By [Your Name] | June 2025
As tensions between Iran and the US increase amid Israel’s hostilities, China and Russia reportedly see former President Donald Trump’s potential intervention as a geopolitical opportunity. Analysts suggest this might include supporting his involvement in another prolonged regional conflict if doing so will stretch US resources further and shift global power balances in favor of them.
Russia’s Calculated Position
Vladimir Putin and his ministers have strongly denounced Israel’s strikes in Iran, warning of their potential destabilizing effects and leading to nuclear catastrophe. Reuter’s and Time.com provide three different versions. For both stories click here
However, Russia seems to see opportunities behind their rhetoric:
Sergei Ryabkov, Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister has warned of US involvement as having the potential to destabilize the Middle East significantly and may contribute to further instability within it (reuters.com/+1/2030887) – see here (reuters/+1/203896 for full text).
Dmitry Peskov, Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov has consistently rejected any attempts at regime change in Iran, reflecting Moscow’s desire to keep Iran as an ally and maintain bilateral trade relationships with them. Wirtschaftstimes.com
Washingtonpost.com
Washingtonpost.com Plus 13
Analysts emphasize Russia’s dependence on Iranian support in Syria and Ukraine engagements, and worry that Iran’s instability would erode Moscow’s strategic foothold.
Russia uses diplomatic outrage as a political strategy while positioning itself to benefit from US entanglements with Iran and a diminished Middle Eastern presence, thus maintaining its leverage over global energy prices and Middle Eastern influence.
China Provides Subtle Encouragement
China has publicly condemned military intervention against Iran and called for political solutions; yet their tone suggests an implicit support of military involvement by the US should Trump pursue military options against Tehran.
China’s President Xi Jinping and Foreign Minister Wang Yi have condemned Israel’s strikes against Iran as violations of international law (AtlanticCouncil.org +1; Ca.Finance.Yahoo +1); Reuter’s (Two); Foreign Policy Magazine (2+2) etc.
Foreign Policy reports that China is providing Tehran with both diplomatic and economic support, as well as quietly backing indirect consequences of US engagement (foreignpolicy.com).
Beijing wants Washington to “rein in Israel and resume talks with Iran”, signalling its concern that an American-led military engagement may open the way for China to exert more diplomatic leverage, according to AtlanticCouncil.org.
As with Russia, Beijing also views a protracted US distraction as being beneficial in terms of energy security, weakening US influence, and strengthening their multipolar vision.
Analysts Have Cited “Another Long War,” as A US Strategic Dilemma Some analysts have drawn comparisons between Trump’s possible intervention in Iran and Afghanistan/Iraq-style “forever wars,” suggesting Washington risks becoming embroiled again in prolonged Middle Eastern conflict – something both Republican and Democratic administrations have done previously. This scenario matches up well with past patterns under both administrations.
An American military operation against Iran would spread US resources across multiple theaters (Middle East, Taiwan Strait and Ukraine) simultaneously and require complex prioritization and resource distribution to address. (Vox.com +15 and Time +15 are used here as references.
Both Russia and China, aware of these stresses, could indirectly gain while purchasing time to pursue alternative global agendas.
Pres. Trump to Make Decision Soon President Trump is expected to make his decision within two weeks as to whether the US should support Israel with strikes against Iranian sites — possibly including nuclear facilities — or pursue diplomacy dependent upon Tehran’s nuclear commitments, according to Barron’s.com.
Donald Trump’s team reportedly is divided: those advocating military support maintain it would halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions while others caution of potential military quagmire and geopolitical blowback.
Global Stakes and Strategic Chessboard
Should the United States pursue military action, China and Russia stand to benefit in multiple ways: distracting Washington, tarnishing its global authority, and speeding the shift toward multipolarism. America’s “long war” could act as the catalyst for Beijing and Moscow to realize their strategic objectives.
However, both China and Russia advocate publicly for de-escalation and political settlement of conflicts. Their criticism of military intervention may reflect genuine worry–or could simply be used as a strategy to control narrative while secretly planning long-term gains.
What Are Our Options Now? With President Trump’s decision window set to close by the early July, world leaders and markets alike are bracing themselves. Should the US move toward military engagement, expect:
An unexpected surge in global oil prices and defense stocks.
Russia and China are increasingly aligned with Iran, crafting counternarratives or economic/energy shifts as counterpoints.
Rising likelihood of a broad, multifront confrontation among US, regional and global powers.
Geopolitically speaking, Middle East politics could become an essential piece in an ever-evolving chess game–not simply due to their regional significance but because it could determine the balance of power between the US and its formidable adversaries.