The fighting between Iran and Israel raises questions about Russia's influence in the Middle East
When the United States joined Israel this weekend in attacking Iran's nuclear sites, the outrage and condemnation flowed from Russia. Moscow's U.N. ambassador said Washington was opening 'a Pandora's Box,' and Tehran's top diplomat rushed to the Kremlin to seek support from President Vladimir Putin.
But in his meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi on Monday, Putin offered only more words of condemnation of the strikes as 'unprovoked aggression' with 'no basis or justification.'
Analysts say that muted response without any apparent military aid is likely to disappoint Iran and reflects Russia's diminished influence in the Middle East, where it already has lost a key ally and is seeking a delicate diplomatic balance. Moscow could instead realize some short-term benefits from the Iran-Israel war, such as increased oil prices to aid Russia's sinking economy, or distracting the world's attention from its 3-year-old war in Ukraine.
An ally in need of help
Russia's ties with Iran have grown since the start of Putin's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, with Tehran supplying Moscow with Shahed drones and the technology to build them. The drones have been a key weapon in the war.
The Kremlin praised the new era of Russian-Iranian relations in January 2025, when Moscow and Tehran signed a strategic partnership agreement aimed at nurturing economic, political and military ties.
Its timing was significant, says Renad Mansour, a senior research fellow for the Middle East and North Africa Program at Chatham House.
'This was done after (2024), which was a very bad year for Iran," he said, having lost regional allies amid the ouster of Bashar Assad in Syria and the weakening of Hezbollah.
"Iran wanted to rely on Russia,' he said.
But in practice, the agreement has meant little since Israel's attacks on Iran. It only forbids Russia and Iran from helping any country that attacked the other and is not a mutual defense pact.
'I think from the Iranian perspective, there's been some disappointment in how much Russia is willing to support,' Mansour said. 'They're feeling now that when we're facing this colossal giant of Israel and the U.S., Russia isn't really stepping in.'
The Kremlin has bristled at suggestions it is abandoning or neglecting Iran. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov on Tuesday denied claims that Moscow had not given meaningful support to Tehran.
Many people want 'to spoil the partnership between Moscow and Tehran,' he said.
'Russia has in fact supported Iran with the clear position it has taken. And, of course, we intend to further develop our relations with Iran,' he said.
Asked Monday whether Russia would provide equipment such as air defenses to Tehran, he said 'everything depends on what the Iranian side, on what our Iranian friends say.'
Israel has destroyed most of Iran's air defenses, and replacing them would not be easy, even if Russia wanted to.
Iran desperately needs such systems, Arman Mahmoudian, a research fellow at the Global and National Security Institute, told The Associated Press.
'(But) Russia itself needs these very weapons — both air defense systems and missiles — for its own war effort in Ukraine.' he said. 'The likelihood that Russia will meet Iran's requests is minimal.'
That need will only become more acute if Iran is unable to keep supplying Russia with attack drones, which are being increasingly deployed by Iranian forces, which is likely to leave little capacity for exports, Mahmoudian said.
'Another critical factor is that Israel has extensively targeted Iran's drone and missile production facilities. Even if the war ends soon, Iran will need time to recover and rebuild these sites,' he added.
Moscow's balancing act in the Middle East
Iranian demands are not the only ones that Moscow is balancing. Russia also wants to maintain good relations with Israel. Both countries' militaries are active in Syria, and they have been careful to maintain contacts in order to avoid direct clashes. Israel has remained largely neutral during the war in Ukraine, wary of antagonizing Russia because of its large Jewish population.
Putin said Friday at a conference in St. Petersburg that Israel was home to nearly 2 million people from Russia and other former Soviet nations, 'a factor that we always have taken into account.'
Moscow also is paying close attention to its relationship with Washington, which has warmed since President Donald Trump returned to office this year. Phone calls have resumed between leaders in both countries for the first time since the war in Ukraine.
'For now, Trump shows no inclination to endorse the harsh new sanctions against Russia which a bipartisan majority in the U.S. Senate has proposed,' says Holger Schmieding, chief economist at Berenberg bank. 'But if Putin were to annoy Trump over Iran in any significant way, Trump may change tack and impose new heavy sanctions on Russia.'
New complexities and opportunities for Russia
While the Israel-Iran war has unleashed new complexities for Moscow, it also has created opportunities.
The confrontation in the Middle East is likely to distract Western attention and resources from the war in Ukraine and make it easier for Russia to pursue its battlefield goals.
Rising oil prices would also benefit Moscow, which relies heavily on fuel exports to boost its budget, allowing the Kremlin to fund weapons production, fight rising inflation, and provide the significant financial bonuses that entice Russian men into military service.
Moscow also has sought on several occasions to position itself as a potential negotiator in the Iran-Israel war, although Putin himself later appeared to back away from such a role after Trump dismissed the idea of Kremlin mediation while fighting continued in Ukraine.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Tuesday that Moscow is ready to help settle the conflict, but will not act as a mediator.
Ksenia Svetlova, a former member of Israel's parliament who was born in Moscow and is an associate fellow at Chatham House, says 'Russia lacks any mechanism of pressure or leverage on Iran.'
She noted that the war in Ukraine has drained its resources and its failure to halt Assad's fall shows that Moscow's influence in the region is fading.
'To be successful as mediators, you would need to make Iranians compromise,' she said.
Whether Russia can now increase its sway in the Middle East remains uncertain.
The war in Ukraine has left Moscow overstretched, said Mansour, the Chatham House research fellow.
After Assad's ouster following years of Russian military support, the Kremlin already is making overtures to the new government in Syria, as well as an effort to approach other states in the region and beyond with transactional deals that serve both sides.
'You can lose battles, you can lose allies, but I am sure that Russia will maintain influence in the Middle East, including in Syria, where it's already negotiating with the new government,' Mansour said.
Russia's actions in the Iran-Israel war could have other unforeseen long-term consequences.
'Even if the Islamic Republic survives the war, Russia's inability or unwillingness to assist its closest Middle Eastern ally will inevitably raise doubts about Moscow's reliability,' Mahmoudian said.
'Other regional players — such as Egypt and Turkey — have lately sought closer ties with Russia, yet watching Moscow fail to defend or meaningfully support Tehran may prompt them to reconsider how dependable a partner Russia can be,' he said.
___ Davies reported from Manchester, England. Kirka reported from London. Associated Press writers Melanie Lidman in Tel Aviv, Israel, and Edith M. Lederer at the United Nations contributed.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CNN
13 minutes ago
- CNN
Netanyahu says ‘opportunities have opened up' to free Gaza hostages following Iran operation
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said 'many opportunities have opened up' following Israel's military operations in Iran, including the possibility of bringing home the remaining hostages held in Gaza. Speaking at a Shin Bet security agency facility in southern Israel on Sunday, Netanyahu said, 'As you probably know, many opportunities have opened up now following this victory. Firstly, to rescue the hostages. Of course, we will also need to solve the Gaza issue, defeat Hamas, but I believe we will accomplish both missions.' Netanyahu's comments mark one of the first times he has clearly prioritized the return of the hostages over the defeat of Hamas. For months, Netanyahu has prioritized the defeat of Hamas in Gaza and talked about a 'total victory.' At the beginning of May, he called defeating Hamas the 'supreme objective,' not freeing the hostages. His comments Sunday mark a potentially significant change in how he has talked about Israel's goals in the war. He has repeatedly faced criticism from the families of hostages, opposition politicians and large segments of the Israeli public for not clearly placing the return of the hostages as Israel's primary goal. Reacting to his comments Sunday, the Hostages Families Forum Headquarters called for a single comprehensive deal to bring back all 50 hostages and end the fighting in Gaza. 'What is needed is release, not rescue. This difference of one word could mean the difference between salvation and loss for the hostages,' the forum said in a statement. Elsewhere in his speech, Netanyahu also said 'wider regional opportunities are opening up,' an apparent reference to efforts to expand the Abraham Accords that saw Israel normalize relations with several Gulf states. The comments by Netanyahu come amid increasing pressure on Israel from US President Donald Trump to make a ceasefire deal. Since the end of the conflict with Iran, negotiators have been pushing to restart stalled negotiations with Hamas in Gaza. Netanyahu held a high-level meeting on Gaza Sunday evening, according to two Israeli sources, meeting with some of his closest advisers, including Minister for Strategic Affairs Ron Dermer, Defense Minister Israel Katz and others, to discuss the latest on Israel's military operation in the Palestinian enclave. Dermer is scheduled to hold meetings with the Trump administration in Washington, DC, on Monday. Trump has made clear his desire to secure a ceasefire deal to end the war in Gaza and bring home the 50 hostages held by Hamas, at least 20 of whom are still alive. In a post on social media early Sunday morning, Trump pushed Israel to 'MAKE THE DEAL IN GAZA. GET THE HOSTAGES BACK!!!' Trump had earlier thrown his support behind Netanyahu, calling his ongoing trial on corruption charges a 'POLITICAL WITCH HUNT' – the second time the president had called for an end to the prosecution of the long-time Israeli leader. With the conclusion of the operation in Iran – and Trump's sudden foray into Israel's legal system – Netanyahu has requested to postpone his upcoming trial sessions this week. After twice rejecting the requests, the court granted the delay following a confidential session in which the judge said there had been a change to the 'evidentiary structure' compared to the previous requests.
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Iran voices 'serious doubts' over Israel commitment to ceasefire
Iran warned Sunday that it had little faith in Israel's commitment to a fragile ceasefire that ended the most intense and destructive confrontation between the two foes to date. The 12-day war erupted on June 13, when Israel launched a bombing campaign in Iran that killed top military commanders and scientists linked to its nuclear programme. Tehran responded with ballistic missile attacks on Israeli cities. Israel said its aim was to keep the Islamic republic from developing an atomic weapon -- an ambition Tehran has consistently denied. The fighting derailed nuclear talks between Iran and the United States, which later joined its ally Israel's campaign with strikes on Tehran's nuclear facilities. "We did not start the war, but we have responded to the aggressor with all our power," Iranian armed forces chief of staff Abdolrahim Mousavi was quoted as saying by state television, referring to Israel. "We have serious doubts over the enemy's compliance with its commitments including the ceasefire, we are ready to respond with force" if attacked again, he added, six days into the ceasefire. - IAEA dispute - The conflict rattled the already shaky relationship between Iran and the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency. Iran has rejected the IAEA's request to inspect its bombed nuclear sites, accusing its chief Rafael Grossi of "betraying his duties" by failing to condemn the Israeli and US attacks. Iranian lawmakers voted this week to suspend cooperation with the agency. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi called Grossi's request to visit the targeted facilities "meaningless" and "possibly malign in intent". Tehran also cited a June 12 IAEA resolution criticising Iran's lack of nuclear transparency as a pretext used by Israel to justify launching its offensive the following day. The backlash drew a sharp rebuke from Germany and Argentina, Grossi's home country. "I commend Director General Rafael Grossi and his team for their unrelenting professionalism. Threats against them from within Iran are deeply troubling and must stop," German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul wrote on X. Argentina's foreign ministry said it "categorically condemns the threats against him coming from Iran". Neither specified which threats they were referring to, but Iran's ultra-conservative Kayhan newspaper recently claimed documents showed Grossi was an Israeli spy and should be executed. Speaking to US broadcaster CBS on Sunday, Iranian ambassador to the United Nations Amir Saeid Iravani denied there was any threat to nuclear inspectors in Iran, insisting they were "in safe conditions" but their work was suspended. - Damage questioned - The United States carried out strikes on three key facilities used for Iran's atomic programme. In the days after, Trump said the United States would bomb Iran again "without question" if intelligence indicated it was able to enrich uranium to military grade. Speaking to CBS on Saturday, Grossi said Iran could "in a matter of months" return to enriching uranium. Questions remain as to how much damage the US strikes did to Iran's nuclear programme, with Trump and his officials insisting it had been "obliterated". On Sunday, however, The Washington Post reported that the United States had intercepted calls between Iranian officials who said the damage was less than expected. That followed an early "low confidence" US military intelligence report that said the nuclear programme had been set back months, not years. Israel has said Iran's programme was delayed by years, while Tehran has downplayed the damage. The IAEA said Iran had been enriching uranium to 60 percent, far above the levels needed for civilian nuclear power, although Grossi previously noted there had been no indication before the strikes that Iran was working to build an atomic weapon. Israel has maintained ambiguity about its own nuclear arsenal, neither officially confirming nor denying it exists, but the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute has estimated it has 90 nuclear warheads. - 'A new road'- Iran's health ministry says at least 627 civilians were killed and 4,900 injured during the war with Israel. Retaliatory missile attacks by Iran on Israel killed 28 people, Israeli authorities say. During the war, Iran arrested dozens of people it accused of spying for Israel. Iran's parliament on Sunday voted to ban the unauthorised use of communications equipment, including tech billionaire Elon Musk's Starlink satellite internet service, said the official news agency IRNA. On Sunday, Washington's envoy to Turkey said the Iran-Israel war could pave the way for a new Middle East. "What just happened between Israel and Iran is an opportunity for all of us to say: 'Time out. Let's create a new road'," Ambassador Tom Barrack, who is also the US special envoy to Syria, told the Anadolu state news agency. "The Middle East is ready to have a new dialogue, people are tired of the same old story," he added. ap-sbr/dcp/smw


Atlantic
26 minutes ago
- Atlantic
How to Assess the Damage of the Iran Strikes
In August 1941, the British government received a very unwelcome piece of analysis from an economist named David Miles Bensusan-Butt. A careful analysis of photographs suggested that the Royal Air Force's Bomber Command was having trouble hitting targets in Germany and France; in fact, only one in three pilots that claimed to have attacked the targets seemed to have dropped its bombs within five miles of them. The Butt report is a landmark in the history of 'bomb damage assessment,' or, as we now call it, 'battle damage assessment.' This recondite term has come back into public usage because of the dispute over the effectiveness of the June 22 American bombing of three Iranian nuclear facilities. President Donald Trump said that American bombs had 'obliterated' the Iranian nuclear program. A leaked preliminary assessment from the Defense Intelligence Agency on June 24 said that the damage was minimal. Whom to believe? Have the advocates of bombing again overpromised and underdelivered? Some history is in order here, informed by a bit of personal experience. From 1991 to 1993 I ran the U.S. Air Force's study of the first Gulf War. In doing so I learned that BDA rests on three considerations: the munition used, including its accuracy; the aircraft delivering it; and the type of damage or effect created. Of these, precision is the most important. World War II saw the first use of guided bombs in combat. In September 1943, the Germans used radio-controlled glide bombs to sink the Italian battleship Roma as it sailed off to surrender to the Allies. Americans developed similar systems with some successes, though none so dramatic. In the years after the war, precision-guided weapons slowly came to predominate in modern arsenals. The United States used no fewer than 24,000 laser-guided bombs during the Vietnam War, and some 17,000 of them during the 1991 Gulf War. These weapons have improved considerably, and in the 35 years since, 'routine precision,' as some have called it, has enormously improved the ability of airplanes to hit hard, buried targets. Specially designed ordnance has also seen tremendous advances. In World War II, the British developed the six-ton Tallboy bomb to use against special targets, including the concrete submarine pens of occupied France in which German U-boats hid. The Tallboys cracked some of the concrete but did not destroy any, in part because these were 'dumb bombs' lacking precision guidance, and in part because the art of hardening warheads was in its infancy. In the first Gulf War, the United States hastily developed a deep-penetrating, bunker-busting bomb, the GBU-28, which weighed 5,000 pounds, but only two were used, to uncertain effect. In the years since, however, the U.S. and Israeli air forces, among others, have acquired hardened warheads for 2,000-pound bombs such as the BLU-109 that can hit deeply buried targets—which is why, for example, the Israelis were able to kill a lot of Hezbollah's leadership in its supposedly secure bunkers. The aircraft that deliver bombs can affect the explosives' accuracy. Bombs that home in on the reflection of a laser, for example, could become 'stupid' if a cloud passes between plane and the target, or if the laser otherwise loses its lock on the target. Bombs relying on GPS coordinates can in theory be jammed. Airplanes being shot at are usually less effective bomb droppers than those that are not, because evasive maneuvers can prevent accurate delivery. The really complicated question is that of effects. Vietnam-era guided bombs, for example, could and did drop bridges in North Vietnam. In many cases, however, Vietnamese engineers countered by building 'underwater bridges' that allowed trucks to drive across a river while axle-deep in water. The effect was inconvenience, not interdiction. Conversely, in the first Gulf War, the U.S. and its allies spent a month pounding Iraqi forces dug in along the Kuwait border, chiefly with dumb bombs delivered by 'smart aircraft' such as the F-16. In theory, the accuracy of the bombing computer on the airplane would allow it to deliver unguided ordnance with accuracy comparable to that of a laser-guided bomb. In practice, ground fire and delivery from high altitudes often caused pilots to miss. When teams began looking at Iraqi tanks in the area overrun by U.S. forces, they found that many of the tanks were, in fact, undamaged. But that was only half of the story. Iraqi tank crews were so sufficiently terrified of American air power that they stayed some distance away from their tanks, and tanks immobilized and unmaintained for a month, or bounced around by near-misses, do not work terribly well. The functional and indirect effects of the bombing, in other words, were much greater than the disappointing physical effects. Many of the critiques of bombing neglect the importance of this phenomenon. The pounding of German cities and industry during World War II, for example, did not bring war production to a halt until the last months, but the indirect and functional effects were enormous. The diversion of German resources into air-defense and revenge weapons, and the destruction of the Luftwaffe's fighter force over the Third Reich, played a very great role in paving the way to Allied victory. At a microlevel, BDA can be perplexing. In 1991, for example, a bomb hole in an Iraqi hardened-aircraft shelter told analysts only so much. Did the bomb go through the multiple layers of concrete and rock fill, or did it 'J-hook'back upward and possibly fail to explode? Was there something in the shelter when it hit, and what damage did it do? Did the Iraqis perhaps move airplanes into penetrated shelters on the theory that lightning would not strike twice? All hard (though not entirely impossible) to judge without being on the ground. To the present moment: BDA takes a long time, so the leaked DIA memo of June 24 was based on preliminary and incomplete data. The study I headed was still working on BDA a year after the war ended. Results may be quicker now, but all kinds of information need to be integrated—imagery analysis, intercepted communications, measurement and signature intelligence (e.g., subsidence of earth above a collapsed structure), and of course human intelligence, among others. Any expert (and any journalist who bothered to consult one) would know that two days was a radically inadequate time frame in which to form a considered judgment. The DIA report was, from a practical point of view, worthless. An educated guess, however, would suggest that in fact the U.S. military's judgment that the Iranian nuclear problem had suffered severe damage was correct. The American bombing was the culmination of a 12-day campaign launched by the Israelis, which hit many nuclear facilities and assassinated at least 14 nuclear scientists. The real issue is not the single American strike so much as the cumulative effect against the entire nuclear ecosystem, including machining, testing, and design facilities. The platforms delivering the munitions in the American attack had ideal conditions in which to operate—there was no Iranian air force to come up and attack the B-2s that they may not even have detected, nor was there ground fire to speak of. The planes were the most sophisticated platforms of the most sophisticated air force in the world. The bombs themselves, particularly the 14 GBU-57s, were gigantic—at 15 tons more than double the size of Tallboys—with exquisite guidance and hardened penetrating warheads. The targets were all fully understood from more than a decade of close scrutiny by Israeli and American intelligence, and probably that of other Western countries as well. In the absence of full information, cumulative expert judgment also deserves some consideration—and external experts such as David Albright, the founder of the Institute for Science and International Security, have concluded that the damage was indeed massive and lasting. Israeli analysts, in and out of government, appear to agree. They are more likely to know, and more likely to be cautious in declaring success about what is, after all, an existential threat to their country. For that matter, the Iranian foreign minister concedes that 'serious damage' was done. One has to set aside the sycophantic braggadocio of Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who seems to believe that one unopposed bombing raid is a military achievement on par with D-Day, or the exuberant use of the word obliteration by the president. A cooler, admittedly provisional judgment is that with all their faults, however, the president and his secretary of defense are likely a lot closer to the mark about what happened when the bombs fell than many of their hasty, and not always well-informed, critics. *Photo-illustration by Jonelle Afurong / The Atlantic. Source: Alberto Pizzoli / Sygma / Getty; MIKE NELSON / AFP / Getty; Greg Mathieson / Mai / Getty; Space Frontiers / Archive Photos / Hulton Archive / Getty; U.S. Department of Defense