Editorial 1: The ‘Axis of Upheaval’ in the West Asia conflict

Context

The idea that the world is split into rival power blocs like in the Cold War has been proven wrong or no longer holds true.

Introduction

The recent ceasefire between Israel and Iran, following the U.S. bombing of Iran’s nuclear sites, has challenged the idea of the world being neatly divided into Cold War-style power blocs. Iran, once seen as a key player in a rising alternative global order, has now faced a crippling blow to both its political leadership and military capacity. In this moment of crisis, its main partners — China and Russia — have chosen to maintain distance, offering little beyond verbal support. Earlier, Iran was central to the narrative of a fractured global system, often portrayed as a contest between Western-led alliances and a Russia-China-centred grouping, referred to by American scholars Richard Fontaine and Andrea Kendall-Taylor as the ‘Axis of Upheaval’.

Iran-Russia Military Cooperation

• Iranian drones in Ukraine war:
  • Iran’s drone technologies have played a crucial role in supporting Russia’s military operations in Ukraine.
• Joint efforts in Syria:
  • Despite some regional differences, Russia and Iran earlier worked together to support the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who has now been ousted.

Iran-China Economic Relationship

• China benefits from cheap Iranian oil:
  • As Iran faces crippling international sanctions, China has continued to buy oil at discounted prices.
• Mutual economic advantage:
  • This helps China meet energy needs and sustain growth amid a slowing economy.
  • At the same time, it provides Tehran with vital cash, offering a financial lifeline to a society under economic strain.

Strategic Limitations of the So-Called ‘Axis’

• Narrative, not alliance:
  • The so-called axes (Russia-Iran-China-North Korea, etc.) are not formal military alliances.
  • There are no binding treaties or mutual defence clauses like in NATO, where countries are obligated to support one another in case of an attack.
• No military compulsion:
  • Countries involved cannot be compelled to join a war even if one of their partners is attacked.
• Ideological convergence, not structure:
  • Their partnerships are rooted in shared visions:
    • Restructuring global institutions and financial systems.
    • Promoting de-dollarisation.
    • Creating alternatives to SWIFT.
    • Strengthening anti-West platforms like BRICS and SCO.
  • However, these efforts lack a military framework, limiting their ability to challenge the West in hard-power terms.

Limited Support from Russia and China

• Diplomatic gestures, not troops:
  • Russia and China have offered verbal and diplomatic support to Iran, but not military backing.
• Russia’s stance:
  • Moscow criticised supporters of Israel, including the IAEA’s ambiguous stance and Western manipulation of non-proliferation regimes.
  • President Putin offered to mediate, but his proposal was rejected by U.S. President Trump.
  • Crucially, mediation may be the only real role Russia can play, due to its own limitations.
• China’s position:
  • China maintains a long-term strategic and economic partnership with Iran, but has not committed militarily.

Nature of Strategic Ties with Iran

• Economic, not military, partnerships:
  • Iran has signed comprehensive strategic deals with:
    • Russia (2025).
    • China (2021).
  • These deals focus mainly on economic cooperation, not defence.
• Iran’s untapped potential:
  • Long-term alignment with Iran benefits Russia and China due to:
    • Iran’s huge energy reserves, which remain underutilised due to sanctions and lack of technology.
• Military disengagement remains a gap:
  • Despite Iran’s importance and its current leadership under Ayatollah Khamenei, neither Russia nor China appears willing or capable of military involvement on its behalf.

Russia's Limitations and Loss of Influence

• War in Ukraine drains resources: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has consumed much of its political and military strength, leaving little capacity for engagement elsewhere.
• North Korean support shows weakness: North Korea is reportedly sending soldiers to support Russia, indicating severe Russian military shortages.
• Unable to assist Iran militarily: Russia now lacks the ability to offer tactical support to Iran, especially in West Asia.
• Loss of strategic base in Syria:
  • Russia once had influence in the region via its airbases and assets in Syria.
  • However, the Assad regime has fallen and been replaced by Ahmed Al Sharaa, a former al-Qaeda figure now aligning with Western and Arab powers.
  • This change has cost Moscow its only significant military foothold in the region.

China’s Strategic Calculations

• Verbal support to Iran: China's Foreign Minister Wang Yi criticized Israel’s actions as violations of international law in a call with his Israeli counterpart.
• Indirect pressure on the U.S.:
  • After a call between Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin, China issued a statement indirectly urging the U.S. to de-escalate the situation.
• Strategic advantage in U.S. involvement:
  • The U.S. has now entered the conflict by backing Israel against Iran — a decision made by President Trump without informing top advisers.
  • This diverts U.S. focus back to West Asia, away from more strategic areas like the Indo-Pacific and Ukraine.
  • Both China and Russia benefit as the U.S. stretches its military and diplomatic resources, creating opportunities in their respective regions of interest.

Present Status and Ceasefire

• A fragile ceasefire, supported by the U.S., is currently in place.
• This truce has temporarily halted direct conflict between Tehran and Tel Aviv, but the situation remains unstable.

Conclusion

Iran faces setbacks on all fronts. Russia and China are focused on protecting their own interests, offering little support. Meanwhile, the so-called ‘Axis of Resistance’—including groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis—has been significantly weakened, reducing Iran’s influence and its defensive reach in the region. Looking ahead, regardless of whether Iran is governed by hardliners or moderates, the country may come to believe that only possessing nuclear weapons can truly ensure its independence and security.