As air raid sirens remain quiet, Israelis and Iranians are looking to repair the damage that was done during the 12-day war in June of this year. For now, the ceasefire between the two enemies seems to be holding. Support from the West played a key role in Israel's success. In contrast, Iran had no support from its partners such as Russia or China, highlighting the shortcomings of these transactional relationships. While only a brief engagement, the war demonstrated the limits of alliances among authoritarian states.
The support that Israel receives from Western allies, the U.S. in particular, is no secret. Germany's new chancellor Friedrich Merz went so far as to praise Israel after the recent campaign for doing the “dirty work” for other countries.
In contrast, Iran remained alone, despite its close relations with countries such as Russia and its previously formidable Axis of Resistance proxies across the region. Before the war, the capabilities of Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis had been seriously degraded, which coincided with the ousting of the Iran-aligned Assad regime in Syria. Israel in fact openly suggested that the collapse of the Axis of Resistance was one of the key factors that played into the decision to launch the attack. In addition, Tehran's international partners such as Russia have offered very little support, despite Russia recently signing a strategic partnership with the country. Moscow made clear that the “treaty does not mean the establishment of a military alliance with Iran or mutual military assistance.” China limited its reaction to condemning Israel and calling for peace.
Collaboration between autocracies has certainly been growing, but the trend is driven primarily by self-interest and self-preservation. For example, Iran and China help Russia circumvent economic sanctions not out of loyalty, but primarily to reap benefits and to support a fellow regime that perceives the collective West as enemy. These transactional relations place limits on the willingness of authoritarian leaders to support their allies when it comes to blows. In June, Israel could rely on the United States for support, but Tehran was left to deal with the situation on its own, leaving it at a disadvantage.
Iran's war time isolation is a reminder that unity is key for successfully deterring and defending against adversaries. This is hardly new thinking: RAND research, coinciding with NATO's 75th anniversary last year, showed that maintaining political cohesion and unity of purpose are key elements for tackling NATO's strategic challenges. Most Western countries know this well.
Iran's war time isolation is a reminder that unity is key for successfully deterring and defending against adversaries.
France, Germany, Poland, and the United Kingdom recently united to emphasise their support for Kyiv, and President Trump reaffirmed his commitment to Article 5 as NATO allies agreed to raise defence spending to 5 percent of GDP. Yet, divisions remain—a case in point is Slovakia and Hungary, which began vetoing EU sanctions against Russia in order to secure compromises for their own benefit. As we have seen, national policy can also change abruptly and significantly with one election. While France for example is currently promoting cooperation on the European level, even on nuclear deterrence, this could look very different with a win for the National Rally at the next election.
Pro-European and pro-NATO parties therefore seek to strengthen their position domestically; building bridges with opposition figures and reminding citizens of what is at stake. Poland, the Baltics, and the Scandinavian countries all show strong cross-party agreement on their membership in NATO, clearly identifying Russia as a security threat. Other European governments should seek to develop the same level of understanding, while clearly communicating the advantages of NATO and EU membership to their populations. The Israel-Iran war is a powerful reminder that their security and deterrence is likely to suffer considerably if they decide otherwise.
