During the most intense days of the Israel-Iran conflict, I happened to be in Russia attending the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum. The forum’s agenda was designed long before and didn’t cover this conflict. But suddenly, the Iran-Israel conflict became a hot topic. On June 20th, Russian President Putin gave a speech focusing mainly on Russia’s domestic economy. Afterwards, the moderator interacted with President Putin, and many questions concerned this conflict. The moderator asked bold questions, and Putin gave candid answers, providing insights that Chinese audiences might not be fully aware of. The moderator’s first question was: Our forum’s theme is “Shared Values: The Foundation of a Multipolar World.” Yet one country [Israel] openly declares it wants to “eliminate” the top leader of another country [Iran] and insists on setting that country’s uranium enrichment standards. The moderator asked President Putin: This “new value” is clearly not Russia’s, not China’s, not the “Global South’s.” Does it make you uncomfortable? Putin answered candidly: “What’s new about that?” Putin clearly understands the real world hasn’t escaped the law of the jungle. Russia’s consistent position is that every country has the right to defend its security, but not at the expense of another country’s security.
The moderator then asked Putin about the conflict in the Middle East, which involves geopolitics, energy security, and more- a test for both the Global South and Russia. Is it possible for Russia to find a political solution acceptable to both Iran and Israel? Putin said it is possible, noting that many countries in the region maintain stable, albeit complex, relations with both Iran and Israel. Russia believes Iran has the right to peaceful nuclear energy, including uranium enrichment, while also understanding Israel’s security concerns. He believes a political solution reconciling these two positions is possible. When pressed on how far we are from such a solution, Putin said Russia maintains contact with all parties, offering suggestions. He had spoken with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, Iranian leaders, and U.S. President Trump. However, he clarified, “Russia isn’t a mediator; we only offer suggestions. We’ve discussed with all sides, and I personally believe it would be better if these could be implemented.
The moderator then posed a sharp question to Putin: Many see Iran as Russia’s friend, even ally. But Russia didn’t seem to stand up for Iran this time. Some media even claim the Israel-Iran conflict benefits Russia by raising oil prices, distracting the West, and diverting attention from Ukraine. Some infer Russia isn’t a reliable ally. How do you respond? Putin replied: Those saying this and those who instigated this conflict are probably the same group, but they won’t achieve their goals. Countries are responsible for their own security. As allies, we have always supported each other. Superficially, all conflicts seem similar, but each has its own characteristics. Today, out of Israel’s 10 million people, over 2 million are from the former Soviet Union and Russian Federation. Russian is almost spoken everywhere in Israel– that’s something we consider. Similarly, we maintain traditionally friendly relations with Arab countries. 15% of Russia’s population is Muslim, and Russia is now an observer in the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation.
We support Iran in safeguarding its legitimate rights and fulfill our obligations. We support Iran’s peaceful nuclear program. We’ve already built one nuclear reactor in Bushehr and signed contracts for two more, though we face difficulties and risks now. Our personnel are still working there. I didn’t withdraw them. I spoke with Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Trump; they both promised not to harm our people. Isn’t that support for Iran? It’s direct support. Some say we should do more, even take military action. But we have already launched military operation against those who oppose our ideas and threaten our security. Those people mostly belong to the same group that instigated this conflict, but they hide behind the scenes. We’ve done all this; what more should we do? We also support Iran at the UN.”
The moderator then asked Putin: Many are talking about the possibility of World War III. Are you worried? Putin said: This is no joke. Besides the Ukraine conflict, we now have this conflict in the Middle East. An attack on nuclear facilities could cause a major crisis. So we must seek political solutions to crises. That’s one main reason I came to this forum.”
Looking back at this intense 12-day conflict, it didn’t align with many initial predictions. Israel’s surprise attack gave it an early advantage, but Iran showed remarkable resilience, especially as Israel’s “Iron Dome” and other defenses struggled under Iran’s saturated and hybrid attacks. Iranian missiles began hitting Israeli city centers, research institutes, ports, field hospitals, and refineries, forcing Israel to seek a way out and consider a ceasefire. Many Israelis once thought Gaza-like destruction only happened to others, but now they’re experiencing the devastation of war. Compared to Iran, Israel lacks strategic depth. Its controlled territory is about 25,000 square kilometers—roughly two Tianjin cities combined—while Iran is 66 times larger. Israel hoped for a quick victory, but the conflict was quickly turning into what Israel dreaded most: a war of attrition.
However, Iran exposed serious weaknesses, particularly its near-nonexistent air defense, and the drastic extent to which Mossad has infiltrated Iran. So many Iranian officials, senior officers, and nuclear scientists were assassinated by Israel. Yet, Mossad’s failure to gauge the resilience of Iran’s missile forces was a misstep. Ultimately, the U.S. sent seven B-2 bombers halfway around the world to strike three Iranian nuclear facilities before quickly withdrawing. Trump claimed total obliteration of Iran’s nuclear facilities, but Pentagon and the intelligence community was more reserved, suggesting the strikes didn’t substantially impair Iran’s nuclear program. Assessing the U.S. bombing’s impact has become highly politicized in the U.S..
Trump sought face-saving, unwilling to entangle the U.S. in another Middle East quagmire. He repeatedly said during his campaign that U.S. wars in the Middle East were pointless, bankrupting the country. Trump wants to focus on domestic issues and maintain U.S. hegemony at low cost. So, he dropped bombs, declared victory, and admitted communicating with Iran before and after, executing what’s been called a performative strike. According to Trump, Iran also launched a performative attack on the largest U.S. military base in the Middle East.
The U.S. openly bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities sparked international uproar. At a UN Security Council emergency meeting on June 22, China, Russia, and others strongly condemned the U.S. action. China’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Fu Cong, denounced the attack on nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards, calling it a grave violation of the UN Charter, international law, Iran’s sovereignty, and territorial integrity, escalating Middle East tensions and undermining the global non-proliferation system. Russia’s UN representative, Vasily Nebenzya, said the U.S. opened Pandora’s box, recalling 2003 when U.S. Secretary of State Powell justified invading another sovereign nation, leading to years of chaos without finding weapons of mass destruction. The current situation mirrors that, creating pretexts to inflict suffering on Middle Eastern peoples.
Let’s briefly review the Iran nuclear issue’s history. After long, arduous negotiations, Iran signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in July 2015, binding the UN Security Council’s five permanent members, Germany, the EU, and Iran. IAEA inspections confirmed Iran’s compliance until 2018, when Trump, in his first term, unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA and reimposed sanctions. This highlights flaws in the U.S. political system—new administrations disregarding past agreements, showing little regard for contracts or national credibility. Iran hoped Europe could offset the U.S. decision’s impact but, finding Europe ineffective, announced in 2019 it would no longer adhere to the JCPOA and resumed uranium enrichment. In short, the U.S.’s unilateral withdrawal triggered the subsequent events.
As recently as March this year, the U.S. Director of National Intelligence testified to Congress that Iran wasn’t developing nuclear weapons. Since April, Iran had been negotiating with the Trump administration until the conflict erupted. Notably, Israel is the only Middle Eastern country not part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and its possession of nuclear weapons is an open secret. For 30 years, Israel, led by far-right figures like Netanyahu who favor force, has claimed Iran is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons, fabricating pretexts for military action. The U.S.’s indulgence of Netanyahu will only prolong regional turmoil.
This conflict also shows Israel can no longer rely on a blank check from a financially strained U.S., which lacks the resources to unconditionally support Israel. An unstable Middle East disrupts global peace. On June 19, President Xi Jinping spoke with Putin, emphasizing the need to stay committed to a political resolution of the Iran nuclear issue through dialogue and negotiations to restore peace. This recalls an online saying: “The world is in tatters, but China is trying to piece everything together.” We’re truly fortunate to live in a peaceful, secure, just, and prosperous nation.
Editor: Zhiyu Wang
