Russia in Global Affairs

In the world of politics, wars and conflicts, the margin for error shrinks to a knife’s edge, where a single miscalculation can derail a nation’s course, cement dangerous new realities, offer adversaries a fatal opening, or violently invert the very outcomes it sought to achieve. These are moments without redemption, where every decision carries existential consequences, and second chances dissolve in the crucible of combat.

On October 7, 2023, Hamas^[1] carried out its biggest attack on Israel. broke through Gaza’s border fence at dawn, killed 1,189 people—including 815 civilians—injured 7,500, and took 251 hostages. The assault has been compared to America’s 9/11 terrorist attack in its psychological impact and strategic consequences regionally and internationally.

Media outlets aligned with the  «Axis of Resistance» swiftly hailed the operation as «shattering the myth of the invincible army,» «exposing the fallacy of Israeli technological and military superiority,» «an intelligence failure,» and «a permanent overturning of the rules of engagement.»

Amid this euphoric rhetoric of «victory,» few observers of the regional landscape and power dynamics foresaw an impending catastrophe in Gaza. Israel, became as a wounded beast, was poised to unleash devastation—not merely seeking revenge, but aiming to dismantle the entire Axis: Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Assad’s Ba’athist regime in Syria, the Houthis in Yemen, Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces, and ultimately, Iran’s regime under Khamenei—basically anyone alliened with Tehran across the Middle East to confront Israel.

Unification of the arenas V.S fragmenting the arenas:

On the second day of Israel’s war on Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon announced the opening of a front it described as one of «support»—not confrontation—to support Hamas. In the end, this front neither meaningfully supported Gaza nor lessened the burden of Israeli attacks. Instead, it neutered Hezbollah as a decisive force in the fighting.

From the very first hours of the attack, supporters of Iran’s axis noticed that its stance was not what they had expected. Iran kept insisting that it had no warning of the October 7 invasion of Israel by Hamas. three sources have claimed that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei the supreme leader told Ismail Haniyeh that “Iran would continue to lend the group its political and moral support, but wouldn’t intervene directly.”Delivering a  message to the head of Hamas that they gave Iran no warning of the Oct. 7 attack on Israel so they will not enter the war on their behalf. This position appeared, to some, as a tactic, while others perceived it as evasion—left Hamas exposed.

As Israel’s bombardment of Gaza grew increasingly intense, Tehran escalated its rhetoric against Israel, declaring that it would ‘not stand idly by’ in the face of what it called ‘Israeli crimes.’ Just ten days after Israel’s assault began, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei issued a ‘final warning.’ Then, following the October 19 massacre at Al-Mamadani Hospital, the former Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian tweeted, ‘Time is OVER!’ Yet on the ground, nothing changed—except that the situation worsened, plunging Gaza, the West Bank, Yemen and the Lebanese front  into deeper catastrophe.

On April 1, 2024, Israel struck Iran’s consulate in the heart of Damascus, targeting Mohammad Reza Zahedi, a senior IRGC Quds Force commander overseeing operations in Syria and Lebanon. The attack appeared to be a deliberate provocation, as if Israel were attempting to provoke Iran into direct conflict, something apparently Iran didn’t want. However, On April 13, 2024, Iran launched its first-ever direct attack on Israel from its territory. Dubbed “Operation True Promise I”,^[2] The assault involved over 300 missiles and drones—yet it failed to alter the course of the conflict or shift the war’s balance of power. Israel, did not only intercepted the vast majority of these strikes and responded decisively on April 19 with a retaliatory drone attack^[3] targeting the Isfahan air base^[4]—a clear demonstration of its direct challenge to Iran’s deterrence capabilities.

On July 24, 2013, Israel escalated tensions by assassinating Ismail Haniyeh, head of Hamas’s political bureau, in a targeted missile strike on his residence in Tehran. The attack delivered a «A serious challenge to Iran—not only challenging its regional role but also exposing its inability to protect a key ally. The assassination placed Iran in an untenable position. As Hamas’s primary patron, Tehran faced mounting pressure to retaliate, with the world watching to see how it will respond to this brazen violation of its sovereignty.

Iran’s Axis had barely caught its breath when On September 17, 2024, the synchronized pager and walkie-talkie bombings struck, killing at least 39, and wounding some 4,000. This was not merely an attack but a decapitation: the operation left Hezbollah «functionally dead, paralyzed, and blind». The attack was described by Israeli Mossad chief David Barnea as “turning point” in the fight in Lebanon. “This operation marked a turning point in the north, during which we turned the tables on our enemies,” “A direct line can be drawn from the pager operation to the elimination of (Hassan) Nasrallah and the ceasefire agreement. Hezbollah suffered a devastating blow that shattered the organization’s spirit,”

Significantly, there was at the Syrian front «fracture» in Assad’s posture after October 7th, marked by a caution departure from his traditional anti-Israel rhetoric. The regime’s uncharacteristic silence—no condemnations of Israeli operations, no declarations of Palestinian solidarity, just calculated ambiguity—suggested an attempt to insulate Syria from the “Axis of Resistance” escalating conflict and attempts by Bashar Al-Assad to escape from Israel’s revenge. while Iran grew suspicious of possible defection from Assad^[5], interpreted this stance as a reluctance to commit, prompting Tehran to intensify pressure on Assad for a more confrontational position.

Iran’s desire to push for the «Unity of Fronts» doctrine served dual purposes: coordinating proxy pressure against Israel while preventing allied governments—particularly Syria—from pursuing independent détente. The doctrine essentially acted as an insurance policy against defection, ensuring all members of Iran’s axis remained locked into confrontation, whether they desired it or not.

In a dramatic escalation just ten days later on September 27, 2024, Israel conducted a precision strike^[6] eliminating three high-value targets simultaneously:  Hezbollah’s Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah. Ali Karaki — commander of its southern front operations and Abbas Nilforoushan — Iranian Revolutionary Guards Quds Force general overseeing the Lebanon portfolio. The operation marked a significant blow to Hezbollah’s military command structure, Iran’s regional proxy network and the «Unification of Fronts» coordination between Tehran and its allies.

The assassination of Hassan Nasrallah- the charismatic leader — created a seismic shift in the conflict’s trajectory. The assassination plunged  Hezbollah into paralysis, caught between the immediate need to absorb this devastating blow to its leadership and the overwhelming pressure to pursue retaliatory action. This was no ordinary targeted strike. By eliminating Nasrallah — Tehran’s most effective proxy commander and a unifying figure across the Resistance Axis — Israel had crossed a threshold that many interpreted as an outright declaration of war. The regional players  held its breath, with U.S. intelligence officials publicly warning of imminent Iranian retaliation, recognizing that Tehran could not let such a provocation pass unanswered. The aftermath saw the entire region hovering on the brink, as the assassination redrew the boundaries of escalation and forced every actor to reconsider their strategic calculus. Nasrallah’s death didn’t just create a power vacuum — it threatened to unravel the fragile deterrence that had prevented all-out war in the region for years, yet it opened attrition fronts against Israel.

In October 2024, Iran launched «True Promise 2»^[7]—a direct missile strike from its territory targeting Israel’s Mossad headquarters, three air bases, radar systems, and armored units. The Revolutionary Guard boasted a 90% success rate, but the operation fell far short of expectations for the Resistance’s supporters, particularly in Lebanon, who saw it as a half-hearted response to Israel’s escalating assassinations, they perceived the response as mismatched with the gravity of losing their strategic commander Hassan Nasrallah.

The subsequent assassination of Hezbollah’s leadership tiers plunged the party into disarray—a volatile mix of grief, fury, and paralysis. Each loss compounded the weight of their predicament: the craving for vengeance clashed with the crushing reality of their strategic dilemma. The blows came too rapidly to process, the burden too heavy to bear.

On November 27, 2024, a ceasefire silenced the fire on the Lebanese front—but the war merely shifted to a new front, where the flames of war erupted against the axis’s weakest link — Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.  What unfolded next defied all expectations. Beginning in Aleppo, Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham factions launched a devastating offensive that saw the strategic provinces of Aleppo, Hama and Homs collapse in rapid succession like dominoes. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which had previously intervened to save Assad from oblivion during Syria’s war 2011, now stood idle. Abandoned by his allies, Assad’s desperate pleas for help met only silence from a grieving Hezbollah — itself reeling from losses and likely feeling betrayed. Even Iraq refused to send reinforcements. In just ten days, by December 8, 2024, Assad’s  regime crumbled completely. A new regime with a totally different identity and different foreign policy strategy is now ruling Syria. 

The fall of Assad didn’t just change Syria’s and the region’s fate; it revealed the fatal weaknesses in Iran’s Axises, high levels of suspicion and mistrust or preemptive attempts by some to jump off a sinking ship. This development had significant implications for Iran’s regional strategy, with questions raised about its deterrent capabilities.  while Iran’s proxy networks showed signs of reduced effectiveness.

Compounding these changes, the international landscape turned decisively against Iran with Trump’s return to power January 2025 and the reinstatement of the «Maximum Pressure» tactic.

Given Prime Minister Netanyahu's demonstrated willingness to pursue military action against Iran, the risk of direct confrontation appears increasingly likely. Current tensions suggest that escalation may be unavoidable in the near term.

Countering Iran’s “unifications of the arenas” strategy, the U.S. and Israel have implemented a deliberate “fragmentation of arenas” approach, systematically targeting Tehran’s proxy networks—from Lebanon and Syria to ongoing strikes against Houthi forces in Yemen, with potential expansion to Iraq. This coordinated campaign seeks to dismantle Iran’s regional influence architecture by severing proxy control, neutralizing cross-border deterrence capabilities, and eroding its strategic leverage—effectively silencing conflict fronts while isolating Tehran through sanctions pressure. The ultimate objective remains forcing diplomatic concessions, while maintaining military escalation as a final contingency, as demonstrated by Trump posturing.

Iran currently faces a critical strategic dilemma where both compliance and confrontation carry existential risks. On one hand, acquiescing to U.S. demands to abandon its nuclear program could replicate the vulnerabilities experienced by post-2003 Libya and post-2014 Syria, where disarmament preceded regime destabilization. On the other, refusal to comply plays into Israel’s preferred escalation scenario, exacerbated by the Trump administration’s purely coercive approach that offers no diplomatic incentives. This zero-sum calculus has empowered Iran’s hardline faction — led by Khamenei and the Revolutionary Guards — to view confrontation as the only viable option, while moderate voices advocating alternative solutions remain marginalized within the current political framework. Despite the high costs involved the trajectory appears decisively oriented toward confrontation. Especially the current military buildup at Diego Garcia,^[8] Situated approximately 3,700 km south of Iran and historically significant launch site for major U.S. offensive operations including the Vietnam War, both Gulf Wars (1991 and 2003), and the Afghanistan invasion—strongly suggests these newly deployed capabilities are intended for offensive, rather than defensive, purposes in the Middle East.

Regionally, Iran’s foreign policy—characterized by a dual approach of military engagement and diplomatic maneuvering through its so-called «Axis of Resistance»—has alienated neighboring states, prompting Gulf countries, post-Assad Syria, post-Hezbollah Lebanon, Iraq, and Turkey to reassess their alliances in ways that increasingly work against Iran’s interests. This “battlefield vs. diplomacy” approach has left Tehran with limited regional support, effectively forcing it to operate independently in geopolitical conflicts. From a U.S.-Israeli perspective, they prefer  to install a more compliant regime.

Amidst all this gloom, the bleak outlook, and the overwhelming appetite for waging a destructive war against Iran to overthrow its regime, maybe Iran is still capable of leveraging diplomacy and skillfully exploiting the conflicting interests in the region. What if Iran abandons its traditional role in the region? What if it proposes an «Maximum Peace»^[9] initiative in exchange for Trump’s «Maximum pressure»  What if Khamenei revolts against his own legacy before internal forces can do so—and proposes not just negotiations, but peace with Israel itself? Wouldn’t this shift the balance—internally, regionally, and globally? 

At a time when the entire world expects the Iranian regime to remain obstinate (as Bashar al-Assad did) to negotiate  under pressure, and when everyone assumes Iran will never relinquish its role regionally nor abandon its missile program or nuclear ambitions—what if Iran rises above all this and initiates peace with Israel?

Wouldn’t this leave Netanyahu, who constantly says that Iran threatens Israel’s national security, in an untenable position? Wouldn’t it embarrass Donald Trump, who professes a desire for peace, and test his true willingness to pursue it? Wouldn’t it derail the plans of the Iranian opposition, already poised to seize power in the event of war against the current regime—an opposition that is itself prepared to make peace with Israel? 

Not only that—it would earn the regime domestic popularity and respect. The Iranian people would see their leadership enduring every hardship to protect them, halt bloodshed, and shield Iran from unwanted aggression, stop the violence and  Preserve Iran’s security. 

Wouldn’t such an announcement send shockwaves through the world? Wouldn’t it upend the region’s power dynamics—before those very dynamics turn decisively against Iran? 

Such a proposal sounds very audacious, given the Iranian regime’s long history of hostility toward Israel and the United States. But in politics, during dire and critical moments, unconventional and extraordinary measures are sometimes necessary—measures that rewrite history and reshape the future of nations. A single act of courage might not only save Iran but could also rescue the entire Middle East, relieving a heavy burden from the region and ushering Iran and the region  into a new era of transformation.

They say in politics there are no eternal allies, nor perpetual enemies—only interests that endure. If survival is Iran’s highest interest, then let peace become its ultimate act of defiance. Let it be the new “resistance.”