Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has delivered one of his sharpest public critiques of American policy toward Russia, accusing the United States of deliberately overlooking evidence that Moscow is actively helping Iran target US military bases and critical infrastructure in the Middle East. The reason, he argued, is a dangerous level of trust that Washington continues to place in Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Speaking in an interview on the British podcast The Rest is Politics with Alastair Campbell in early April 2026, Zelenskyy said he had repeatedly tried to draw the White House’s attention to close collaboration between the Kremlin and Tehran. According to the Ukrainian leader, Russian military satellites had photographed critical energy infrastructure in the Gulf states and Israel, as well as the precise locations of US army bases across the region. Those images and details were then passed to the Iranian regime to facilitate attacks.
“I said this publicly. Did we hear a reaction from the US to Russia that they have to stop it?” Zelenskyy asked. “The problem is they trust Putin. And it’s a pity.”
The accusation struck at the heart of the Trump administration’s approach to both the Ukraine war and the escalating conflict involving Iran. Zelenskyy claimed that American negotiators had failed to grasp the full scope of Russia’s intentions because they had spent “too much time” with Putin and senior Russian officials. He specifically named Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, the two envoys leading US efforts to broker an end to the war in Ukraine. The pair had traveled to Moscow multiple times without making a single official visit to Kyiv, a point Zelenskyy later described as disrespectful.
Zelenskyy’s remarks came at a moment when the two major conflicts of 2026 appeared increasingly intertwined. Iran had earlier supplied Russia with thousands of Shahed drones used extensively against Ukrainian cities and infrastructure. In return, Ukrainian intelligence and later Western reporting indicated that Moscow was reciprocating with satellite imagery, signals intelligence, and targeting data that improved Iran’s ability to strike American and Israeli assets. Zelenskyy framed this exchange as evidence that Russia and Iran were operating as strategic partners rather than distant allies of convenience.
In the same interview, the Ukrainian president expanded on his assessment of Putin’s psychology and long-term goals. He insisted that the Russian leader had realized he could not fully occupy Ukraine and was instead seeking a pause that would allow his forces to regroup. Any ceasefire without robust, long-term security guarantees, Zelenskyy warned, would simply buy Moscow time for a future offensive. He rejected the idea that limited territorial concessions in the Donbas would satisfy Russia, arguing that Putin’s true objective remained the destruction of Ukrainian statehood and further pressure on Europe.
The claim that the United States was choosing trust over evidence resonated because it touched on a recurring pattern. Zelenskyy noted that American officials appeared to view certain Ukrainian territories as of limited strategic importance to Washington. “We have to recognise that partially Americans are feeling that [Donbas is] nothing for us,” he said. “They don’t want to recognise that Putin will lie to them and that he can continue the occupation even after such steps. The Americans are sure that they can trust Putin.”
This trust, according to Zelenskyy, had real operational consequences. Ukrainian intelligence assessments described Russian satellites scanning military facilities and critical sites across the Middle East. In one earlier instance, Moscow had reportedly offered to stop sharing military intelligence with Iran if Washington cut off intelligence support to Kyiv—an attempt at blackmail that underscored how the two wars were being linked by the Kremlin.
The issue did not fade after the April interview. In late July 2026, Zelenskyy returned to the subject with more specific detail. He announced that Ukrainian intelligence had recorded active Russian satellite surveillance of Gulf states and US military facilities since the beginning of that month. Those images, he said, subsequently appeared in Iran. There was a clear correlation between the timing of Russian orbital activity and Iranian strikes—both in preparation for attacks and in assessing the damage afterward. On July 19 and 20 alone, four air bases—two in Bahrain, one in Jordan, and one in Kuwait—fell within the area of interest of Russian satellites.
Zelenskyy stated that he would instruct Ukrainian intelligence services to share the evidence with partners. President Trump responded by downplaying the impact, saying he would ask Putin about the claims and noting that, even if true, the assistance “hasn’t had much impact” because US forces had already inflicted heavy damage on Iran. Ukrainian officials later clarified that the specific intelligence had been passed through other channels rather than raised directly in a White House meeting.
The pattern of cooperation fits a broader strategic partnership that deepened after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Iran provided drones and related technology when Moscow needed them most. Russia, in turn, offered access to higher-resolution space-based reconnaissance, navigation systems resistant to jamming, and operational experience gained on the Ukrainian battlefield. Analysts have described the relationship as a structured exchange of military capabilities shaped by wartime necessity rather than a formal mutual defense treaty.
For Ukraine, the American reluctance to confront Russia over its support for Iran carries dual risks. It diverts diplomatic attention and resources at a time when Kyiv continues to seek sustained military and political backing. It also signals that Washington may be willing to overlook actions that endanger US personnel if doing so preserves channels of dialogue with Moscow. Zelenskyy has consistently argued that pressure on the aggressor must work and that evil expands when it is ignored.
The April 2026 podcast interview, and the subsequent updates, reveal a fundamental disagreement over how to read Putin. Zelenskyy presents himself as someone who understands the Russian leader’s methods and objectives more clearly than those who meet him frequently in the Kremlin. He has described himself as one of the few people willing to tell President Trump when he is not always right. That willingness to challenge assumptions sits at the center of the current friction between Kyiv and Washington.
Whether the United States ultimately treats the Russia-Iran intelligence relationship as a secondary inconvenience or as a core strategic problem will shape not only the trajectory of the war in Ukraine but also the safety of American forces across the Middle East. Zelenskyy’s public warning was clear: trust in Putin has already cost lives and influence. Continuing that trust, he suggested, risks costing far more.
About The Author
