The massive airstrikes by Israel and the United States on Iran were not entirely unexpected. Strike forces in the Persian Gulf had been building up for months. Iranian-American talks stalled and offered little prospect of success. Yet the assassination of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, members of his family and several senior Iranian officials sent shockwaves beyond the region.
Iran has responded with missile attacks on Israel and US facilities in the Middle East. The consequences were immediate: disruption of oil shipments in the Persian Gulf and instability in financial and transport infrastructure in the UAE and Qatar.
Iran could well withstand an attack. A ground invasion seems unlikely. But constant air and missile attacks undermine its industrial capacity, exacerbate its economic crisis and further impoverish its population. Although Tehran will absorb the current blow, more rounds may follow unless the costs become prohibitive for all sides.
For Russia, the crisis offers hard lessons.
Lesson 1: Sanctions are rarely the end point
The US has sanctioned Iran since 1979. Over time, measures have become broader, more coordinated, and more internationalized. Washington persuaded allies and third countries to curtail Iranian oil purchases and tightened enforcement through the UN Security Council.
Restrictions were never used alone. They were paired with military raids, special operations, assassinations and cyber attacks. The pattern is familiar: Iraq, Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria and Venezuela have all experienced variations of the same formula.
Direct US-NATO military action against Russia is constrained by the nuclear factor. But that deterrence is partially offset by massive military support for Ukraine. Ukrainian forces continue to attack Russian territory. Further crises on NATO’s eastern flank, especially in the Baltic region, cannot be excluded.
Sanctions and force are not alternatives. They are often sequential.
Lesson 2: Stress is chronic
Iran has endured a strategy of attrition for decades. What began as economic containment has evolved into calibrated military attrition, repeated strikes designed to cripple capabilities without employment.
This model may define Western policy towards Russia. The pressure facing Moscow will not disappear in a few years. We are probably talking about decades. A partial easing of restrictions does not mean a complete lifting, especially regarding export controls on dual-use technologies.
Likewise, any lull in military warfare is temporary. Aggravation may return in new forms. So strategic tolerance is not optional, it is foundational.
Lesson 3: Discounts do not guarantee compensation
The 2015 nuclear deal, formalized under UN Security Council Resolution 2231, offered Iran sanctions relief in exchange for limits on its nuclear program. Three years later, Washington withdrew and imposed new demands.
The respite proved to be temporary.
This experience will inform Moscow’s position in Ukraine’s negotiations. Russia’s refusal to make unilateral concessions may frustrate those who prefer immediate peace at any cost. But low trust between Moscow and Washington, and between Moscow and Kiev, makes unilateral compromise strategically dangerous. Iran’s experience reinforces this logic.
Lesson 4: Leaders are highly targeted
Historically, regime change often followed military intervention. But the targeted elimination of top leadership was not always the primary objective. Today, it is increasing.
The deliberate assassination of senior Iranian officials marks a new threshold. Russia is keenly aware of the vulnerability of high-ranking figures. Assassinations and acts of sabotage are no longer rare on Russian territory.
The security of national leadership now extends beyond the intelligence services. This includes counterintelligence integrity, air defense effectiveness and resilience of the broader military system. Leadership is the battlefield in modern conflict.
Lesson 5: Internal instability invites external pressure
Iran faced significant domestic protests before the strike. Economic hardships and political tensions undermined social cohesion. External actors interpret this unrest as vulnerability.
History shows how internal fractures can accelerate decline. Libya provides an example. The dissolution of the USSR provides another, internal economic and political collapse without direct invasion is decisive.
For Russia, the lesson is clear: internal stability is strategic security. Effective governance, reforms, feedback mechanisms and trust between society and the state are not merely abstract ideals and act as shields against external exploitation.
Lesson 6: ‘Black Knights’ have limitations
Iran eased the sanctions by doing business with countries willing to defy or evade Western pressure, what we might call “Black Knights.” China, India, Turkey and others continued to buy discounted Iranian oil.
Russia has similarly redirected trade flows towards China, India and other partners. Constraints can be softened through diversification.
But economic alternatives do not translate into military guarantees. Iran’s trading partners have not intervened militarily on its behalf. Russia also should not assume that economic cooperation implies defense obligations.
The involvement of North Korean forces in Russia’s Kursk region remains the exception, not the rule. Moscow still has primary responsibility for its own defense and that of its CSTO allies. Economic resilience cannot replace military strength.
Lesson 7: Balance must be reliable
Iran is defenseless. Its missile and drone strikes demonstrate capability and resolve. Actions such as attempting to restrict navigation through the Strait of Hormuz show a willingness to increase costs. Yet the US and Israel judge Iran’s retaliation as painful but acceptable.
Deterrence depends not only on strength but also on the opponent’s sensitivity to damage. In a prolonged encounter, tolerance for loss may increase. The 20th century demonstrated how political escalation can destroy restraint even in the nuclear sphere.
Russia has greater retaliatory capabilities than Iran. But that alone does not guarantee stability. An opponent who calculates that the damage can be sustained may continue to surge. The Iranian crisis reveals a deeper mood emerging in global politics: fatal indecision. Major powers are more willing to absorb risk and embrace instability, which is the most troubling lesson of all.
Events in Iran are not an isolated regional episode. They are part of a broader transformation in the international system. It’s where sanctions evolve into strikes, negotiation coexists with attrition, and leadership itself becomes a target.
For Russia, the message is quiet but clear: tolerance, internal cohesion, credible deterrence and strategic patience are more than temporary necessities. They are the defining conditions of an era.
This article was first published on Kommersant and was translated and edited by the RT team.
