Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

China and Russia Condemn U.S. Strike on Iran—but Stay on the Sidelines

China and Russia Condemn U.S. Strike on Iran—but Stay on the Sidelines

United States of America and Iran flags painted on the concrete wall with soldier shadow.

Getty Images

The fact that China and Russia have responded vocally—but not militarily—to the U.S. strike on Iran reveals much about both the limits and nature of their influence in the Middle East, as well as the broader global risks at play.

China wields significant economic leverage, particularly through its energy ties with Iran and infrastructure investments via the Belt and Road Initiative. However, its military footprint in the region remains minimal. Aside from a small base in Djibouti, China lacks both the capability and the appetite to project hard power across the Middle East. Instead, it is positioning itself as a diplomatic counterweight to the U.S., offering mediation and calls for de-escalation. This is soft power in action—but it also underscores that Beijing’s influence hinges more on optics and economics than on military presence.


Russia, by contrast, has a deeper history of involvement in the region—most notably in Syria. Yet its current posture is more rhetorical than operational, constrained by its own entanglements, especially the ongoing war in Ukraine. Moscow’s ability to shape outcomes is limited, and its response to the U.S. strike reveals the growing gaps in its regional effectiveness.

Both nations clearly wish to be seen as major stakeholders in Middle Eastern affairs. But in moments of crisis —particularly those initiated by U.S. military action—their ability to influence events is limited. They are influential, certainly, but not decisive. This strategic calculus was almost certainly part of the Trump Administration’s considerations before launching the strike on Iran.

During the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum on June 20, President Putin addressed the rising tensions between Iran and the U.S. He voiced deep concern over developments near Iranian nuclear facilities, stating that Russia is “strongly worried about what’s going on around the Iranian nuclear facilities and possible consequences.” Putin also noted that Israel had pledged to protect Russian personnel stationed at Iran’s nuclear sites, including the Russia-built Bushehr plant.

In a separate statement, Putin reiterated that Iran does not intend to develop nuclear weapons—a position Russia has “repeatedly conveyed” to Israel. He further emphasized the complexity of Russia’s position, pointing to Israel’s substantial Russian-speaking population, which shapes Moscow’s approach to the conflict.

Thus far, Putin has chosen a carefully calibrated diplomatic posture: condemning the strikes, defending Iran’s nuclear stance, and signaling a desire to avoid escalation—without indicating any intent for military involvement.

Given the absence of meaningful backing from China or Russia, Iran’s ability to directly retaliate against the United States is constrained. Its network of non-state allies and proxy groups—traditionally a key asset—has also weakened significantly over the past year.

Hezbollah, historically Iran’s most capable proxy, has been diminished by recent Israeli strikes. While it has declared solidarity with Iran, its capacity to launch a major offensive, particularly against U.S. forces, is currently limited.

Hamas, meanwhile, has condemned the U.S. action as “brazen aggression” and voiced full support for Iran. However, it remains deeply engaged in its own conflict with Israel and is unlikely to have the bandwidth for broader escalation.

The Houthis in Yemen, known for launching drone and missile attacks against U.S. and Saudi targets, could act in solidarity with Iran—especially in the Red Sea. But their ability to inflict significant strategic damage remains marginal.

In summary, while Iran may still employ asymmetric warfare through proxies, the prospect of a full-scale military coalition against the U.S. remains remote, particularly without direct support from any major world powers. As it stands, Iran's response options remain limited and largely symbolic.

David Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

Read More

Why Blue States Had Better Get Busy Gerrymandering

United States of America USA 2024 Presidential Election Results Map in red and blue

Getty Images

Why Blue States Had Better Get Busy Gerrymandering

Michelle Obama famously advised Democrats, "When they go low, we go high." This is advice that Democrats no longer can afford to heed if they have any hope of helping to save American democracy.

That fact is evident if they are going to resist President Trump’s plan to get red states like Texas, Missouri, and Florida to redraw their congressional districts in advance of the 2026 midterm elections. As the AP reports, “At Trump’s urging, Texas Republicans are looking to redraw congressional maps to favor GOP candidates during a 30-day special legislative session…. Trump has said he wants to carve out five new winnable GOP seats.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Executive Order on NIL Is a Symptom, Not a Cure, for College Sports Chaos
running field during daytime

Executive Order on NIL Is a Symptom, Not a Cure, for College Sports Chaos

President Trump’s executive order of July 24th targeting college athletes’ NIL rights, depending on the yet to be determined specifics, will play heavily into the future of higher education, amateurism, and the civic role of sports in America.

The White House described the order as a response to an “out-of-control, rudderless system” and emphasized the need to “restore order” and preserve the educational and developmental benefits of college athletics

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump’s Executive Order Targets Civil Rights and Academic Freedom in Higher Education
people standing and taking photo during daytime
Photo by Colin Lloyd on Unsplash

Trump’s Executive Order Targets Civil Rights and Academic Freedom in Higher Education

This essay is part of a series by Lawyers Defending American Democracy where we demonstrate the link between the administration’s sweeping executive actions and their roots in the authoritarian blueprint, Project 2025, and show how these actions harm individuals and families throughout the country.

Trump’s Attack on Civil Rights and Academic Freedom in Higher Education

Keep ReadingShow less
Migrant Children: Political Pawns in U.S. Border Policy Debate
Crime, immigration and the peaceful transfer of power
Eskay Lim / EyeEm

Migrant Children: Political Pawns in U.S. Border Policy Debate

WASHINGTON — Republicans have warned against the sex trafficking risks migrant children face when illegally crossing the southwest border. Democrats have countered that their concerns lie in hypocrisy.

“Democrats are standing with survivors, while Republicans are shielding abusers,” said U.S. House Rep. Summer Lee, D-Pa, referencing President Donald Trump’s efforts to block the full release of the Jeffrey Epstein files.

Keep ReadingShow less