, Trump has not abandoned hopes of settling the Russia-Ukraine conflict through dialogue with Moscow and also expects Russian assistance in ending hostilities in the Middle East.
"At the moment, the main priority of the White House is resolving the Iranian crisis, which is causing fuel prices to rise. Therefore, the Americans do not want to overextend their efforts. Once the Iran problem is resolved, clarity will emerge regarding other global US foreign policy priorities," the expert believes.
"It is still difficult to assess whether the Americans intend to change the government in the Latin American republic," the expert said. He also did not rule out that Cuba could become the next issue after the Iranian problem is "resolved".
Vedomosti: Oil could reach $200 per barrel amid Middle East conflict
The war in Iran has led to the largest oil supply disruptions in history, the scale of which the global community has not yet fully grasped: US officials and Wall Street analysts fear that the conflict could push oil prices to $200 per barrel, Bloomberg writes. The current deficit has reached 9 mln barrels — more than the combined oil consumption of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Spain, and Italy, the agency reported. Experts interviewed by Vedomosti also believe that oil could theoretically rise to $200 per barrel if major supply routes such as the Strait of Hormuz are disrupted for a prolonged period, but this is not the base scenario and any sharp price surge would likely trigger increased production and market adjustments.
Kirill Bakhtin, head of Russian equities analytics at BCS, considers a rise in oil prices to $200 per barrel plausible but not the base scenario. According to him, this could occur if the capacity of the Strait of Hormuz were significantly restricted for several months. For now, however, supply has increased due to releases from strategic reserves and the temporary easing of sanctions on Russian and Iranian oil, the expert added.
Oil prices could reach $200 per barrel, but according to Natalia Milchakova, leading analyst at Freedom Finance Global, many conditions would have to coincide for this to happen, such as a massive global shortage combined with very high demand. This is possible if the Strait of Hormuz is blocked until the end of the first half of 2026, as well as if Iran’s allies also block the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, she noted.
Finam analyst Nikolay Dudchenko holds a different view: despite the fact that the crisis in the Middle East has affected about 17% of global oil demand, there are no signals that prices are heading toward $200 per barrel. However, the continuation of the current situation or the official and complete closure of the Strait of Hormuz could become triggers for further price increases, the expert explained.
If oil prices rise to $200, businesses will respond by increasing production in order to extract maximum profit, Bakhtin believes. The logical outcome would be a decline in global demand, but this would take time, he added. It is also possible that in the event of such a price surge, OPEC+ would intervene, Milchakova warned, while the United States would sharply increase shale oil production — high profitability would offset high costs. On the other hand, Russia and Saudi Arabia would also increase production and could offer oil at lower prices, which would eventually lead to price normalization, the expert added.
For the global economy, oil prices rising to $200 per barrel would have negative consequences in the form of higher inflation in many countries, supply disruptions for goods, including food, due to high fuel costs and rising import expenses, Milchakova concluded.
TASS is not responsible for the material quoted in these press reviews