The Russian Foreign Ministry has sharply criticized Israel’s recent targeted military actions against Iran, denouncing them as “unprovoked military strikes against a sovereign UN member state.” Moscow claims these actions violate the U.N. Charter and pose a threat to global stability. However, this criticism ignores a fundamental truth: Israel acted in self-defense against a regime that continues to destabilize the Middle East through its nuclear ambitions and support for terror proxies.
In reality, Israel’s strike was a direct response to growing threats from Tehran, including its expanding nuclear program, repeated threats to annihilate the Jewish state, and the failure of Iran to engage meaningfully in diplomatic talks. Former U.S. President Donald Trump backed Israel’s move, stating that Tehran’s refusal to make serious proposals at the negotiating table left Israel with little choice but to act decisively. “Iran has no interest in peace,” Trump remarked. “Until they come to the table with honest intentions, Israel has every right to defend its people.”
The timing of the strike coincided with reports that Ali Shamkhani, one of Iran’s top nuclear negotiators and a hardliner with close ties to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), may have been seriously injured or killed. Some speculate this could force Tehran to send a more moderate negotiator to future talks. While Israel’s actions may complicate diplomatic efforts in the short term, they could ultimately pressure Iran to take negotiations seriously for the first time in years.
Unsurprisingly, Russia has chosen to side with Iran, despite its own track record of violating sovereign borders—from Georgia to Crimea to Ukraine. Moscow is trying to paint Israel as the aggressor, accusing Western nations of fueling anti-Iran sentiment. Yet the world knows Iran is a major destabilizing force, not only in the Middle East but also globally—through its funding of Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis.
Russia also claims that the IAEA Board of Governors’ recent criticism of Iran’s nuclear activity “emboldened” Israel’s military operation. But rather than asking why Israel felt compelled to act, the Kremlin prefers to obfuscate Iran’s violations of international law and nonproliferation agreements. For a country like Russia—currently waging an unprovoked war in Ukraine—to moralize about “international law” rings hollow.
President Vladimir Putin, in a predictable move, reached out to both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, posturing as a would-be peacemaker. His long-time ally, Konstantin Kosachev, vice speaker of the Russian parliament, also condemned Israel, promising unwavering support for Tehran. The message is clear: Russia is prioritizing its alliance with the Islamic Republic over global stability.
Yet this alliance is not about peace—it’s about power. Russia depends on Iranian drones for its brutal war in Ukraine, and Tehran uses the partnership to strengthen its regional ambitions without fear of Western backlash. As such, the condemnation of Israel may be less about principle and more about preserving a military-industrial pipeline.
Meanwhile, Ukraine has seized the moment to call out Iran’s hypocrisy—highlighting how Tehran supports Moscow with weapons, prolonging the war in Europe. Ukrainian officials are rightly pointing out the irony: Iran’s fingerprints are found not just in the Middle East, but on battlefields across Eastern Europe.
This entire episode illustrates a deeper hypocrisy in the global diplomatic theater. Russia condemns Israel for one defensive military operation while simultaneously invading sovereign nations, propping up dictators, and silencing dissent. Israel, on the other hand, is trying to survive in a region where it is surrounded by regimes that deny its right to exist.
Despite criticism from Moscow and Tehran, many in the West see Israel’s action not as provocation, but as a calculated, defensive move aimed at delaying or dismantling Iran’s nuclear capability—a capability that poses an existential threat to Israel and a strategic threat to the world.
As Israel continues to navigate the dangerous waters of Middle Eastern politics, it does so knowing that waiting for international consensus on Iran’s threat is a luxury it cannot afford. The lesson of history is clear: appeasement doesn’t work with radical regimes.
Ultimately, while diplomatic solutions are always preferred, Israel cannot be faulted for taking action when diplomacy has repeatedly failed. The international community would do well to remember that Iran’s nuclear program, not Israel’s response to it, is the core issue.
In the coming weeks, the spotlight will be on whether global powers can set aside their strategic partnerships and confront the real threat: a radical, nuclear-aspiring regime in Tehran. The stakes could not be higher—for Israel, for regional peace, and for the future of nonproliferation efforts worldwide.
The question isn’t whether Israel should have acted. The question is, how much longer can the world afford to let Iran act with impunity?
Erica Carlin is an independent journalist, opinion writer and contributor to several news and opinion sources. She is based in Georgia.