Geneva — In a move underscoring the growing axis of Tehran and Moscow against Western influence, Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf met with Valentina Matviyenko, Chairwoman of the Russian Federation Council, on the sidelines of the Sixth World Conference of Speakers of Parliament at the Palais des Nations in Geneva on Tuesday.
Their bilateral meeting, held amid global parliamentary discourse, was less about parliamentary procedure and more about projecting a shared geopolitical vision. Both sides emphasized that Iran and Russia are entering a new stage of comprehensive cooperation, particularly across the security, defense, economic, and political spheres. Ghalibaf called the strategic bond with Moscow a “natural extension of Iran’s multipolar worldview,” pointing to increased coordination on everything from energy markets to military logistics.
Matviyenko, for her part, emphasized the importance of shielding the sovereignty of both nations from Western sanctions and “hegemonic policies.” Her remarks carried clear undertones of defiance against Washington and Brussels, aligning with Iran’s posture of strategic resistance.
But Ghalibaf’s broader message extended beyond the bilateral. Addressing the full conference, the Iranian speaker condemned the recent attacks on Iranian territory, blaming Israel and its chief backer, the United States. He characterized the strikes — which reportedly killed over a thousand people, including several high-ranking commanders — as a “coordinated campaign of assassination and sabotage.”
“These actions,” Ghalibaf declared, “occurred during sensitive diplomatic efforts, revealing the true face of those who pretend to support peace and dialogue.” He stopped short of naming specific individuals, but the insinuation was clear: Tehran believes the West is deliberately escalating hostilities under the guise of diplomacy.
Iran’s retaliation to the strikes, Ghalibaf added, was “measured but firm.” Tehran’s response, he claimed, was “in accordance with international law and the right to self-defense.” He urged Western governments to abandon their “double standards” and criticized the United Nations for remaining silent on what he labeled state-sponsored terrorism.
Ghalibaf also turned the forum’s attention to the Genocide in Gaza, referring to the Israeli operation as a “chronic and intentional extermination of a people,” and describing the besieged enclave as a “living museum of war crimes.” He accused Western governments of complicity, not only in their material support for Tel Aviv but in their diplomatic efforts to shield it from accountability.
The joint meeting and public statements appear to consolidate a broader political narrative: Iran and Russia view their partnership not only as transactional but transformational. They are not simply resisting Western pressure — they are actively constructing a counter-order.
According to reports by Iran’s state media and parliamentary officials, both countries are exploring new avenues to evade sanctions, including the use of alternative currencies and expanded regional trade routes. Notably, energy collaboration is also accelerating under the rubric of “resistance economy,” a term long used in Tehran to signal economic self-reliance in defiance of Western embargoes.
Russia, under pressure from European energy disengagement and US-led sanctions, sees Iran as a useful partner in this recalibration. With China, Venezuela, and North Korea already in the periphery of this anti-Western realignment, the Tehran-Moscow axis is increasingly bold in both rhetoric and execution.
The Geneva meeting was more than ceremonial diplomacy; it was a declaration of strategic intent. Both Ghalibaf and Matviyenko left little room for misinterpretation: the alliance is not reactive, it is foundational. The unspoken but obvious implication was that the West — especially the United States — should no longer assume it holds the monopoly on international legitimacy or moral authority.
According to Mehr News, the meeting reflected a tightening of political resolve against what both governments frame as “Western aggression.” The statements, though formal, carry the weight of long-term strategic recalibration — one that transcends parliaments and strikes at the heart of a shifting world order.
