ANALYSIS Russia and China in the shadow of the war in Iran: risks, power opportunities for Moscow and Beijing and an increasingly fragmented world order

The war in Iran opens a new phase of strategic confrontation at the global level between the USA, China, and Russia, and the way Washington maneuvers this conflict will influence both its relationship with Xi Jinping and the Kremlin's strategic calculations, with direct effects on NATO and the states on the eastern flank, such as Romania. The crisis erupts at a time when the international system is already strained by the war in Ukraine, the growing rivalry between the USA and China, and acute debates regarding the future of the multilateral order and the role of the UN. In this context, attacks on Iran are perceived not only as a new military intervention but as an episode that can reconfigure power relations and accelerate the fragmentation of the international order.

Context: from deterrence to military escalation

The coordinated attacks by the USA and Israel on multiple targets in Iran mark a transition from a phase of pressure and deterrence to a large-scale military campaign, under conditions where the American leadership publicly asserts that the objective is not regime change, but "restoring deterrence" and sanctioning actions deemed unacceptable. President Trump ordered operations without an explicit mandate from Congress and without a resolution from the UN Security Council, raising questions, including from allies, regarding the legal basis for the intervention and the decision-making process in Washington.

Before the escalation, international discussions with Tehran aimed, at least at the declarative level, at returning to a nuclear deal framework, in exchange for the gradual relaxation of sanctions. The UN atomic energy agency signaled difficulties in accessing certain Iranian sites, fueling suspicions regarding the nuclear program, while Iranian authorities rejected these assessments and conveyed messages that they remained willing to negotiate under certain conditions.

The rapid transition from this negotiation phase to extensive bombings was perceived in numerous capitals as a major change in approach, from an attempt at an agreement to a military campaign with direct effects on the command and security structures of the Iranian state. Even though the American Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, emphasizes that the declared policy of the USA does not explicitly aim at regime change, the nature of the targets hit and the scale of the operations are interpreted differently by various external actors.

The death of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, acknowledged by Iranian authorities after the American and Israeli strikes, produced a significant change at the top of the political system, yet the regime continues to function. Key structures, from religious institutions to the security apparatus and the Revolutionary Guards, maintain activity, coordinate internal and external reactions, and convey messages of continuity to the population and external partners.

Iran does not have a unified and organized democratic opposition that is prepared to quickly take over the leadership of the state. Protest movements, from previous waves severely repressed to current demonstrations triggered after the strikes and after the announcement of Ali Khamenei's death, remain fragmented, dispersed among socio-economic, political, and cultural demands, without common leadership and without access to real institutional levers. Even in the hypothesis that a military agreement or de-escalation of operations is reached, there are no guarantees that the internal situation will stabilize quickly.

The perception of Moscow and Beijing

In Moscow and Beijing, the attack on Iran is officially presented as an intervention carried out outside the UN framework and as a deviation from the invoked principles of the multilateral order. Russian authorities condemned the operations as illegal and dangerous for regional stability, while the Chinese Foreign Ministry called for an immediate cessation of hostilities, respect for Iran's sovereignty, and a return to political means of resolving the crisis. This interpretation is used by Russia and China to question the USA's role as a global leader and to support their own positions regarding legitimacy and sovereignty in international relations. Iran is considered by both capitals an important partner, both through energy cooperation and through certain political and military convergences.

In Moscow, it is believed that the long-term involvement of the USA in the Middle East can create windows of opportunity on the Ukrainian front and in relation to NATO's eastern flank. The Russian Foreign Ministry, led by Sergey Lavrov, qualified the strikes as an act of unprovoked armed aggression against a UN member state and called for the cessation of the military campaign and a return to diplomatic solutions, emphasizing that a new major crisis weakens the international community's capacity to manage other conflicts. Official statements insist on the idea that Washington "is taking unnecessary risks" and that the escalation in Iran distracts attention from other theaters, especially Ukraine, a message reiterated both in Russian diplomatic communications and in Lavrov's public interventions.

In the strategic analysis from Moscow, a scenario in which political attention, military resources, and the mobilization capacity of Western allies are stretched across multiple simultaneous crises is seen as a more favorable context for Russia, as it can temporarily reduce the intensity of the pressure exerted on it in Europe. This possibility is integrated into the Kremlin's strategic calculation, without Russia directly controlling developments in Iran, but trying to exploit them in a political and diplomatic plan.

For China, the conflict has an energy dimension and a strategic one. In Beijing, the spokesperson for the Foreign Ministry, Mao Ning, emphasized that the attacks do not have authorization from the Security Council, stated that they violate international law, and condemned the killing of the Iranian supreme leader as a serious violation of Iran's sovereignty.

In her statements, Mao Ning spoke of "deep concern" regarding the escalation, called for an immediate cessation of military operations, protection of energy infrastructure and trade routes, including in the Strait of Hormuz, and reaffirmed China's support for a solution through dialogue. Iran is an important node in the Eurasian energy and connectivity architecture, and the war reactivates scenarios regarding the security of this strait and the stability of global resource supply. Additionally, the Chinese leadership correlates US behavior in Iran with its own calculations regarding Taiwan and the regional order in the Indo-Pacific, a fact reflected in the public positions of Beijing's diplomacy, which warns against "the policy of force" and "dangerous precedents."

A perceived volatile and unilateral America fuels internal arguments for strengthening Chinese military power. At the same time, a perceived weakened America politically and economically may encourage temptations to test its resolve in other theaters, including in the Pacific. Russia and China use the conflict to fuel the narrative of "double standards," accusing Washington of sanctioning the aggressions of others but also allowing unilateral military interventions. This rhetoric particularly targets states in the Global South, where narrative competition is intense and where both capitals seek to consolidate their political and economic support.

The US-China relationship in the context of the Iranian conflict

The scheduled meeting between Trump and Xi Jinping, announced for the period of March 31-April 2, will take place in the context of escalating conflict in Iran, and this file is explicitly mentioned in analyses discussing the agenda and stakes of the summit. In this context, a series of foreign policy comments note that Beijing is closely monitoring how the USA formulates its objectives, the means used, and the options for exiting the conflict, including after the elimination of the Iranian supreme leader, presented by the international press as a major blow to the regime. Analyses emphasize that the military dimension of the American approach has implications for regional stability and for the global economic environment, especially through risks related to energy flows and possible disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz.

The potential economic costs of the conflict, including through the impact on oil prices and the security of maritime routes, as well as the risks of escalation, repeatedly appear in official statements from China and in reports about Beijing's position. Mao Ning's statements about "deep concern" qualified the strikes as lacking UN mandate and called for the cessation of military operations and avoidance of conflict escalation, while also emphasizing the importance of protecting trade routes and energy infrastructure. These elements may be part of the broader context of bilateral discussions between the USA and China at the summit.

Analysts cited by Reuters and The New York Times note that Beijing is closely monitoring how the USA formulates its objectives in Iran, combining military pressure with possible diplomatic openings and managing risks to energy flows and regional stability. In Reuters materials and in summaries taken by platforms like Ground News, foreign policy analysts and experts in East Asia emphasize that, for China, two questions are central: the extent to which the USA will be engaged in a prolonged conflict in the Middle East, impacting resources available for the Indo-Pacific, and the degree of cohesion of the West in the face of simultaneous challenges posed by Russia, China, and the Iranian crisis.

A Reuters analysis written by Michael Martina, Mei Mei Chu, and Trevor Hunnicutt shows that if the Trump administration succeeds in reaching a relatively quick agreement with Tehran that reduces nuclear and regional risks and stabilizes energy markets, Beijing could have room to maintain a cautious position focused on protecting economic ties and maintaining a functional dialogue channel with Washington. The article emphasizes that if the Trump administration manages to obtain a relatively quick agreement with Tehran that reduces nuclear and regional risks and limits shocks to energy markets, China could have room to maintain a cautious position focused on protecting economic ties with Iran, but also with Gulf states.

Researchers of international relations such as Evan S. Medeiros, Bonnie Glaser, or Jude Blanchette, cited in analyses published by The New York Times and in reports from the CSIS center, emphasize that the war in Iran overlaps with an already established trend of military modernization and expansion of China's diplomatic influence, but that such an episode can influence the pace and prioritization of these policies. Experts affiliated with institutes such as Chatham House or the Council on Foreign Relations note that Beijing adjusts the caliber of its external involvement depending on how crises like the Iranian one affect the strategic and economic environment in which it operates.

Regarding the relationship with Tehran, specialists in Asia and the Middle East – including analysts interviewed by The New York Times and Western think tanks – show that Beijing seeks to maintain economic and energy cooperation with Iran, while also formulating its public position in terms of support for dialogue, respect for sovereignty, and prevention of escalation, in an effort to protect both access to resources and its relationship with the USA.

The Kremlin's calculation

For Moscow, the war in Iran once again confirms Washington's willingness to resort to force outside the UN framework, an aspect that Russian officials and experts close to power circles constantly use in the discourse about "double standards". Analyst Nigel Gould-Davies from Chatham House and researchers like Liana Fix and Samuel Charap from the Council on Foreign Relations show that the Kremlin can invoke this precedent whenever it is criticized for its own military actions, arguing that the rules are applied selectively, depending on who the actor involved is.

Critical assessments presented in international policy analyses signal the risk that the war could push the global system into a "deep crisis," with increased flows of refugees, economic turbulence, and heightened competition among great powers. Liana Fix and Samuel Charap note that such turbulence can destabilize entire regions, and from Moscow's perspective, the fragmentation of Western attention can be perceived as a relative advantage, even if Russia does not directly control the dynamics in the Middle East.

In geoeconomic terms, Iran has repeatedly indicated the possibility of using its position over the Strait of Hormuz as a pressure tool, and studies cited by experts like Jason Bordoff (Columbia Center on Global Energy Policy) and Helima Croft (RBC Capital Markets) document the critical role of this corridor, through which a significant portion of global oil and liquefied natural gas exports pass. Closing or massively disrupting traffic would cause, according to these analyses, a global energy shock, with sharp price increases, from which Russia, as a major hydrocarbon exporter, could benefit in the short term.

In the medium and long term, however, researchers of the post-Soviet space and the Middle East cited by Chatham House and other institutes warn that an extended regional conflict and a fragmented Iran would raise additional risks: intensified flows of arms, radicalization of non-state actors, and increased competition with other regional powers. These authors emphasize that such developments can also affect Russia's security and the spaces where it projects influence, which is why the Kremlin seeks to combine political support for Tehran with calls for stability and maintaining a minimum control over regional developments, trying to maximize geoeconomic gains without assuming uncontrollable security risks.

Relevance for Romania and possible scenarios

In energy terms, a blockage at Hormuz would push global oil and gas prices up, with a direct impact on the Romanian economy. Dependence on imports and the current structure of consumption amplify vulnerability to such shocks. On the other hand, the status of a Black Sea riparian state creates opportunities, under conditions where alternative energy corridors and transit infrastructure gain increased relevance.

Politically, Romania remains one of the most pro-American members of the EU. Developments in Iran may amplify tensions between the pro-American reflex and pressures for convergence with more critical European positions regarding unilateral interventions. Managing this tension will become a major test for Romanian foreign policy.

In society, changing perceptions of the USA and potential economic costs may fuel sovereignist or anti-Western discourses. Political actors may exploit fears related to war and economic uncertainties. Counterbalancing these trends depends on the quality of public communication and the ability of elites to explain the stakes of Euro-Atlantic security.

In terms of scenarios, three main directions are emerging. The first scenario is that of a rapid agreement between Washington and Tehran, in which military pressure is used to obtain nuclear limitations and regional guarantees, with the gradual relaxation of sanctions; for Romania, the impact would be mainly economic, through energy price volatility. The second scenario is that of a prolonged war and a fragmented Iran, in which the conflict extends through proxy networks, and Romania faces a much more volatile security environment in the Black Sea neighborhood and the need to increase its defense capabilities. The third scenario is that of a controlled crisis and a pivot towards diplomacy, involving multiple actors in negotiation formats, in which case Romania would benefit from greater Western cohesion but would need to actively participate in diplomatic efforts and in strengthening the eastern flank.

Synthesis made with the help of a data monitoring flow provided by the media monitoring platform NewsVibe Romania. The presented analysis was enhanced with the help of Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence tools.