... the Silence of China, Russia, and India May Be Judged Harshly by History

Iran is not merely a strategically important country in geopolitics. It is the heir to the glorious Persian civilization, a land with thousands of years of history and a cradle of science, poetry, and philosophy. Today, that rich civilization—and the lives of millions of innocent people—is being shattered under the bombs of American and Israeli warplanes. Not only leaders such as Ayatollah Khamenei, but also thousands of ordinary civilians, including women and children, are losing their lives. At this critical moment, are China and Russia remaining silent out of indifference, or are they extending unseen support as part of a broader strategic calculation? Has India abandoned its long-standing friendship with Iran in order to align itself more closely with the United States? The answers to these difficult questions lie at the intersection of strategy, morality, and political realism.

Realpolitik: The Strategic Constraints of China and Russia

Many believe that China and Russia should directly confront the United States and Israel militarily. While such expectations may arise from emotion and sympathy, they overlook the realities of international politics.

China's foremost priority is economic growth. Nearly 45 percent of its oil imports come from the Gulf region, while only about 12 percent originate from Iran. A direct military confrontation with the United States could disrupt the Strait of Hormuz, send global oil prices soaring, and severely damage China's economy. Moreover, China has no mutual defense treaty with Iran, and therefore has no legal obligation to deploy its military in Iran's defense.

Russia, meanwhile, remains deeply engaged in the war in Ukraine, with much of its military capacity committed there. It is not in a position to open another direct confrontation with the United States and its European allies. Consequently, Russia is believed to be providing Iran with satellite intelligence, drone technology, and certain missile systems, while avoiding direct military involvement. Moscow also appears interested in preserving diplomatic channels with Washington.

Iran's Military Position: Is It Really Defenseless?

The claim that Iran possesses only a limited number of missiles and lacks military capability is not entirely accurate. Before the conflict escalated, Iran reportedly possessed between 2,500 and 3,000 ballistic missiles, with a substantial number still believed to be operational.

Russia has reportedly agreed to supply 48 Su-35 fighter aircraft and has already delivered Yak-130 trainer aircraft. Iran has also been exploring the possibility of purchasing J-10B fighter jets from China. In other words, Iran is not completely defenseless. Nevertheless, these capabilities remain insufficient when compared with the overwhelming technological superiority of the combined American and Israeli military forces.

From a Humanitarian Perspective: Is Silence a Moral Failure?

Whatever the strategic realities may be, watching Iran's destruction without meaningful action raises profound moral questions. Although China and Russia have voiced criticism at the United Nations, statements alone do not save civilian lives.

If Iran were to collapse completely, it would represent not only a victory for the United States and Israel but could also reshape the regional balance of power in ways that may eventually affect China and Russia themselves. What appears today as strategic restraint may tomorrow be viewed as a failure to defend long-term security interests. Future history may judge such silence as a grave moral failure.

India and Iran: Has a Historic Friendship Been Abandoned?

India's position is perhaps the most painful. India and Iran share centuries of civilizational, cultural, and commercial ties. Persian influence has deeply enriched the Indian subcontinent, while the Parsi community has become an integral part of Indian society. From India's freedom movement to various phases of its foreign and nuclear policy, Iran has often maintained friendly relations with New Delhi.

Yet today, under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the Indian government is perceived by many critics as moving closer to the United States and Israel while distancing itself from Iran. They argue that this approach contradicts the sentiments of many Indians and the concerns expressed by sections of the political opposition. According to these critics, India risks sacrificing its tradition of strategic autonomy and drifting away from the independent foreign policy associated with the Nehru era.

A Balanced Path Forward

China, Russia, and India should not allow narrow strategic interests to result in complete inaction. Even if direct military intervention is neither practical nor desirable, they can still take meaningful diplomatic and strategic steps.

China and Russia could expand defensive military assistance to Iran by supplying advanced air-defense systems, additional missile capabilities, and modern fighter aircraft to strengthen Iran's defensive capacity.

At the United Nations, they could work more actively to build international pressure for an immediate ceasefire and stronger diplomatic initiatives.

China and India should also recognize that regional stability and secure energy supply routes are closely connected to Iran's security and stability.

India, according to the argument presented here, should reconsider its present approach, strengthen diplomatic engagement with Iran, and demonstrate that its foreign policy remains independent rather than overly influenced by any major power.

In the End: History Will Deliver its Verdict

If Iran is left isolated and devastated by American and Israeli military power, those who remained silent may one day be forced to answer difficult questions before history. Remaining silent in the face of perceived injustice is often viewed as a form of complicity.

China and Russia must balance their strategic calculations with broader geopolitical responsibilities. India must decide whether to preserve its tradition of strategic independence or continue along its present course.

Should Iran collapse, American influence in the Middle East could expand significantly, potentially creating new long-term strategic challenges for China, Russia, and India alike. Therefore, not only humanitarian concern but also strategic self-interest may call for stronger support for Iran through diplomatic, political, and defensive means rather than passive silence or direct military confrontation.

Ultimately, history will judge whether today's decisions reflected wisdom or timidity. That judgment will depend on the choices these nations make now.