What Happens To Russia If Iran Weakens? Putin's Dilemma In West Asia
New Delhi: As fighting between Israel and Iran intensifies, questions are being raised over what a weakened Iran might mean for Russia – both strategically and geopolitically. With Iran under direct military assault from Israel and facing increasing international isolation, many analysts believe that a shift in power dynamics could leave Russia more vulnerable in West Asia – a region where it has long struggled to maintain influence.
The backdrop to this concern lies in the end of 2024, when Syria's President Bashar al-Assad was forced to step down and seek refuge in Moscow. Assad had been a key ally for Russia in West Asia for over a decade. His departure not only marked the collapse of one of Russia's closest partnerships in the region but also raised concerns over the future of Russian influence, particularly in the face of growing Israeli-American alignment.
Now, with Iran facing sustained Israeli attacks and no direct military support from Moscow, some observers are asking, 'Why is Russia staying on the sidelines?'
Russia officially has taken a cautious and neutral stance. President Vladimir Putin condemned Israel's strikes on Iran but also urged diplomacy when speaking to both Israeli and Iranian leaders shortly after the conflict erupted on June 13. According to Kremlin readouts, Putin emphasised that the Iranian nuclear issue must be resolved through dialogue, not force.
Putin later told the UAE's President Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan that Russia was willing to mediate between the warring sides. While these efforts suggest Russia wants to be seen as a peacemaker, its lack of concrete support for Iran has raised eyebrows – especially since Tehran is considered a strategic partner in Moscow's broader regional ambitions.
Analysts said the answer lies in Moscow's own limitations. Russia is deeply entangled in the Ukraine conflict and cannot afford to open another front. It also does not want to push the United States into taking a harder line.
They pointed out that if Russia were not bogged down in Ukraine, it might have taken a stronger stand with Iran. But the situation today is reversed. Iran, which previously supplied drones to Russia, is now the one in need of weapons. Moscow is unlikely to supply advanced military aid when it is struggling to replenish its own stockpiles.
In addition, backchannel negotiations between Putin and U.S. President Donald Trump may also be shaping Russia's muted response. 'Russia is trying to preserve its ability to talk to Washington. Openly siding with Iran could shut that door,' they explained.
A Strategic, Economic Risk for Moscow
Despite its neutral posture, Russia has a lot to lose if Iran falls. If Iran is weakened, the experts warned, the United States and Israel could consolidate their dominance over West Asia. 'That is not a scenario Russia, China, Turkey or many Islamic nations would be comfortable with,' they argued.
Iran's loss could mark the end of multipolar influence in West Asia. Moscow has already lost Assad in Syria. If Iran's government were to collapse under military pressure, Russia would lose another key regional ally. The prospect raises further complications for the balance of power in the Middle East and for Russia's long-term ambitions in the region.
There are, however, some potential benefits. A prolonged conflict in West Asia could spike global oil prices, giving a boost to Russian revenues. Still, economic gain cannot compensate for the loss of strategic depth in the Middle East.
Moscow is also reportedly trying to position itself as a potential peacemaker in the region, but Trump's recent comments suggest the United States may be uninterested in any diplomatic role for Russia.
'Trump's strategy appears to be one of maximum pressure. That leaves little room for Russia to mediate,' said the analysts.
The Limitations of BRICS and SCO
Iran is a member of both the BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), but these groupings have remained silent. The observers say that is because these are economic and political alliances, not military ones. 'These platforms are not designed to provide collective security. Also, many of their members, like India and China, do not want to antagonize the West,' they said.
Countries like China and Russia are also wary of U.S. secondary sanctions. If Washington imposes punitive measures, it could hurt their economies and force them to rethink how far they can go in supporting Iran.
The analysts have warned that a defeat for Iran would tip the scales further in Israel's favour. They highlighted that with Assad gone, Hamas and Hezbollah weakened and Gaza devastated, Iran is the last significant counterweight to Israeli power in the region. If Iran is neutralised, Russia's remaining influence in West Asia could collapse. China, too, would become more reliant on pro-U.S. Gulf states for energy.
This would also deal a blow to the idea of a 'multipolar world', an idea frequently promoted by Russia, China and India. A unipolar dominance led by the United States could again become the defining feature of global geopolitics.
However, the observers add a note of caution – 'Even if Iran falls, it does not guarantee U.S. victory. Look at Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria – Western interventions often produce instability, not resolution.'
The fear is that Iran's defeat could trigger a repeat of the cycle – regime change, refugee crises, rising extremism and a prolonged state of chaos.
Russia's silence may be a tactical choice, but it could come at a significant strategic cost.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Iran Israel latest: When will Donald Trump decide whether to strike Islamic Republic in middle-east? White House reveals timeline
It remained unclear whether US President Donald Trump would task American forces to join Israel's sweeping campaign against Iran's military and nuclear program. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads FAQs Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads President Donald Trump will decide within the next two weeks whether to strike Iran, the White House said on Thursday, saying Trump still sees a 'substantial' chance that negotiations can achieve the US and Israeli demands on Iran's nuclear program. Trump's announcement, relayed by press secretary Karoline Leavitt, puts an extended timeline on the president's warnings to Iran to immediately shut down its enrichment operations and any other potential for producing nuclear weapons, as per AP report.'Based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future. I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks,' Leavitt quoted Trump as saying, AP it remained unclear whether US President Donald Trump would task American forces to join Israel's sweeping campaign against Iran's military and nuclear program, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he trusted that Trump would 'do what's best for America.'US officials said earlier this week that Trump had vetoed an Israeli plan to kill Iran Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Trump later said there were no plans to kill him, 'at least not for now.'The US has been weighing whether to join Israel's attack by striking Iran's well-defended Fordo uranium enrichment facility, which is buried under a mountain and widely considered to be out of reach of all but America's 'bunker-buster' has said he wants something 'much bigger' than a ceasefire and has not ruled out the U.S. joining in Israel's conflict began last Friday with a surprise wave of Israeli airstrikes targeting nuclear and military sites, senior officers and nuclear scientists. At least 639 people, including 263 civilians, have been killed in Iran and more than 1,300 wounded, according to a Washington-based Iranian human rights has retaliated by firing hundreds of missiles and drones, killing at least 24 people in Israel and wounding 240 has long maintained its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. However, in addition to having a nuclear power plant, it also enriches uranium up to 60 per cent, a short, technical step away from weapons-grade levels of 90 per cent. Iran is the only non-nuclear-weapon state to enrich at that level, AP is widely believed to have nuclear weapons — making it the only such state in the Middle East — but does not acknowledge having such arms, as per the AP report.A1. Iran has uranium enrichment site at Natanz, centrifuge workshops around Tehran, and a nuclear site in Isfahan. Fordow is the deepest nuclear facility. (90 meter). Arak heavy water reactor, some 250 kilometers (155 miles) southwest of Tehran, was reportedly used to produce plutonium.A2. Israel is widely believed to have nuclear weapons — making it the only such state in the Middle East — but does not acknowledge having such arms, as per the AP report.
Economic Times
an hour ago
- Economic Times
Iran Israel latest: When will Donald Trump decide whether to strike Islamic Republic in middle-east? White House reveals timeline
It remained unclear whether US President Donald Trump would task American forces to join Israel's sweeping campaign against Iran's military and nuclear program. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads FAQs Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads President Donald Trump will decide within the next two weeks whether to strike Iran, the White House said on Thursday, saying Trump still sees a 'substantial' chance that negotiations can achieve the US and Israeli demands on Iran's nuclear program. Trump's announcement, relayed by press secretary Karoline Leavitt, puts an extended timeline on the president's warnings to Iran to immediately shut down its enrichment operations and any other potential for producing nuclear weapons, as per AP report.'Based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future. I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks,' Leavitt quoted Trump as saying, AP it remained unclear whether US President Donald Trump would task American forces to join Israel's sweeping campaign against Iran's military and nuclear program, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he trusted that Trump would 'do what's best for America.'US officials said earlier this week that Trump had vetoed an Israeli plan to kill Iran Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Trump later said there were no plans to kill him, 'at least not for now.'The US has been weighing whether to join Israel's attack by striking Iran's well-defended Fordo uranium enrichment facility, which is buried under a mountain and widely considered to be out of reach of all but America's 'bunker-buster' has said he wants something 'much bigger' than a ceasefire and has not ruled out the U.S. joining in Israel's conflict began last Friday with a surprise wave of Israeli airstrikes targeting nuclear and military sites, senior officers and nuclear scientists. At least 639 people, including 263 civilians, have been killed in Iran and more than 1,300 wounded, according to a Washington-based Iranian human rights has retaliated by firing hundreds of missiles and drones, killing at least 24 people in Israel and wounding 240 has long maintained its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. However, in addition to having a nuclear power plant, it also enriches uranium up to 60 per cent, a short, technical step away from weapons-grade levels of 90 per cent. Iran is the only non-nuclear-weapon state to enrich at that level, AP is widely believed to have nuclear weapons — making it the only such state in the Middle East — but does not acknowledge having such arms, as per the AP report.A1. Iran has uranium enrichment site at Natanz, centrifuge workshops around Tehran, and a nuclear site in Isfahan. Fordow is the deepest nuclear facility. (90 meter). Arak heavy water reactor, some 250 kilometers (155 miles) southwest of Tehran, was reportedly used to produce plutonium.A2. Israel is widely believed to have nuclear weapons — making it the only such state in the Middle East — but does not acknowledge having such arms, as per the AP report.
India.com
an hour ago
- India.com
Can Trump Go To War With Iran? The 50-Year-Old Law That Few Presidents Fear
Washington/New Delhi: When President Donald Trump was asked on the White House lawn whether the United States might join Israel in its war with Iran, he gave a vague, provocative and open-ended reply in his signature style. 'I may do it. I may not,' he shrugged. The words were casual and almost dismissive. But they carried the weight of a nation. With every passing hour, the possibility of American boots stepping into a new Middle Eastern firestorm seems less hypothetical. His administration, too, has made its stance clear. 'He (Trump) is the one making the decisions. What comes next is his call,' said State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce. But not everyone agrees that war should hinge on one man's instinct. Some lawmakers and peace advocates are once again invoking a nearly forgotten piece of legislation that was supposed to stop presidents from doing exactly this. It is called the War Powers Act, which was passed in 1973. It was meant to rein in the president's power to send soldiers into foreign battles without Congress's approval. Whether it still has any real teeth, though, is up for debate. A Promise Made After a Bloody Past The War Powers Resolution was born from the trauma of Vietnam – a war launched with no formal declaration, prolonged through executive decisions and paid for with tens of thousands of American lives. When it finally passed, over President Nixon's veto, the Congress was trying to reclaim some control over the blood and money being spent without their consent. The law says the president must inform the Congress within 48 hours of any military action. It also sets a 60-to-90-day limit unless lawmakers approve an extension. The idea was to stop secret wars and endless deployments without public scrutiny. But that is not how things unfolded. The last time the Congress formally declared war was 1942. Since then, U.S. presidents have sent troops to Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and dozens of other countries – sometimes for full-scale invasions, other times for airstrikes or covert missions. Instead of declarations of war, the Congress started using something called an Authorisation for Use of Military Force (AUMF). After 9/11, one such authorisation gave President George W. Bush sweeping powers to pursue terrorists across the globe. Another, in 2002, authorised military action against Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Those authorisations are still being used today. Trump cited the 2002 AUMF to justify the assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in 2020. That strike nearly brought the United States and Iran to the brink of war without the Congress ever voting on it. The Constitution says the Congress has the power. So what happened? Technically, the U.S. Constitution gives the Congress the authority to declare war. But over the decades, that power has been slowly swallowed by the executive branch. The president is the commander-in-chief. That title, often interpreted loosely, has become a tool to bypass Capitol Hill. Even when lawmakers try to reassert themselves, they run into brick walls. In 2019, the Congress voted to end U.S. support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen. Trump vetoed it. In 2020, after the Soleimani strike, both the House and Senate passed a resolution to limit the president's ability to strike Iran. Trump vetoed that too. The Congress did not have the votes to override him. What Happens Now? As tensions rise again, with Israel bombing Iranian sites and Iran responding in kind, some lawmakers are trying to stop a wider war before it starts. Senator Tim Kaine has introduced legislation requiring Trump to seek congressional approval before launching strikes on Iran. Congressman Ro Khanna and Senator Bernie Sanders are backing similar bills. But with both chambers now under the Republican control, the chances of these bills surviving a veto are slim. The real test is not legal. It is political. Do lawmakers have the courage and the numbers to pull the brakes on a president ready to act unilaterally? The War Powers Act matters; but in practice, it rarely stops anything. More than 100 times since 1973, presidents have reported military action to the Congress under the law. But very few of those actions were ever challenged or reversed. Critics say the law is toothless and more of a formality than a firewall. Even former President Joe Biden, who once criticised its limits as a senator, has sidestepped the War Powers Act in recent years. Regardless of who is in charge, the White House tends to argue that 'emergency' powers and AUMFs are enough. As war brews once more in the Middle East, the stakes are no longer hypothetical. Americans could again be drawn into a conflict that starts with one missile but escalates quickly beyond control. The War Powers Act was written to stop exactly that. Whether it can still do the job or whether Trump will ignore it like so many presidents before him remains an open question. But if history offers any warning, it is this – once the war begins, the Congress may be the last to find out, and the people the last to understand why.
