Donald Trump's gamble in Iran is bad news for the ‘Axis of Autocracies'

Independent

3 hours ago

When the Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi arrived in Moscow to coordinate Tehran's response to the massive US strikes on nuclear facilities, he met not with his opposite number Sergei Lavrov, but Vladimir Putin himself. That, in itself, speaks volumes about how wide-ranging the repercussions of Donald Trump's military intervention might be.
The dramatic escalation and direct involvement of America in Iran, coupled with the ongoing conflict between Iran and Israel, and Trump talking openly of regime change, puts the Russian leader in a difficult position. He was compelled to condemn the US bombing raid, as his own ordnance was falling on civilian targets in Ukraine. Whatever requests Araghchi makes of Moscow, it will have multiple competing interests and moves to consider before committing to anything beyond rhetoric.
Tehran and Moscow have what might be best described as an asymmetrical relationship. Ever since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Iran has been a critical friend. Much of Putin's early success in the three-year conflict was down to Iran providing Russia with cheap weapons, including thousands of Shahed drones, which were critical in its airstrikes on Ukraine. Sources in Kyiv are cautiously optimistic that Iran may cease sending weapons to Russia, as they may be needed in its fight against Israel. It could mean North Korea is leaned on to supply even more manpower and missiles, strengthening Putin's dependence on Pyongyang.
While Putin has publicly condemned the US and Israeli strikes on Iran, he knows better than almost any other world leader that talk is cheap. He has sat and listened to virtually every Western nation condemn his war on Ukraine for over three years. Without hard power to back up the words, Putin has been free to carry on with his assault on a sovereign nation.
It is probably fair to assume that the Kremlin is currently in something of a holding pattern, while it watches how things develop between the US and Iran.
A Western security official told me this morning that, while they expected no tangible or direct Russian support for Iran any time soon, they also feared that the Trump administration lacked 'the diplomatic follow-up that could actually make the strikes a long-term success'.
Naturally, there are multiple ways the coming days could play out, ranging from full-throated American support for immediate regime change to a sudden, shock diplomatic breakthrough that ends fighting and sees an agreement on Iran's nuclear programme.
More likely, my security source says, is that it will fall somewhere in the middle, where fighting continues and Trump's levels of interest become the determining factor in how long this all drags out. That's where things get complicated.
Much has been made of the new Axis of Autocracies: Iran, Russia, China and North Korea. Diplomats and intelligence officials have repeatedly described this as a marriage of convenience, rather than a traditional alliance.
While it's true that there is no single unifying ideology between these four other than a hatred of the US-led world order, that has been enough for them to aid one another in their geopolitical disputes, whether that's through economic support, direct military support, or, in the case of North Korea, sending troops to fight for Russia.
It might be that we live in an age where traditional alliances of shared values and ideologies – especially ones led by a disruptor like Trump – are less stable than a collection of self-interested autocrats who simply have a common enemy.
China and Russia will almost certainly want the situation in Iran to stabilise as soon as possible. Their sense of self-preservation and aversion to public discussions of regime change will take precedence over any desire to help a friend in need.
This might be why the US has called on China, which imports more oil from Iran than any other nation, to pressure Iran to keep open the Strait of Hormuz, a critical shipping route, to avoid a global economic crisis. America likely assumes that, for the time being, stability and the ability to leverage power matters more to China than supporting Iran.
But the muddier it all becomes, that calculation might change. If Trump doesn't have the diplomatic nous to capitalise on his airstrikes, his historic behaviour suggests there is every chance his Maga instincts will see him withdraw and leave others to clear up after him. It could be that Iran, Russia, China and North Korea are more than happy to mop up the mess and twist world events to their own advantage.