'Axis of upheaval': How China, Russia ghosted Iran - when it mattered most

It’s been one week since American B-2 bombers dropped 30,000-pound bunker busters on three of Iran’s nuclear sites, forcing Tehran and Tel Aviv into a shaky ceasefire under heavy pressure from US President Donald Trump . The conflict-brief but brutal-killed hundreds and raised the specter of regional war. Now, Iran is wounded, Israel remains defiant, and the US president claims victory.

But in the background of this geopolitical drama, another story quietly unfolded: the vanishing act of Iran’s supposed allies, China and Russia.

For a decade, analysts and politicians warned of a rising anti-Western “axis”-a tripartite bloc of Iran, China, and Russia. From drone deals to joint naval exercises, these powers appeared to be drawing closer. But when the missiles flew and Tehran came under fire, both Beijing and Moscow stayed out of the fight.



Also read: Trump’s Iran gambit: Why Xi Jinping stayed quiet-what it means for Taiwan

Why it matters

• The muted response by China and Russia during Iran’s confrontation with Israel and the US is more than a diplomatic snub-it’s a reality check on the limits of authoritarian alliances.
• For years, the West has viewed the deepening ties between Beijing, Moscow, and Tehran as a looming threat: a potential counterweight to Nato, a challenge to the US-led global order, and a united front capable of coordinating economic and military pressure on democracies. The recent Israel-Iran conflict was the first major test of that axis under direct fire. And it failed.
• This matters because it reveals the underlying fragility of what some have called an “Axis of upheaval.” The Iran-China-Russia alliance is not built on mutual defense or even shared values-but on strategic convenience and parallel grievances against the West.
• Their hesitation to back Iran militarily shows that: Beijing and Moscow are reluctant to jeopardize their broader economic and geopolitical interests-especially in Europe and with key Gulf states.
• Iran, while useful to both as a disruptor, is not worth the risk of direct confrontation with the US or deeper regional instability.
• In a global crisis, even “no limits” partnerships have limits.
• For US policymakers, this moment offers a window of opportunity: to recalibrate deterrence strategies, test diplomatic openings, and stress-test China and Russia’s willingness to stand by their rogue partner. For Iran, it may prompt a painful reassessment of who its real allies are-and how alone it might be the next time conflict erupts.

How we got here: The shaky “axis of upheaval”

• The idea of a cohesive anti-Western axis began gaining traction in early 2022, after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the deepening of ties with Iran and China. Iran supplied drones and weapons to Russia; China increased trade and oil purchases from both nations.
• China and Russia saw value in Tehran as a thorn in the side of the West-useful for stoking unrest in the Middle East and distracting US resources. But their core interests have always diverged.
• China prioritized energy security and stability in the Middle East, essential for its Belt and Road Initiative and economic recovery.
• Russia viewed Iran as a tool to distract the West from Ukraine-but not a partner worth defending militarily.
• Iran saw these ties as insurance against Western aggression-a bet that’s now looking less wise.

The big picture

President Trump ordered the strike that demolished parts of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure using “bunker-busting” bombs. Ayatollah Khamenei responded with fiery rhetoric. But the most telling reactions came not from Tehran-but from Beijing and Moscow.

Rather than rally behind their partner: China issued carefully worded statements urging de-escalation, refraining from condemning Israel directly, and warning Tehran against actions-like closing the Strait of Hormuz-that could destabilize global trade.

Chinese President Xi Jinping showed no hurry to react and took his own time before before calling for “de-escalation.”



Russia, preoccupied with its grinding war in Ukraine, limited its response to diplomatic overtures and vague promises of support, avoiding any concrete military assistance.

These muted responses are a sharp contrast to the anti-Western solidarity these nations have projected over the past several years.

What they’re saying

• “The Iranians are clearly very frightened,” Russian analyst Alexey Mukhin told reporters following a meeting between Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi and Russian President Vladimir Putin, a Christian Science Monitor report said. Despite promising “support to the Iranian people,” Putin made no military or economic commitments.
• “Iran is taking a significant amount of hitting ... but Russia and China have not stepped forward to beef up its defense,” Nader Habibi of Brandeis University’s Crown Center for Middle East Studies told the CSM.
• Rosemary Kelanic of Defense Priorities added, “Neither Russia nor China seem especially interested in sticking their necks out for Iran. I’m sure Iran has noticed that.”
• “Even among authoritarian regimes, differences in values can limit cooperation,” wrote the Atlantic’s Leon Aron.
• Transactional ties go only so far when missiles start flying.

Zoom in: The limits of loyalty

• The disparity between Iran’s needs and what China and Russia were willing to deliver highlights the fundamentally asymmetric nature of the relationship:
• China is Iran’s economic lifeline, buying 90% of its oil. But Iran provides only 10% of China’s oil imports. In a sign of caution, Beijing avoided arming Tehran and instead emphasized the Strait of Hormuz’s importance to global commerce-a diplomatic nudge not to escalate.
• Russiahas gained significantly from Iranian military aid in Ukraine, including thousands of drones. Yet when the tables turned, it offered little in return. Even Su-35 fighter jets promised to Iran in 2023 remain undelivered.
• Even the trilateral naval exercises held by Iran, Russia, and China earlier this year look more symbolic than strategic in hindsight.

What’s next: Strategic ambiguity
President Trump has hinted at reopening talks with Iran, suggesting that sanctions could be lifted if Tehran steps away from its nuclear ambitions. But those prospects remain uncertain, especially after Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called the US strikes a “slap to America’s face” and Trump replied that Iran “got beat to hell”.

Iran is still reeling from the destruction of its Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan nuclear facilities. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, parts of the sites are still operational, but their enrichment capabilities have been “destroyed to an important degree”.

For now, Tehran appears diplomatically cornered:

• The US has reasserted its dominance through military force and diplomacy.
• Israel has vowed to strike again if Iran restarts its nuclear program.
• China and Russia are urging calm but offering no meaningful deterrence to further Israeli or US strikes.

Looking ahead
For Iran, this is a strategic inflection point. With nuclear infrastructure damaged, popular unrest simmering, and its axis allies cautious at best, Tehran must decide whether to rebuild its deterrent or recalibrate its diplomacy.

For the West, the takeaway is mixed. The Iran-China-Russia bloc is less formidable than feared. But it’s also more unpredictable. Beijing may prefer restraint, but it could still help Iran quietly.

Russia may be distracted by Ukraine, but not indefinitely. The axis may be cracked-but not yet broken.

As the Atlantic put it, “Anti-Americanism can bind an alliance together only so much”.

And for now, at least, it’s an axis that won’t come when called.
(With inputs from agencies)