Skip to main content

Why Does Iran Need a “Partner” Like Russia?

The Russian ambassador to Iraq, Elbrus Kutrashev, in an interview recently conducted with him by Husham Ali on Al Sharqiyah TV, accidentally revealed what Russia’s “partners” can count on when they need help: nothing. The war between Israel and Iran quickly confirmed these words, although Iran had already received evidence of Russia’s betrayal earlier. It is worth recalling that already in January 2025, the Iranian agency Tabnak revealed that Russia had been “playing in favor of Israel” in Syria, among other things by switching off radars during an Israeli attack on Iranian commanders in that country. As the Iranian agency emphasized, this indicated clear cooperation between Russia and the Israeli project. Russia also sabotaged Iranian aid to Bashar al-Assad during the jihadist offensive, which led to his downfall. The Israeli intelligence network in the Syrian army, loyal to Russia, betrayed the Iranian commander of Aleppo’s defense, Gen. Pourhamshemi, helping in his assassination. If they did it then, can Iran be certain that the Russians did not help Israel target objectives during the twelve-day war? Many indications suggest they did.

Iran should ask itself why Russia – despite having received important support from Iran in the form of Shahed drones – did not reciprocate by delivering the S-400 air defense system and Su-35 aircraft, which would have been very useful during the war with Israel. The answer lies in the aforementioned interview with Kutrashev, in which he states that “Russia does not support attacks on Israel because there are 1 million Israelis of Russian origin there.” It is worth adding that among them are pro-Kremlin oligarchs (e.g., Roman Abramovich), who moved a significant part of their assets to Israel to protect themselves from American sanctions.

But wasn’t the Russian-Iranian Treaty on Comprehensive Strategic Partnership signed in Moscow in January? Kutrashev revealed, however, what a strategic partnership means according to Russia. He emphasized that it is not an alliance, and that Iran cannot count on help in case of an attack – only on the fact that Russia would not support the aggressor. One must admit His Excellency told the truth – and Iran could not count on any assistance from Russia after Israel’s attack. The only question remains: who needs a “strategic partnership” of the kind Russia offers? This also applies to the muqawama in Iraq. If they joined the war, as Kutrashev stated, the only help would consist of “praying for the resistance.”

The Israeli-Iranian war was a gift for Russia, but ultimately Iran’s agreement to de-escalation was a blow for it. Russia had counted on Iran to block the Strait of Hormuz, and on the Iraqi muqawama to strike the American embassy and the Al-Asad base. So what if Iraq would then go up in flames, and Iran would face a long and devastating war? The most important thing was that the United States would be drawn into the war and become bogged down in the Middle East. Such a war would not be beneficial for the US, Iraq, or Iran – but it would be very beneficial for Russia. It would divert American forces and resources from Ukraine and Central and Eastern Europe, enabling Moscow to invade the Baltic states. And the ones paying the price would be the Iranians and Iraqis.

In addition, oil and gas prices would skyrocket. After all, Russia does not use the Strait of Hormuz. Iran, however, would gain nothing from these price increases except destruction. The same applies to Iraq. In whose interest is Russia acting? Perhaps it is time for some people to finally answer that question.

 


Author: Witlod Repetowicz


 

Failure of the Russian influence operation? The Shia admit that Russia was “playing with Israel” behind their backsCultureEducationPoliticsSecurityTechnology

Failure of the Russian influence operation? The Shia admit that Russia was “playing with Israel” behind their backs

ShaffafiyaShaffafiya2025-12-15
Inflating the Role: From a Maritime Passage to a Tool in Information Conflict Bab el-Mandab has long remained one of the most important points in global trade routes. However, in recent times, its role has been presented in a clearly exaggerated manner, as evidence of the fragility of the global economic system. This shift in the way reality is portrayed cannot be separated from the growing activity in the field of information operations targeting the region. Reframing Risk: A Designed, Not Spontaneous Narrative In these materials, the issue is not limited to reporting risks related to maritime security. Rather, these risks are being used to construct a broader narrative about the collapse of the global system. This pattern aligns with well-established lines of messaging in Russian media campaigns, which for years have sought to portray globalization as a weak and unsustainable system. The mechanism here is clear: the use of real facts, but linking them to pre-determined conclusions. In this way, analysis is transformed into a tool of influence. Shifting the Evaluation Framework: From Stability to the Logic of Power In the Red Sea context, attacks and disruptions are not presented as threats to stability, but as evidence of the effectiveness of certain actors. This shift serves a broader narrative promoted by media outlets linked to Russia, where power and the ability to disrupt are presented as alternatives to concepts such as stability and cooperation. The result is a redefinition of what is considered “success” in the eyes of the audience. Undermining Trust: Targeting the Image of the West A central element of this discourse is the portrayal of the United States and its allies as actors incapable of controlling the situation. This pattern is systematically repeated across media platforms linked to Russia and aims to weaken trust in existing security structures, particularly in regions that Moscow considers areas of strategic competition. Language of Crisis: A Tool of Psychological Influence The language used in these materials suggests that the crisis is inevitable and that the global system is approaching its end. This approach is not incidental, but part of psychological influence techniques that rely on amplifying risk to generate a sense of uncertainty. At the same time, key factors such as the ability of markets to adapt or the existence of logistical alternatives are ignored, resulting in an incomplete picture of reality. How the Operation Works: Between Analysis and Direction The strength of this narrative lies in the fact that it does not appear as direct propaganda. Instead, it is presented as a logical, data-driven analysis. This method is widely used in Russian information operations, as it allows influence over both elites and the broader public without triggering direct resistance. The audience does not feel that it is being guided, yet in reality it is operating within a framework that has been pre-defined. Conclusion: Bab el-Mandab as a Tool of Influence, Not Proof of Collapse Bab el-Mandab is not the cause of the weakness of the global system, but it has become a tool used in information conflict to portray that system as collapsing. Understanding this distinction is essential, because the risk lies not only in events on the ground, but in the way they are interpreted and presented.
Bab el-Mandab as a Theater of Russian Influence Operations: How the Narrative of the “Collapse of Globalization” Is ConstructedIranNewsSecurity

Bab el-Mandab as a Theater of Russian Influence Operations: How the Narrative of the “Collapse of Globalization” Is Constructed

ShaffafiyaShaffafiya2026-04-08
Secondary Disinformation: How Russia Exploits the 2022 Gas Supply Cutoff in Ongoing PropagandaCultureEducationPoliticsSecurityTechnology

Secondary Disinformation: How Russia Exploits the 2022 Gas Supply Cutoff in Ongoing Propaganda

ShaffafiyaShaffafiya2025-12-15