The Meaningful Silence of China and Russia
Almost three days after Israel’s military attack on positions in three Iranian provinces, according to the General Staff of the Armed Forces, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs reacted to this assault. A few hours after this attack, the Russian Foreign Ministry also took a stance.
Ultimately, neither Beijing nor Moscow condemned Israel’s attack.
The stance of China and Russia was not unlike the stance of some European countries that have developed strained relations with Iran for various reasons.
Naturally, no politician in Iran, nor the general public, expected the United States, as Israel’s strategic ally, to condemn this attack or express concern about the escalation of tensions in the Middle East like other countries, because the U.S. is part of this crisis.
However, given the various promotions about the strategic relations between Tehran and Moscow and Beijing, there was an expectation that Russia and China, as key members of BRICS, of which Iran is a member, would officially condemn the attack on our country.
Iran has signed a 25-year cooperation document with China and is on the verge of signing a strategic agreement with Russia.
Some analysts believe that Russia and China are pursuing their own national interests and cannot be blamed for that.
According to available statistics, China exported about 15 billion dollars to Israel in 2023. However, Russia’s trade with Israel is less than that of China, with their total trade reaching about one billion dollars in 2023.
Beijing: We oppose violations of national sovereignty.
Lin Jian, the spokesperson for China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in response to a question about Israel’s attack against Iran last Saturday morning, said that China opposes violations of national sovereignty and the security of other countries and the constant resort to force and severity. Chinese media reported that Lin said the current situation in West Asia is extremely tense and that interested parties should avoid escalating security risks in the region.
He also stated that some events once again demonstrate the urgency and necessity of a ceasefire and ending the war. The international community, especially influential powers, should play a constructive role and create the necessary conditions for reducing regional tensions.
Russia: We are concerned.
The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in reaction to Israel’s attack against Iran, described the tension between Iran and Israel as a serious threat to regional stability and security.
In a statement from the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Moscow expressed readiness to cooperate with all parties to reduce the level of conflict, calling on all involved parties to exercise restraint and stop the violence. The statement further emphasized the need to prevent Iran from being provoked into retaliatory actions, which could lead to uncontrollable tensions.
Countries take positions based on their interests.
Hassan Beheshtipour, an international affairs analyst, in analyzing China’s stance on Israel’s attack on Iran, says that to analyze China’s position on Israel’s attack on Iran, we should consider the diplomatic language they used regarding similar actions by Iran in the ‘Promise of Truth’ operations.
China’s stance on Iran’s attack on Israel was similar; they expressed concern and called for the international community to play a role in ending this situation.
My interpretation as an analyst is that the Chinese, due to their very close and extensive relationship with Israel, especially in the military domain, and their close relations with Iran, do not want to take a position for or against either of these two countries.
They intend to draw attention to the fact that their interests are also at risk with the increase in tensions in the Middle East, as most of the energy consumed in China is supplied from West Asia.
They are trying to pursue a balanced diplomacy and declare that they are opposed to the expansion of war in the region.
He added that the case of Russia is a bit different.
Russia has a close policy towards Israel, and personal relations between Netanyahu and Putin have been ongoing for years.
This relationship did not deteriorate even with Israel’s support for Ukraine during Russia’s attack; it merely cooled down.
Russia-Israel relations, despite all these conditions, did not go beyond a state of tension.
Beheshtipour continued that some were surprised why Russia called the October 7 operation terrorist.
Well, from their perspective, this operation was terrorist; it is not an unusual stance. They do not accept the concept of resistance at all and look at issues from this angle.
The fact that Iran and Russia had aligned views and shared interests in the Syrian war does not mean they would have the same opinion in Yemen. Russia has voted in favor of or at least abstained from Chapter VII Security Council resolutions on Yemen. These differences in opinion are natural. Israel and the U.S. also have differences of opinion, despite Israel being the U.S.’s only strategic ally in the Middle East.
This foreign policy expert explained the mistake of using the term strategic alliance, noting that in Iran, the term strategic ally is used to describe Tehran-Moscow and Tehran-Beijing relations.
However, we do not pay attention to the fact that a strategic ally has a very important definition. We can call two or more countries strategic allies if they are at the highest possible level in military, security, political, and economic terms.
Are the four or five billion dollar trade relations between Iran and Russia at the capacity level between the two countries? When we read the basic and upstream documents of Russia in the fields of national security doctrine, foreign policy, and defense that have been published over the years, Iran is not mentioned even once as a strategic partner.
We must approach these issues realistically. As a researcher, I clearly state that Russia-Israel relations, in the current conditions I mentioned earlier, are closer than Tehran-Moscow relations.
He continued that after Russia came under sanctions, its relations with Israel faced some problems and decreased.
However, its foundations are much stronger than Iran-Russia relations. After these sanctions, Russia became somewhat closer to Iran.
Putin has traveled to Iran four times in these years, but none of the visits were for meetings; all were work-related and occurred on the sidelines of various summits.
Therefore, attention must be paid to the indicators.
Beheshtipour emphasized that a 20-year treaty is supposed to be signed between Iran and Russia, which, if realized, will be an important step towards bringing the two countries closer. We cannot ignore the realities and then expect Russia to take a stance in our favor.
I do not justify the actions of the Russians; expectations should be based on realities, not imaginations. Naturally, Russia takes positions within the framework of its interests.
Russia’s perception is that its relationship with Iran will not be damaged.
Mahmoud Shouri, an analyst of Russian affairs, regarding Moscow’s position on Israel’s attack on Iran, says that naturally, the expectation that perhaps the Islamic Republic of Iran, as a country with a close relationship with Russia, and the expectation that the people of Iran had was something beyond this stance.
There was an expectation that Russia would condemn Israel’s attack on Iran, but the Russians, considering the type of relationship they have with Israel and the policy they have defined for themselves regarding Middle Eastern countries, act accordingly.
The expectations of the Iranian people and what Russian politicians pursue do not always align.
He emphasized that Russia’s stance on Israel’s attack on Iran was very mild, considering that Iranian territory was attacked. The Russians could have taken a stronger stance.
However, there is always an issue that when it comes to matters where one side is Iran and the other side is Middle Eastern countries, whether Arab countries or Israel, Russia tends to lean towards the opposite side.
Because perhaps their perception is that their relationship with Iran will not be damaged in any case, but the relationship with the opposite side can be affected. For this reason, in such cases, the Russians always stand on a side that is not very favorable to Iran.