Russia and China's Military Support Complicates U.S. Iran Strategy

The war in Iran has never been a simple bilateral conflict. From its opening days, it has been shadowed by a larger competition—one between Washington and two other great powers, Russia and China, each with their own reasons for wanting to see American plans frustrated. Both Moscow and Beijing possess vast arsenals of military technology, and both have found it strategically useful to send portions of that arsenal to Tehran, even in measured quantities. The effect has been tangible: American military operations have grown more difficult, American and allied casualties have mounted, and the path to concluding the war on terms Washington finds acceptable has narrowed.

Russia and China view Iran as a useful counterweight to what they perceive as American dominance. For Putin, supporting Iran serves multiple purposes at once. He can trade his assistance to Tehran for potential relief from U.S. sanctions and leverage in negotiations over Ukraine. The arrangement repays Iran for an earlier transaction: the Shahed armed drones that Tehran sold to Russia during critical moments in the Ukraine war. Russia has since begun manufacturing these drones domestically, narrowing a technological gap that has long favored Kyiv. For Xi Jinping, aid to Iran provides Beijing with bargaining power in its own standoff with Washington—specifically, leverage to limit American arms shipments to Taiwan. Both powers frame their support through the language of legitimate statecraft. Moscow and Tehran signed a "comprehensive strategic partnership treaty" last year, building on earlier agreements covering trade, military cooperation, and cultural exchange. China and Iran formalized a 25-year cooperation program in 2021, though that accord emphasized economic and energy ties over military ones.

Yet both great powers have shown willingness to calibrate their assistance based on competing interests. Putin, in particular, faces a genuine dilemma: helping Iran too visibly could jeopardize his efforts to secure sanctions relief or favorable terms in Ukraine. Last week, the U.S. and Russia reached an agreement to ease sanctions on diesel fuel exports—a move designed to cool global fuel prices—a reminder of how tightly the Ukraine and Iran conflicts have become intertwined. President Trump, speaking to journalists, acknowledged the bind Moscow and Beijing face, suggesting they "have too much to lose" if they openly backed Tehran. He claimed, without apparent evidence, that if Russia and China were providing material support, it was happening "at a very low level." Both Moscow and Beijing also have reason to protect their economic relationships with the Arab Gulf states, all of which remain aligned with Washington.

Iran, meanwhile, has begun advertising its foreign partnerships as proof against the isolation that American officials claim to have imposed. For years, Iranian leaders denied or downplayed military ties with Russia and China. But as diplomatic prospects have dimmed in recent weeks, outlets connected to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps have openly acknowledged Russian assistance. The message is calculated: Iran is not alone, and it has powerful friends. Iranian officials have also highlighted China's political support and used the American blockade of Iranian ports as a wedge issue, arguing to Beijing that the quarantine restricts Chinese oil supplies and inflates prices. Before the war, China was purchasing nearly all of Iran's crude exports.

Publicly, both Russia and China have adopted a different posture. They downplay their military and political support while positioning themselves as credible mediators capable of ending the conflict. At a BRICS summit in New Delhi in September, Xi told assembled leaders that China was ready to work toward peace in the Middle East. He repeated the offer during later meetings with Trump in Washington. Putin, meeting with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian at a Commonwealth of Independent States summit in Turkmenistan last week, promised to do "everything" Russia could to broker a diplomatic solution. According to Russian media, Putin also argued that Iran was making "real efforts" toward peace and that the war itself was not Iran's fault. No concrete Chinese mediation effort has materialized.

Experts remain divided on how much weight Russian and Chinese assistance actually adds to Iran's defense. Some argue the support is substantial enough to enable Iran to achieve its core objectives: forcing an American withdrawal and deterring future attacks on Iranian territory. Others assess the aid as marginal, easily countered by American technological superiority, and unlikely to prevent Washington from pursuing escalation options that officials are reportedly considering. What is clear is that in specific instances, Russian and Chinese help has demonstrably increased American losses and complicated future escalation scenarios.

Russia has provided Iran with a range of military support, but the most consequential appears to be targeting intelligence. According to Nicole Grajewski of Sciences Po, Russian assistance was "instrumental to at least the early stages" of Iran's campaign, because it "did blind or impair some U.S. capabilities at that time." CNN traced satellite orbital data showing that Russian spy satellites followed specific trajectories to gather information on Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia. That intelligence reportedly enabled Iran to destroy a $500 million AWACS radar platform sitting on the tarmac—a feat that experts told CNN would have been "nearly impossible" without Russia's "vital role" in providing geospatial intelligence.

Last week, Bloomberg reported that Russia is supplying Iran with missiles to replenish its stockpile, giving Tehran the capacity to respond forcefully if Trump follows through on threats to escalate attacks after the midterm elections. The Russian Defense Ministry declined to comment. According to the Financial Times, since 2023 Russia has shared technology helping Iran develop a supersonic cruise missile capable of striking American aircraft carriers and other warships. A successful strike on a U.S. naval vessel would almost certainly trigger major American escalation, particularly if the attack killed large numbers of American personnel.