Kremlins Stumbling Response to the Israel-Iran Conflict: A Reality Check on Its Diminishing Influence

The Kremlin is grappling with its response to the escalating Israel-Iran conflict, having failed to foresee the eruption of hostilities, which has left it unable to support a crucial ally, as reported by four sources from within Russia’s foreign policy community to The Moscow Times.

While maintaining relations with both nations, the Kremlin, preoccupied with its ongoing war in Ukraine, did not anticipate Israel’s audacious and perilous actions—moves that have raised concerns regarding the future of Tehran’s ruling government, according to the sources.

Additionally, it was unexpected that U.S. President Donald Trump, who positions himself as a “peacemaker,” would yield to pressure from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to refrain from intervening.

The Moscow Times sourced opinions from individuals within the Russian government and those close to the Kremlin for this report, with all participants speaking anonymously due to the sensitive nature of the issue.

Israel initiated a series of airstrikes targeting critical infrastructure in its enduring rival, Iran, including anti-missile installations and components related to nuclear production, over claims of Tehran’s efforts to develop a nuclear weapon. This subsequent aerial conflict, now entering its second week, has resulted in hundreds of casualties, including high-ranking members of Iran’s military leadership and innocent civilians.

A retired senior Kremlin official, knowledgeable about Russia’s foreign policy perspectives, remarked, “We had faith in Trump’s unconventional approach and his intent to maintain his image as a facilitator of peace. We believed he might pursue temporary arrangements to allow Iran to maintain a semblance of dignity while not entirely halting uranium enrichment and potentially working to avert an Israeli strike.”

Conversely, a former Russian diplomat expressed dissent, critiquing what he described as the Kremlin’s misjudgment of the regional situation. “Israel has methodically eliminated hostile forces in surrounding countries; the regime in Damascus fell, resulting in Israeli control of the Golan Heights. It was evident that Iran would be next,” he stated.

The Kremlin evaluated Iran’s stability through Trump’s apparent willingness to negotiate and Tehran’s recent adaptability in nuclear discussions, according to a government official acquainted with internal deliberations. “[Iran was] open to discussing a decrease in uranium enrichment, not an outright halt,” he stated.

Analysts from the Valdai Discussion Club, affiliated with the Foreign Ministry, had identified potential risks, including Iran’s withdrawal from international nuclear agreements and the issuance of further sanctions. However, they considered a direct Israeli military strike, much less a change of regime in Iran, to be highly improbable, The Moscow Times reports. “That scenario was deemed to have a very low likelihood,” a senior Valdai official noted.

Instead, events have unfolded in the most dramatic and detrimental manner for both Tehran and Moscow. “Our projections clearly did not materialize. However, the situation might still stabilize,” the retired Kremlin official added.

Although Russia would like to back its beleaguered ally, it currently lacks the influence to act independently, as noted by two sources close to the Kremlin’s foreign policy circle and the Foreign Ministry. “We’ve made significant diplomatic efforts to bring Israel and Iran back to dialogue, but all have been unsuccessful,” a Russian diplomat explained.

Since Israel initiated its military campaign against Iran, Moscow has refrained from urgently urging negotiations. While the Foreign Ministry criticized the offensive in a statement, it did not indicate a willingness to take further action.

Most revealing was President Vladimir Putin’s silence, echoing his restrained response following the abrupt removal of their common ally, Bashar al-Assad, in Syria in December 2024.

Despite having signed a strategic partnership agreement with Iran only two months earlier and Tehran providing drones to Russia during the Ukraine invasion, Putin remained silent for several days.

This reticence persists even as Moscow and Tehran enhance their economic collaboration through initiatives like the North-South Transport Corridor and the construction of a nuclear power plant in Bushehr, with more projects on the horizon.

“If Russia had genuine tools to influence this situation, it would have acted decisively, similar to 2015, when Russian airpower significantly shifted the dynamics of the Syrian conflict and preserved Assad’s regime,” remarked one source.

However, after three and a half years of the Ukraine war and a reduced position in the Middle East, the Kremlin now has fewer resources to fulfill its objectives in the region.

Even the recent strategic partnership with Tehran lacks provisions for military support in the event of an attack on either side. “There’s little reason to anticipate a show of strength from Moscow in favor of Iran,” stated Boris Bondarev, a former diplomat at Russia’s mission to the UN in Geneva.

“Providing military support, such as transferring S-400 systems, would be exceptionally challenging. It remains uncertain how many systems Russia has on hand and whether they can be allocated without jeopardizing its own air defense capabilities, which is already becoming a growing concern,” Bondarev added. “Moreover, there’s no assurance that such systems wouldn’t be intercepted or destroyed.”

Moreover, Russia lacks the diplomatic leverage to act unilaterally. When the Kremlin attempted to position itself as a mediator between Washington and Israel, Trump publicly dismissed Putin’s proposal, advising him to focus on resolving the conflict in Ukraine first.

Moscow also holds minimal influence over Israel, according to a retired senior Kremlin official. The once-strong ties have weakened following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and Israel’s military actions in Gaza in response to the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks. “Relations haven’t been severed, but Israel perceives our position as antagonistic. Netanyahu no longer heeds our president; only Trump can sway him now,” the former official remarked.

Despite its passive approach, the Kremlin is still attempting to influence the conflict’s outcome, with Moscow prioritizing the prevention of direct U.S. involvement. Simultaneously, Moscow is cautiously navigating to avoid alienating Trump, hopeful he will continue to overlook Russia’s aggression in Ukraine.

To achieve this, Russia aims to garner support from major Global South nations like China, Brazil, and India for advocating a peaceful resolution to the nuclear dilemma, as noted by a government official. “We will strive to form a coalition of countries advocating for a peaceful solution. It’s crucial to convince our Gulf partners to encourage restraint from Washington,” the official conveyed to The Moscow Times.

Nevertheless, Russia faces a significant credibility challenge, acknowledged another diplomat. “It will be difficult for us to lead such a coalition while embroiled in our own conflict,” the diplomat stated. “Any partner may justifiably question: If you champion peace and nonviolence, why cannot you settle your conflict in Ukraine diplomatically?”

Some in Moscow, however, perceive the crisis as potentially beneficial to Russian interests, particularly concerning Ukraine. “Ukraine will be among the major casualties along with Iran,” stated Ruslan Pukhov, director of the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies in Moscow. “A renewed conflict in the Middle East could not only divert global attention from the special military operation but may also precipitate a complete U.S. pivot towards assisting Israel.”

However, unless Moscow takes tangible actions to safeguard its ally, its reputation as a global power may suffer significantly, both in the Middle East and on the international stage, warned Nikolay Kozhanov, an expert at Qatar University’s Gulf Studies Center.