Russia, China, and North Korea’s Strategic Restraint in the Face of Iran’s Destruction

1. Introduction: The Axis That Did Not Hold

On 28 February 2026, the United States and Israel launched what would become one of the most consequential military campaigns since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Coordinated strikes targeted Iran’s nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, decapitated its military and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) leadership, and, in an act of historic boldness, assassinated Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The strikes were preceded by Israel’s June 2025 ’12-Day War’ against Iran, which had already struck Iranian nuclear sites and devastated the country’s air defence architecture. In response, the Russian Foreign Ministry issued a condemnation. China’s spokesperson called the strikes ‘a grave violation of Iran’s sovereignty.’ North Korea denounced the attacks as ‘illegal acts of aggression.’ And then — nothing.

For years, Western security analysts had warned of an emerging ‘Axis of Upheaval’ — a term popularised by Andrea Kendall-Taylor and Richard Fontaine of the Center for a New American Security — binding together Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea in a common front against American hegemony (CNAS, 2024). The four states had deepened military, technological, and economic cooperation with remarkable speed following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Iran supplied Russia with thousands of Shahed drones and ballistic missiles. North Korea dispatched over five million artillery shells and, eventually, troops to Russian-occupied Ukraine. China provided dual-use goods and economic ballast to sustain a sanctioned Russia. The axis appeared formidable.

And yet, when Iran — the node that had contributed most materially to Russia’s war effort — faced an existential onslaught, its partners did not come. This article investigates the reasons for that restraint, examining the structural, legal, strategic, and economic factors that made each partner step back rather than step forward.

2. The Architecture of Non-Alliance: Treaties Built to Disappoint

Any serious analysis must begin with the legal architecture that underpins these relationships. In January 2025, Russia and Iran signed the Treaty on Comprehensive Strategic Partnership — a sweeping 20-year agreement covering defence cooperation, intelligence sharing, energy, trade, and nuclear collaboration. It was heralded by both governments as a historic breakthrough in their relations. The problem, as analysts immediately noted, was what it did not contain.

As the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace noted in analysis published at the time of signing, ‘the security provisions in the 2025 treaty were almost identical to those in the 2001 treaty. In other words, nothing has changed in almost a quarter of a century’ (Carnegie Endowment, January 2025). The treaty required the two sides to exchange information, hold joint military exercises, and ‘ensure regional security,’ but contained no mutual defence clause. Russia was under no legal obligation to come to Iran’s aid.

This was not accidental. In April 2025, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Andrei Rudenko clarified before the State Duma that the Iran partnership was ‘not a mutual defense pact’ and that ‘if Iran were attacked by the United States, Russia would not be obligated to provide military assistance’ (Foreign Policy, February 2026). The contrast with Russia’s treaty with North Korea — signed in June 2024 — was sharp. As Andrey Kortunov, former director general of the Russian International Affairs Council, explained to Al Jazeera, the North Korea treaty obligated Russia to join North Korea ‘in any conflict the country might get involved in,’ whereas with Iran, ‘it just mentioned that both sides agreed to abstain from any hostile actions in case the other side is engaged in conflict’ (Al Jazeera, March 2026).

The Institute for the Study of War reached a similar conclusion, assessing that the absence of a mutual defence clause ‘indicates that Russia likely lacks the bandwidth to support significant operations outside of Ukraine and is prioritising its manpower needs through its mutual defence treaty with North Korea’ (ISW, January 2025). In short, the structure of the Iran-Russia partnership was, from its inception, a diplomatic relationship with military aesthetics — not a real security guarantee.

China’s relationship with Iran followed an analogous architecture. The Sino-Iranian Comprehensive Strategic Partnership, signed in 2021, committed China to invest $400 billion in Iran over 25 years in exchange for privileged access to Iranian oil. As the Brookings Institution observed in early 2026, ‘China’s lack of material support for Iran’s security were apparent in June 2025. After the United States struck Iran’s nuclear sites, Beijing’s response was largely rhetorical’ (Brookings, January 2026). The agreement contained no security guarantees whatsoever.

3. Russia’s Strategic Paralysis: Ukraine, Syria, and the Limits of Power

Russia’s inability — and unwillingness — to come to Iran’s defence is perhaps the most consequential aspect of the crisis. Moscow’s restraint reflects several intersecting factors: its military over-extension in Ukraine, its evolving strategic calculus toward the Middle East, and its growing leverage over a weakened Tehran.

The most immediate constraint on Russia is the war in Ukraine. Since February 2022, Russia has committed the overwhelming bulk of its military resources, political capital, and economic bandwidth to the conflict. The Institute for the Study of War noted that ‘Russia likely does not have the military and defense industrial capacity to support any significant military operations apart from its war in Ukraine, especially as Russia continues to suffer high personnel losses and is reportedly struggling to produce and refurbish enough armoured vehicles to replace destroyed vehicles’ (ISW, January 2025).

The situation is compounded by a painful irony. Iran had been Russia’s most important military supplier in Ukraine. According to the Carnegie Endowment, ‘Iran has supplied Russia with thousands of Shahed drones’ and ‘in 2024 provided it with hundreds of ballistic missiles’ (Carnegie, October 2024). But by 2025, Russia had substantially domesticated this capability: ‘Russia is now producing drones itself in a facility in Tatarstan,’ raising the question of how much it would rely on Iran going forward (Carnegie, 2024). Tehran’s value to Moscow as a supplier had thus diminished precisely as Tehran needed Moscow most.

There is also a darker strand of Kremlin calculation. As the Brookings Institution noted in analysis following the strikes, ‘Some Kremlin cynics may hope the United States will get drawn into a lengthy war, even at the expense of their Iranian partner’ (Brookings, March 2026). A United States pre-occupied with Iran is a United States distracted from Ukraine. Russian Foreign Ministry condemnations are costless; military involvement is not. The Russia Matters analysis captured the essence of this posture with precision: ‘Russia’s immediate stake in the conflict is straightforward: any war that preoccupies the United States, depletes Western munitions stockpiles, divides alliance attention and forces Washington to prioritize the Middle East over Ukraine serves Moscow’s purposes’ (Russia Matters, 2026).

The Syria Precedent and the Pattern of Kremlin Impotence

Russia’s restraint over Iran is not an aberration but part of a pattern. The Brookings analysis observed that Moscow ‘cannot be happy about yet another display of Kremlin impotence. The Russian response will almost certainly remain words, despite the Treaty on Comprehensive Strategic Partnership between Russia and Iran that entered into force in October 2025. That fits the recent pattern: In December 2024, Moscow stood meekly by as Bashar al-Assad fell in Syria’ (Brookings, March 2026).

The Assad collapse had already demonstrated Russia’s inability to project power in defence of a long-standing client when doing so would risk direct confrontation with superior Western forces. Iran is an even more formidable scenario: the adversary is not a Syrian rebel coalition but the combined military capability of the United States and Israel.

Russia’s Multi-Vector Middle East Diplomacy

Russia’s restraint is also shaped by its carefully maintained relationships across the Middle East. As Foreign Policy noted, ‘Moscow maintains working relations not only with Tehran but also with Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, and it has demonstrated little appetite for commitments that would jeopardize its flexibility across these relationships’ (Foreign Policy, February 2026). Coming to Iran’s defence militarily would shatter these carefully calibrated hedges.

The Russia Matters analysis further identified that what Russia is offering Iran is not defence but intelligence and technical support, including ‘Krasukha jamming systems’ supplied in 2025 and lessons drawn from electronic warfare experience in Ukraine (Russia Matters, 2026). This is the true character of the Russia-Iran partnership: a backstage relationship providing technical depth, not frontline military solidarity.

4. China’s Strategic Calculus: Commerce, Caution, and the Long Game

China’s response to Iran’s crisis was, if anything, even more carefully managed than Russia’s. Beijing condemned the strikes in formulaic terms, called for a ceasefire, and then focused its attention on ensuring oil supplies and advancing its own diplomacy. Understanding why requires examining China’s complex and asymmetric relationship with Iran.

The Lopsided Nature of the Sino-Iranian Partnership

The popular image of China as Iran’s staunch partner is, as Bloomberg noted in March 2026, ‘far more lopsided and less strategic than commonly assumed’ (Bloomberg, March 2026). China is, without question, Tehran’s economic lifeline — purchasing over 80 percent of Iran’s oil exports, a trade relationship that, as the Brookings Institution observed, represents ‘an asymmetry in the Sino-Iranian relationship: China is much more important to Iran than vice versa’ (Brookings, January 2026). Iran exported over 1.38 million barrels of oil per day to China in 2025, representing approximately 13.4 percent of China’s total oil imported by sea (ICDS, March 2026).

This asymmetry is commercially manifest. Despite the much-publicised 2021 agreement to invest $400 billion in Iran over 25 years, Brookings noted that ‘China’s pledges of major investments in Iran have not materialised at the expected pace. This has been a source of frustration for Iran’s leadership’ (Brookings, January 2026). Chinese analysts have long described Beijing’s approach to Iran as ‘strategic opportunism’ — extracting maximum economic advantage from Iran’s isolation without incurring the risks of genuine partnership.

The US-China Grand Bargain

In early 2026, Beijing had compelling reasons to distance itself from any association with Iran’s defence. As Foreign Affairs explained in its landmark analysis published in March 2026, ‘Beijing does not want a war in the Middle East to derail its effort to work with Trump. US President Donald Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping are scheduled to meet at the end of March — a meeting that carries the prospect of a potential grand bargain between the United States and China that could lead to a real détente after eight traumatizing years of great-power competition’ (Foreign Affairs, March 2026).

Chatham House’s analysis reached a similar conclusion: China ‘wants to achieve its long-term objectives without alarming Washington or undermining the relative stability in US-China relations, especially ahead of President Donald Trump’s expected visit to China in April’ (Chatham House, March 2026). Defending Iran militarily — or even materially — would poison this historic diplomatic opportunity. For Beijing, a nuclear deal with Washington and a trade détente are worth infinitely more than solidarity with a weakened Iran.

China’s Nuclear Non-Proliferation Interest

Paradoxically, China shares certain interests with Israel and the United States regarding Iran’s nuclear programme. As Chatham House noted, ‘Beijing is concerned that a nuclear Iran may trigger a regional war. Such a war would risk the blocking of vital shipping lanes and obstruct China’s oil imports from the Gulf’ (Chatham House, March 2026). More broadly, a nuclear-armed Iran could catalyse proliferation across the Middle East and embolden analogous ambitions among states — such as Japan and South Korea — in China’s own neighbourhood.

Foreign Affairs took this logic further, arguing that ‘if the U.S. and Israeli attacks curtail Iran’s rogue military ambitions and the country repositions itself as an economic power in the Middle East, it could represent a future that China embraces’ (Foreign Affairs, March 2026). From this vantage, Beijing was not simply abandoning Iran but calculating that a post-conflict Iran — reintegrated into global markets — might actually serve Chinese commercial interests better than the sanctioned, militarised Islamic Republic.

The Energy Security Paradox

China’s energy calculus is more complex than it first appears. A full-scale Chinese intervention in support of Iran could trigger crippling US secondary sanctions on Chinese financial institutions and energy companies, imperiling far more than just Iranian oil — it would threaten the entirety of China’s Gulf energy relationships. As CBS News reported in March 2026, China holds petroleum reserves of up to four to five months, and China’s global oil supply network is designed for precisely such contingencies (CBS News, March 2026). Secretary of State Marco Rubio reportedly encouraged Beijing to press Tehran to keep the Strait of Hormuz open, recognising China’s structural interest in regional stability (Iran Primer, July 2025).

5. North Korea: Verbal Solidarity, Strategic Silence

Of the three allies in question, North Korea’s position is the most straightforward to explain. Pyongyang condemned the American and Israeli strikes as ‘illegal acts of aggression’ and accused Washington of ‘violating Iranian sovereignty and pursuing its own hegemonic objectives’ (AEI, March 2026). It did not, however, pledge military support, deploy forces, or provide materiel to Iran.

The American Enterprise Institute’s Korean Peninsula Update of 3 March 2026 assessed that ‘North Korea is likely to continue supporting Iran rhetorically, though its prospects for diplomatic and military cooperation may depend on Khamenei’s successor’ (AEI, March 2026). This tepid solidarity reflects the fundamental nature of the North Korean-Iranian relationship, which the Carnegie Endowment had characterised as limited even at its peak: ‘Both are cash strapped and economically weak’ and ‘neither country is in a position to assist the other’ in any substantial military sense (Carnegie, October 2024).

North Korea’s primary military patron in 2025-2026 is Russia, not Iran. Pyongyang has deployed tens of thousands of troops to the Kursk front in support of Russia’s Ukraine campaign, in exchange for military technology, cash, and the security guarantee embedded in the June 2024 mutual defence treaty. This relationship defines North Korea’s strategic horizon. Crucially, as The Diplomat noted in March 2026, ‘Russia’s reluctance to provide any overt support beyond diplomatic condemnation in response to the Israel-U.S. attacks has raised allegations of alliance abandonment’ from North Korea’s perspective as well — specifically, Pyongyang now has reason to wonder whether Russia’s security guarantee to it is equally hollow (The Diplomat, March 2026).

The AEI analysis identified a further strategic consequence of Iran’s fate for Pyongyang: ‘The US actions in Iran will likely make North Korea less likely to pursue dialogue with the United States and will reinforce Kim’s desire to strengthen North Korea’s nuclear capabilities’ (AEI, March 2026). The lesson North Korea draws from watching Iran — a country that, unlike North Korea, had agreed to nuclear constraints under the JCPOA — is not one that leads to disarmament. It is, rather, a powerful reaffirmation of the deterrence value of an intact nuclear arsenal.

6. The Structural Logic: Transactionalism and the Junior Partner Problem

Taken together, the behaviour of Russia, China, and North Korea reflects a set of structural dynamics that transcend individual strategic calculations. These relationships were never alliances in the sense that NATO is an alliance — built on legal obligations, genuine solidarity, shared values, and the credible expectation of mutual defence.

As the Christian Science Monitor noted in a foundational analysis from June 2025, ‘these are transactional relationships. Iran, as the smaller, weaker, more isolated, and less wealthy junior partner, must accept whatever help China and Russia are willing to provide’ (CSMonitor, June 2025). The US-China-Russia Commission’s annual report to Congress framed this even more starkly: the axis’s alignment ‘is based more on shared interests and expediency than trust and loyalty, each country may decline to assist meaningfully when counterproductive to their larger objectives, as China and Russia did after the United States struck nuclear facilities in Iran in June’ (USCC, 2025).

The CNAS Axis of Upheaval project offers perhaps the most nuanced assessment of why the relationship’s limits should not be mistaken for its end. As their analysis notes, ‘China, Iran, and North Korea deliberated for months on the sidelines of Russia’s war before moving to more fully support Moscow after its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. China gave little more than its diplomatic support to the Kremlin in the first months after Russia’s invasion.’ The implication is that support flows incrementally, through back channels, and after careful deliberation — not in the form of dramatic, public intervention in a crisis (CNAS, 2025-2026).

Furthermore, the JINSA analysis pointed out a telling detail: ‘Moscow even reportedly refused a request from Tehran for Iranian-designed, Russian-produced Shahed drones after Israeli strikes damaged Iran’s domestic production’ (JINSA, October 2025). If true, this represents not just abandonment but exploitation — Russia leveraging Iran’s vulnerability to increase its own leverage over Tehran, precisely as Moscow’s Centre for Political Information head Alexey Mukhin had predicted: ‘The latest strikes give Moscow significant leverage over Tehran’ (CSMonitor, June 2025).

7. The Geopolitical Consequences: What Restraint Reveals

The restraint of Russia, China, and North Korea in the face of Iran’s destruction has profound implications for the international order that extends well beyond the fate of the Islamic Republic.

First, it reveals the fundamental limits of the authoritarian international. The narrative of a rising bloc of revisionist states capable of collectively challenging the Western-led order has been severely tested. When the most committed member of the bloc faced an existential attack, the others calculated their interests and stayed home. This is, as Chatham House observed, ‘not new. China has always avoided backing Iran militarily’ (Chatham House, March 2026). What is new is the nakedness of the exposure: the partnership’s limits have been revealed under maximum pressure.

Second, it reinforces the structural advantage the United States holds by virtue of possessing genuine allies rather than merely transactional partners. As JINSA’s analysis observed, the contrast between the axis’s behaviour and Western behaviour toward Ukraine and Israel is stark: ‘The axis’s weaknesses are the United States’ greatest strength: a resilient network of alliances built on mutual interests’ (JINSA, October 2025). When the United States deployed B-2 bombers in ‘Operation Midnight Hammer’ against Iranian nuclear sites in June 2025, Israel provided targeting intelligence and diplomatic cover, and the United Kingdom offered its bases. The axis offered Iran nothing comparable.

Third, and paradoxically, the restraint of Russia and China does not necessarily signal the end of the axis’s coherence. The CNAS analysts caution that ‘the incentives fuelling their cooperation have not changed since Israel’s actions against Iran, and, if anything, Russia, China, and North Korea are likely to see value in helping Tehran reconstitute its capacity’ following any eventual settlement (CNAS, 2025-2026). The ICDS similarly noted that ‘removing Iran from the equation could lead to the further tightening of the perceived three-way partnership’ among Russia, China, and North Korea, as the vacuum left by Iran’s collapse of military supply to Russia would need to be filled by Beijing and Pyongyang (ICDS, March 2026).

Fourth, there is the profound lesson that Iran’s fate broadcasts to any state contemplating reliance on Russia or China as guarantors of its security. The lesson of Syria, of Venezuela, and now of Iran is consistent: when an authoritarian client faces an existential threat from the United States or its allies, Moscow and Beijing will offer words, not weapons. The CNAS initiative on the Axis of Upheaval noted in September 2025 that ‘indeed, the gathering in Beijing suggests that the axis, rather than withering following the war in Iran in June, has momentum’ — but that momentum serves the interests of the great powers in the axis, not its clients (CNAS, September 2025).

8. Conclusion: Solidarity Is Not Strategy

The question posed in this article’s title — have Russia, China, and North Korea abandoned Iran? — admits of a nuanced answer. Abandoned implies a betrayal of a genuine commitment. But the commitment, as this analysis has shown, was never genuine to begin with. It was always conditional, transactional, and calibrated to serve the interests of the stronger partners in the relationship.

Russia was too consumed by Ukraine, too leveraged by its multi-vector Middle East diplomacy, and too rationally invested in Iranian weakness as a source of future leverage to risk direct confrontation with the United States. China was too deeply embedded in a potential détente with Washington, too commercially exposed in the Gulf, and too aligned with the goal of a non-nuclear Middle East to defend a militarised Iran. North Korea was too small, too dependent on Russia, and too consumed with its own existential calculus to offer anything beyond condemnation.

The academic concept most applicable here is Glenn Snyder’s classic dilemma of alliance politics: the tension between abandonment and entrapment. Russia, China, and North Korea each made a rational calculation that the costs of entrapment in an Iran war — with the world’s most powerful military arrayed against them — vastly exceeded the costs of abandonment. They were right, and they chose accordingly.

What is most instructive, however, is not the behaviour of Iran’s ostensible allies but the conditions that produced it. Iran was valuable to Russia as a drone supplier, to China as a discounted oil source, and to both as a geopolitical irritant capable of tying down American attention in the Middle East. When Iran’s military capacity was destroyed, much of its value to its partners was destroyed with it. A weakened, post-conflict Iran — potentially open to Western investment, potentially under a more pragmatic leadership — may prove as commercially useful to China and as diplomatically useful to Russia as the embattled Islamic Republic ever was.

In this sense, the deepest lesson of the crisis is not about the failure of the Axis of Upheaval. It is about the nature of great power relationships in a multipolar world: they are instruments, not ideals. And when the instrument is damaged beyond repair, even the closest of strategic partners will set it aside and reach for another.

You can follow Professor Mohamed Chtatou on X: @Ayurinu

American Enterprise Institute (AEI). (2026, March 3). Korean Peninsula update, March 3, 2026. https://www.aei.org

Bloomberg. (2026, March 2). China-Iran relations: Why Beijing won’t throw Tehran a lifeline after attack. https://www.bloomberg.com

Brookings Institution. (2026, January). How is China positioning itself as Iran’s regime teeters? https://www.brookings.edu

Brookings Institution. (2026, March). After the strike: The danger of war in Iran. https://www.brookings.edu

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. (2024, October). Cooperation between China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia: Current and potential future threats to America. https://carnegieendowment.org

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. (2025, January). New Russia-Iran treaty reveals the limits of their partnership. Carnegie Politika. https://carnegieendowment.org

CBS News. (2026, March). Beijing braces for economic impact as Iran war threatens Chinese oil. https://www.cbsnews.com

Center for a New American Security (CNAS). (2024–2026). Axis of upheaval research initiative. https://www.cnas.org

Chatham House. (2026, March). China is playing the long game over Iran. https://www.chathamhouse.org

Christian Science Monitor. (2025, June 26). Iran relies on China and Russia. They didn’t show up for its fight with Israel. https://www.csmonitor.com

Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD). (2026, March 2). Russia watches Iran war from the sidelines — again. https://www.fdd.org

Foreign Affairs. (2026, March). Why China won’t help Iran. https://www.foreignaffairs.com

Foreign Policy. (2026, February 27). Iran-Russia relationship strained after U.S. threats. https://foreignpolicy.com

Institute for the Study of War (ISW). (2025, January). Russia-Iran strategic partnership: No mutual defense clause. https://www.understandingwar.org

International Centre for Defence and Security (ICDS). (2026, March). Iran developments as impetus for Beijing to increase coordination with Moscow. https://icds.ee

Iran Primer/United States Institute of Peace. (2025, July 3). What’s at stake for China in the Iran war? https://iranprimer.usip.org

Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA). (2025, October 1). Iran, China, Russia, and North Korea are joining forces against America — and Israel. The Algemeiner. https://jinsa.org

Al Jazeera. (2026, March 5). Where are Iran’s allies? Why Moscow, Beijing are keeping their distance. https://www.aljazeera.com

Russia Matters. (2026). In Iran’s war, Russia serves as backstage partner. https://www.russiamatters.org

The Diplomat. (2026, March). North Korea’s response to the Israel-US attacks on Iran. https://thediplomat.com

TRENDS Research & Advisory. (2026). The Russia-Iran strategic partnership pact: Energy geopolitics and shifting global alliances. https://trendsresearch.org

U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission (USCC). (2025). Axis of autocracy: China’s revisionist ambitions with Russia, Iran, and North Korea (Annual Report to Congress, Chapter 3). https://www.uscc.gov

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)