Iran Conflict Creates Complex Dynamics for Moscow Amidst Ukraine War

The US and Israeli strikes against Iran, coupled with the assassination of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, have created some unease in Moscow. According to some radical Russian commentators, Russia, despite possessing vast nuclear weapons, could face a similar attack. They cite the careless statements by key Western officials regarding the possibility of war with Russia in the near future as evidence of this.

Nevertheless, the attack on Iran is a matter of concern for Moscow. Moscow also views it as a validation of its own geopolitical strategy, including its aggression against Ukraine. It reinforces the Kremlin's long-held view of the US-led West as an 'anarchic and irrational actor.'

For Russian President Vladimir Putin, the war against Iran is possibly an echo of the 2011 events in Libya, which significantly influenced his perception of security threats. That year, a NATO-led military intervention ousted Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.

NATO's attack in Libya was facilitated by Putin's confidant and then-President Dmitry Medvedev, who approved Russia's abstention during the United Nations Security Council vote. This event was one of the factors that compelled Putin to decide to return as President.

In October 2011, a month after Putin accepted the nomination for the next presidential election, Gaddafi was brutally killed by rebels. The video of his death went viral on the internet. The end of his regime, celebrated by Western leaders at the time, brought neither democracy nor prosperity to Libya. Instead, it plunged the country into civil war and division.

For Putin, this was a clear signal of what could happen to him personally and to the future of Russia as a whole if he tolerated the neoliberal democratization campaign led by an increasingly reckless and overconfident West. In December of that year, pro-Western urbanites protested in Moscow against alleged rigging in the parliamentary elections. This was another warning sign for the Kremlin.

Putin waited a few months and decisively suppressed those protests on the eve of his inauguration in May 2012. This marked a significant turning point in Russia's domestic and foreign policy, leading Russia to intervene in Ukraine less than two years later.

Watching the dramatic events unfolding in Iran now, Putin might feel that his actions in Ukraine were justified. He might also be thankful to his Soviet predecessors who built the world's largest nuclear arsenal, which ensures Russia's true sovereignty and the invulnerability of his personal rule.

Despite waging a brutal war against its closest neighbor in Europe, Putin still considers himself the guardian of the post-World War II world order. In his view, the end of this order is due to the US-led West being overly confident, unbearably arrogant, and reckless.

The roots of the idea of a full-scale invasion of Ukraine lie in the Soviet doctrine of the 1930s, which spoke of 'carrying the war into enemy territory.' After NATO decided to grant membership to Ukraine and Georgia in 2007, those countries became 'enemy territory.' This concept was successfully tested for the first time during the short war in Georgia in 2008.

The Kremlin portrays the 2014 invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent 2022 invasion as defensive measures to prevent military intervention, similar to what Iraq, Libya, and Syria experienced, and what Iran is currently facing.

By making Ukraine the decisive battlefield in its conflict with the West, the Kremlin has succeeded in shielding Russia's vast population from the direct impact of the war. Russian society has been successfully convinced that this war was inevitable.

Despite the historically difficult relationship between Russia and Iran, Iran emerged as an unexpected ally for Russia in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. In the early days of Russia's full-scale invasion, when many in the West believed Turkish drones would give Ukraine a technological edge, Iran provided crucial drone technology. This cooperation was not merely selfless friendship—Tehran was paid billions of dollars, which supported its struggling economy.

However, the Russo-Iranian relationship is currently not strong enough for Moscow to intervene on Iran's behalf. Moreover, the Kremlin has an unstated 'non-aggression pact' with Israel. Israel has consistently refused to supply significant weapon systems to Ukraine or join anti-Russian sanctions. Since Israel does not enforce Western sanctions, it has become a safe haven for Russian oligarchs who historically had close ties with Israel.

Another reason for Russia's neutrality is the almost neutral stance of US President Donald Trump regarding the Russia-Ukraine conflict and his efforts to end it at the negotiating table. Moscow does not want to give European leaders a chance to spoil their relationship with the Trump administration and prolong the war.

Even if the Russian regime genuinely wished to support the Iranian regime, it has very little capacity to do so. The only way Russia could help Iran is through military technology developed over four years of the Ukraine war. But this could risk relations with Israel and the US, while Iran might not have the money to pay for it.

It is also significant here that the US-Israeli operation against Iran actually benefits Russia in the short term. The conflict has already led to an increase in oil and gas prices, meaning more revenue from energy sales for the Russian treasury. High energy prices could also affect the European Union's capacity to bear the cost of the war, as it is Ukraine's main donor.

Furthermore, a prolonged war in the Middle East will deplete US weapons stockpiles, which would otherwise be available for Ukraine, especially concerning critical air defense missiles. America getting bogged down in the Middle East means Moscow could gain more leverage in negotiations with Ukraine.

Domestically, Putin will also benefit from the scenes of destruction and chaos in Iran. This war, which the US and Israel present as an effort to help the Iranian people build a free and prosperous country, will only increase the 'besieged fortress' mentality among Russians. It will further solidify Putin's position as the protector of the nation, no matter how authoritarian he may be. – Leonid Ragozin