‘If Iran falls, we're next': What Russian experts and politicians are saying about the US strikes
On June 22, the United States, acting in support of its closest ally Israel, launched airstrikes against nuclear sites in Iran. The full consequences of the operation – for Iran's nuclear program and for the broader balance of power in the Middle East – remain uncertain. But in Moscow, reactions were swift. Russian politicians and foreign policy experts have begun drawing conclusions, offering early forecasts and strategic interpretations of what may come next.
In this special report, RT presents the view from Russia: a collection of sharp, often contrasting perspectives from analysts and officials on what Washington's latest military move means for the region – and for the world.
The trap awaiting Trump is simple – but highly effective. If Iran responds by targeting American assets, the US will be pulled deeper into a military confrontation almost by default. If on the other hand, Tehran holds back or offers only a token response, Israel's leadership – backed by its neoconservative allies in Washington – will seize the moment to pressure the White House: now is the time to finish off a weakened regime and force a convenient replacement. Until that happens, they'll argue the job isn't done. Whether Trump is willing – or even able – to resist that pressure remains uncertain.
Most likely, Iran will avoid hitting US targets directly in an effort to prevent a point-of-no-return escalation with American forces. Instead, it will likely intensify its strikes on Israel. Netanyahu, in turn, will double down on his efforts to convince Washington that regime change in Tehran is the only viable path forward – something Trump, at least for now, remains instinctively opposed to. Still, the momentum of military entanglement has a logic of its own, and it's rarely easy to resist.
If Iran does nothing, it risks appearing weak – both at home and abroad. That makes a carefully calibrated response almost inevitable: one designed not to escalate the conflict, but to preserve domestic legitimacy and project resolve. Tehran is unlikely to go much further than that. Meanwhile, by continuing to build up its military presence, Washington sends a clear deterrent message – signaling both readiness and resolve in case Tehran miscalculates.
Another option for Iran could be a dramatic symbolic move: withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Such a step would be Tehran's way of declaring that Trump, by striking nuclear infrastructure, has effectively dismantled the global nonproliferation regime. The NPT was supposed to guarantee Iran's security; instead, it has delivered the opposite. Still, if Iran goes down that path, it risks damaging ties with Moscow and Beijing – neither of which wants to see a challenge to the existing nuclear order.
The bigger question now is whether Iran will even consider returning to talks with Washington after this attack. Why negotiate when American promises no longer mean anything? Tehran urgently needs a mediator who can restrain Trump from further escalation – and right now, the only credible candidate is Moscow. Iran's foreign minister, [Abbas] Araghchi, is set to meet with President Putin on June 23. It's hard to imagine that a potential NPT withdrawal won't be on the table. If in the past an Iranian bomb was considered an existential threat to Israel, the calculus has now reversed: for Iran, nuclear capability is quickly becoming a question of survival.
Let's state the obvious: Iraq, Libya – and now Iran – were bombed because they couldn't hit back. They either didn't have weapons of mass destruction or hadn't yet developed them. In some cases, they never even intended to. Meanwhile, the West doesn't touch the four countries that remain outside the Non-Proliferation Treaty: India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel. Why? Because unlike Iraq, Libya, and Iran, these states actually possess nuclear weapons.
The message to so-called 'threshold' nations couldn't be clearer: if you don't want to be bombed by the West, arm yourself. Build deterrence. Go all the way – even to the point of developing weapons of mass destruction. That's the grim conclusion many countries will draw. It's a dangerous lesson, and one that flies in the face of global security and the very idea of a rules-based international order.
Yet it's the West that keeps driving this logic. Iraq was invaded over a vial of powder. Libya gave up its nuclear program and was torn apart. Iran joined the NPT, worked with the IAEA, and didn't attack Israel – unlike Israel, which just struck Iran while staying outside the NPT and refusing to cooperate with nuclear watchdogs. This is more than hypocrisy; it's a catastrophic failure of US policy.
Trump's administration has made a colossal mistake. The pursuit of a Nobel Peace Prize has taken on grotesque and dangerous proportions.
Some still cling to the illusion that World War III might somehow pass us by. It won't. We are already in the thick of it. The US has carried out a bombing strike against Iran – our ally. Nothing stopped them. And if nothing stopped them from bombing Iran, then nothing will stop them from targeting us next. At some point, they may decide that Russia, like Iran, shouldn't be allowed to possess nuclear weapons – or find some other pretext to strike. Make no mistake: we are at war.
The US can attack whether we advance or retreat. It's not about strategy – it's about will. Ukraine may not be Israel in the eyes of the West, but it plays a similar role. Israel didn't always exist; it was created and quickly became a proxy for the collective West – though some Israelis would argue the opposite, that the West is merely a proxy for Israel. Ukraine has followed the same trajectory. No wonder Zelensky isn't asking for Western support – he's demanding it, including nuclear arms. The model is clear. And just like Israel bombs Gaza with impunity, Kiev bombarded Donbass for years – albeit with fewer resources and less restraint from Moscow.
Our appeals to the UN and calls for peace have become meaningless. If Iran falls, Russia is next. Trump, once again, is firmly in the grip of the neocons – just as he was during his first term. The MAGA project is over. There is no 'great America,' only standard-issue globalism in its place.
Trump thinks he can strike once – like he did with Soleimani – and then walk it back. But there's no walking this back. He has triggered a world war he cannot control, let alone win.
Now, everything hinges on Iran. If it stays on its feet and keeps fighting, it might still prevail. The Strait of Hormuz is closed. The Houthis have blocked traffic in the Red Sea. As new players enter the fray, the situation will evolve rapidly. China will try to stay out – for now. Until the first blow lands on them, too.
But if Iran folds, it won't just lose itself – it will expose the rest of us. That includes Russia, now facing an existential choice. The question isn't whether to fight. Russia is already fighting. The question is how. The old methods are exhausted. That means we'll have to find a new way to fight – and fast.
Judging by the remarks from Hegseth and General Cain at the press conference, the US appears to be signaling the end of its direct involvement – at least for now. Officially, Iran's nuclear program has been 'eliminated.' Whether that's actually true is beside the point. Even if Tehran manages to build a bomb six months from now, the narrative is set: the operation was targeted solely at nuclear infrastructure, with no strikes on military forces or civilians. A narrow, clean, and – according to Washington – decisively successful mission. The job is done, the curtain falls.
That doesn't mean Washington is walking away. The US will continue to back Israel and retains the capacity to escalate if needed. But for the moment, the mood seems to be one of self-congratulatory closure.
Of course, if they really wanted to go all in, they could've used a tactical nuclear weapon.
That would've offered undeniable 'proof' of an Iranian bomb: if it explodes, it must have existed. And second, it would've allowed the administration to claim it had destroyed nuclear weapons on Iranian soil. Both assertions would've been technically accurate – if strategically absurd.
None of it would've been factually false. Just morally and politically radioactive.
Why did the US choose to strike Iran now, after years of restraint? The answer is simple: fear. For decades, Washington held back out of concern that any attack would trigger a wave of retaliatory terror attacks – possibly hundreds – carried out by sleeper cells tied to Iran and its allies like Hezbollah. The prevailing assumption was that Iran had quietly prepared networks across the US and Israel, ready to unleash chaos in response.
But Israel's war in Lebanon dispelled that myth. The feared sleeper cells never materialized. Once that became clear, both Israel and the US realized they could strike Iran with minimal risk of serious blowback.
And so, ironically, Iran's restraint – its perceived 'peacefulness' – has paved the way to war. There's a lesson in that for Russia: when the West senses both a willingness to negotiate and a refusal to submit, it responds not with diplomacy, but with force. That is the true face of Western imperialism.
Trump has crossed a red line. We're now facing the real possibility of a major military confrontation. Iran could retaliate by striking US military installations across the Middle East, prompting Washington to respond in kind. That would mark the beginning of a drawn-out armed conflict – one the US may find increasingly difficult to contain.
What we're witnessing looks very much like a victory for the so-called 'deep state'. Many had expected Trump to hold back, to avoid taking the bait. But he allowed himself to be pulled into a high-risk gamble whose consequences are impossible to predict.
And politically, this may backfire. If the standoff with Iran sends oil prices soaring, the fallout could be severe. In the United States, gasoline prices are sacrosanct. Any administration that allows them to spiral out of control faces serious domestic repercussions. For Trump, this could turn into a serious vulnerability.
So, what exactly did the US accomplish with its midnight strike on three targets in Iran?
1. Iran's critical nuclear infrastructure appears to be intact – or at worst, only minimally damaged.
2. Uranium enrichment will continue. And let's just say it plainly now: so will Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons.
3. Several countries are reportedly ready to supply Iran with nuclear warheads directly.
4. Israel is under fire, explosions are echoing through its cities, and civilians are panicking.
5. The US is now entangled in yet another conflict, this one carrying the very real possibility of a ground war.
6. Iran's political leadership has not only survived – it may have grown stronger.
7. Even Iranians who opposed the regime are now rallying around it.
8. Donald Trump, the self-styled peace president, has just launched a new war.
9. The overwhelming majority of the international community is siding against the US and Israel.
10. At this rate, Trump can kiss that Nobel Peace Prize goodbye – despite how absurdly compromised the award has become.
So, congratulations, Mr. President. Truly a stellar start.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
2 hours ago
- Russia Today
The EU's favorite war: the one Israel starts
Israel flew over to Iran with fighter jets and has since gone totally ballistic — literally and figuratively. So what does the European Union's insane clown posse have to say about it? Get yourself some popcorn. The Eurojokers are doing their best stand-up comedy again without even realizing it. First up: French President Emmanuel Macron, who took to social media to declare that 'peace and security for all in the region must remain our guiding principle.' Aww, how sweet. Calling for peace while holding your buddy's coat as he storms into the bar to punch someone on the face. So after Israel unilaterally launched its hundred-target missile tantrum across Tehran – complete with residential hits and assassinations – maybe some strong words against that kind of thing are in order? 'France has repeatedly condemned Iran's ongoing nuclear program and has taken all appropriate diplomatic measures in response. In this context, France reaffirms Israel's right to defend itself and ensure its security,' Macron posted as the conflict kicked off. Classic French parenting: ignore the kid setting the house on fire and scold the one who looked at him funny. Next up, Germany. Surely the new chancellor, Friedrich Merz, can inject some sober logic into the conversation about who just broke the fragile regional peace everyone's pretending to care about. 'Iran has subsequently threatened to accelerate uranium enrichment again. This nuclear programme violates the provisions of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and poses a serious threat to the entire region, especially to the State of Israel. We reaffirm that Israel has the right to defend its existence and the security of its citizens. We call on both sides to refrain from steps that could lead to further escalation and destabilise the entire region,' wrote Merz. Oh, so now that Israel has attacked Iran, it's time for restraint? Not before. Not during. After. Like a guy who throws the first punch in a bar fight and then shouts, 'Hey! Let's all calm down!' Both Macron and Merz say that Iran brought this on itself by enriching uranium. That's like this: you've got a neighbor who lifts weights in his home gym. You see him through the window with a squat rack, bench press, treadmill – getting jacked. And you're like, 'Wow, he's getting so ripped I'm afraid he might beat me up someday. So I better go over there now and beat him up while I still can.' That's basically what Israel did with its 'preemptive' strike. And Macron and Merz are cheering it on like, 'Totally! That guy was getting too buff. Definitely deserved a missile to the face.' Then Merz added from the G7 summit in Canada: 'This is the dirty work that Israel is doing for all of us. We are also victims of this regime.' Oh, sorry – didn't realize the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had hired Israel as a global bouncer. And remind us, Friedrich: where exactly did Iran touch Germany on the map? Because Europe is far more likely to be 'victimized' by waves of immigration facilitated by its own lax policies, and sparked by its own support for regime change wars – like this one is shaping up to be – than by any distant centrifuge. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, the EU's de facto queen, is now cosplaying as global playground monitor, sending all the boys to their corners. 'Europe urges all parties to exercise maximum restraint, de-escalate immediately and refrain from retaliation. A diplomatic resolution is now more urgent than ever, for the sake of the region's stability and global security,' she wrote. Maximum restraint? That's rich – especially coming from someone who's usually all about blowing €800 billion on weapons in bulk like a redneck doomsday cult stocking up for when Russian tanks finally roll up to the McDonald's drive thru in Warsaw – five years from now, around 2030, she and the rest of the Eurojokers keep saying. 'Of course I think a negotiated solution is, in the long term, the best solution,' she later said. Sure – as long as peace doesn't get in the way of endless proxy war in Ukraine, right? So, is anyone in Europe offering a perspective that doesn't sound like a hostage video scripted by Netanyahu's PR team? Not really. The Wall Street Journal summed it up bluntly: 'Europe backs Israel against Iran despite anger over Gaza.' For actual dissent, you have to look just outside the EU. 'Israel's attacks on our neighbor Iran are a clear provocation that disregards international law. These attacks, which come at a time when negotiations on Iran's nuclear program are intensifying and international pressure is increasing against inhumane actions targeting Gaza, demonstrate Israel's rule-breaking mentality. The Netanyahu administration is trying to drag our region and the entire world into disaster with its reckless, aggressive and lawless actions,' wrote Turkish President Recep Erdoğan from right next door to the EU clown tent. Türkiye has been waiting to join the EU since 1999 – like an Amazon package left on the doorstep, permanently. Gee, wonder why. You'd think that when things get this hot, Europe might welcome some diverse opinions – if only to avoid sounding like a chorus line of brain-dead sock puppets mouthing press releases from the Israeli defense ministry.
Russia Today
3 hours ago
- Russia Today
NATO summit to ditch Ukraine meeting
An upcoming NATO leaders summit in the Netherlands will have a shortened schedule, with the focus on Ukraine drastically reduced, Politico reported on Saturday, citing five people familiar with the matter. The summit, set to be held in the World Forum in The Hague from June 24 to 25, will only feature two main events – a welcome dinner at the Dutch royal family's castle and a single meeting of the North Atlantic Council instead of the usual two or three, according to Politico. There also will not be a meeting of NATO's Ukraine Council. Ukraine's Vladimir Zelensky has been only invited to attend the welcome dinner, and it still remains unclear whether he will come, the outlet noted. The sources suggested the abbreviated schedule was a concession to the US and President Donald Trump in particular, who has repeatedly shown impatience with and shunned multilateral gatherings of a ceremonial nature. NATO officials reportedly pared down the agenda after the G7 debacle, when Trump abruptly left the summit in Canada halfway through the two-day program. He also reportedly opposed a draft joint statement on the Ukraine conflict, and the summit ultimately ended without one. The upcoming gathering is expected to yield no lengthy joint communique, with the bloc likely to produce only short statements on new commitments. Cuts to the agenda have also been attributed to a need to minimize the risk of derailing the main event of the summit, where members are expected to pledge to hike defense spending to 5% GDP. Trump has long demanded that NATO countries spend more on defense, and the new commitment will be regarded as a big 'win' by the US president, the sources suggested. 'He has to get credit for the 5% – that's why we're having the summit,' a European defense official told Politico. 'Everything else is being streamlined to minimize risk.'
Russia Today
4 hours ago
- Russia Today
‘If Iran falls, we're next': What Russian experts and politicians are saying about the US strikes
On June 22, the United States, acting in support of its closest ally Israel, launched airstrikes against nuclear sites in Iran. The full consequences of the operation – for Iran's nuclear program and for the broader balance of power in the Middle East – remain uncertain. But in Moscow, reactions were swift. Russian politicians and foreign policy experts have begun drawing conclusions, offering early forecasts and strategic interpretations of what may come next. In this special report, RT presents the view from Russia: a collection of sharp, often contrasting perspectives from analysts and officials on what Washington's latest military move means for the region – and for the world. The trap awaiting Trump is simple – but highly effective. If Iran responds by targeting American assets, the US will be pulled deeper into a military confrontation almost by default. If on the other hand, Tehran holds back or offers only a token response, Israel's leadership – backed by its neoconservative allies in Washington – will seize the moment to pressure the White House: now is the time to finish off a weakened regime and force a convenient replacement. Until that happens, they'll argue the job isn't done. Whether Trump is willing – or even able – to resist that pressure remains uncertain. Most likely, Iran will avoid hitting US targets directly in an effort to prevent a point-of-no-return escalation with American forces. Instead, it will likely intensify its strikes on Israel. Netanyahu, in turn, will double down on his efforts to convince Washington that regime change in Tehran is the only viable path forward – something Trump, at least for now, remains instinctively opposed to. Still, the momentum of military entanglement has a logic of its own, and it's rarely easy to resist. If Iran does nothing, it risks appearing weak – both at home and abroad. That makes a carefully calibrated response almost inevitable: one designed not to escalate the conflict, but to preserve domestic legitimacy and project resolve. Tehran is unlikely to go much further than that. Meanwhile, by continuing to build up its military presence, Washington sends a clear deterrent message – signaling both readiness and resolve in case Tehran miscalculates. Another option for Iran could be a dramatic symbolic move: withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Such a step would be Tehran's way of declaring that Trump, by striking nuclear infrastructure, has effectively dismantled the global nonproliferation regime. The NPT was supposed to guarantee Iran's security; instead, it has delivered the opposite. Still, if Iran goes down that path, it risks damaging ties with Moscow and Beijing – neither of which wants to see a challenge to the existing nuclear order. The bigger question now is whether Iran will even consider returning to talks with Washington after this attack. Why negotiate when American promises no longer mean anything? Tehran urgently needs a mediator who can restrain Trump from further escalation – and right now, the only credible candidate is Moscow. Iran's foreign minister, [Abbas] Araghchi, is set to meet with President Putin on June 23. It's hard to imagine that a potential NPT withdrawal won't be on the table. If in the past an Iranian bomb was considered an existential threat to Israel, the calculus has now reversed: for Iran, nuclear capability is quickly becoming a question of survival. Let's state the obvious: Iraq, Libya – and now Iran – were bombed because they couldn't hit back. They either didn't have weapons of mass destruction or hadn't yet developed them. In some cases, they never even intended to. Meanwhile, the West doesn't touch the four countries that remain outside the Non-Proliferation Treaty: India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel. Why? Because unlike Iraq, Libya, and Iran, these states actually possess nuclear weapons. The message to so-called 'threshold' nations couldn't be clearer: if you don't want to be bombed by the West, arm yourself. Build deterrence. Go all the way – even to the point of developing weapons of mass destruction. That's the grim conclusion many countries will draw. It's a dangerous lesson, and one that flies in the face of global security and the very idea of a rules-based international order. Yet it's the West that keeps driving this logic. Iraq was invaded over a vial of powder. Libya gave up its nuclear program and was torn apart. Iran joined the NPT, worked with the IAEA, and didn't attack Israel – unlike Israel, which just struck Iran while staying outside the NPT and refusing to cooperate with nuclear watchdogs. This is more than hypocrisy; it's a catastrophic failure of US policy. Trump's administration has made a colossal mistake. The pursuit of a Nobel Peace Prize has taken on grotesque and dangerous proportions. Some still cling to the illusion that World War III might somehow pass us by. It won't. We are already in the thick of it. The US has carried out a bombing strike against Iran – our ally. Nothing stopped them. And if nothing stopped them from bombing Iran, then nothing will stop them from targeting us next. At some point, they may decide that Russia, like Iran, shouldn't be allowed to possess nuclear weapons – or find some other pretext to strike. Make no mistake: we are at war. The US can attack whether we advance or retreat. It's not about strategy – it's about will. Ukraine may not be Israel in the eyes of the West, but it plays a similar role. Israel didn't always exist; it was created and quickly became a proxy for the collective West – though some Israelis would argue the opposite, that the West is merely a proxy for Israel. Ukraine has followed the same trajectory. No wonder Zelensky isn't asking for Western support – he's demanding it, including nuclear arms. The model is clear. And just like Israel bombs Gaza with impunity, Kiev bombarded Donbass for years – albeit with fewer resources and less restraint from Moscow. Our appeals to the UN and calls for peace have become meaningless. If Iran falls, Russia is next. Trump, once again, is firmly in the grip of the neocons – just as he was during his first term. The MAGA project is over. There is no 'great America,' only standard-issue globalism in its place. Trump thinks he can strike once – like he did with Soleimani – and then walk it back. But there's no walking this back. He has triggered a world war he cannot control, let alone win. Now, everything hinges on Iran. If it stays on its feet and keeps fighting, it might still prevail. The Strait of Hormuz is closed. The Houthis have blocked traffic in the Red Sea. As new players enter the fray, the situation will evolve rapidly. China will try to stay out – for now. Until the first blow lands on them, too. But if Iran folds, it won't just lose itself – it will expose the rest of us. That includes Russia, now facing an existential choice. The question isn't whether to fight. Russia is already fighting. The question is how. The old methods are exhausted. That means we'll have to find a new way to fight – and fast. Judging by the remarks from Hegseth and General Cain at the press conference, the US appears to be signaling the end of its direct involvement – at least for now. Officially, Iran's nuclear program has been 'eliminated.' Whether that's actually true is beside the point. Even if Tehran manages to build a bomb six months from now, the narrative is set: the operation was targeted solely at nuclear infrastructure, with no strikes on military forces or civilians. A narrow, clean, and – according to Washington – decisively successful mission. The job is done, the curtain falls. That doesn't mean Washington is walking away. The US will continue to back Israel and retains the capacity to escalate if needed. But for the moment, the mood seems to be one of self-congratulatory closure. Of course, if they really wanted to go all in, they could've used a tactical nuclear weapon. That would've offered undeniable 'proof' of an Iranian bomb: if it explodes, it must have existed. And second, it would've allowed the administration to claim it had destroyed nuclear weapons on Iranian soil. Both assertions would've been technically accurate – if strategically absurd. None of it would've been factually false. Just morally and politically radioactive. Why did the US choose to strike Iran now, after years of restraint? The answer is simple: fear. For decades, Washington held back out of concern that any attack would trigger a wave of retaliatory terror attacks – possibly hundreds – carried out by sleeper cells tied to Iran and its allies like Hezbollah. The prevailing assumption was that Iran had quietly prepared networks across the US and Israel, ready to unleash chaos in response. But Israel's war in Lebanon dispelled that myth. The feared sleeper cells never materialized. Once that became clear, both Israel and the US realized they could strike Iran with minimal risk of serious blowback. And so, ironically, Iran's restraint – its perceived 'peacefulness' – has paved the way to war. There's a lesson in that for Russia: when the West senses both a willingness to negotiate and a refusal to submit, it responds not with diplomacy, but with force. That is the true face of Western imperialism. Trump has crossed a red line. We're now facing the real possibility of a major military confrontation. Iran could retaliate by striking US military installations across the Middle East, prompting Washington to respond in kind. That would mark the beginning of a drawn-out armed conflict – one the US may find increasingly difficult to contain. What we're witnessing looks very much like a victory for the so-called 'deep state'. Many had expected Trump to hold back, to avoid taking the bait. But he allowed himself to be pulled into a high-risk gamble whose consequences are impossible to predict. And politically, this may backfire. If the standoff with Iran sends oil prices soaring, the fallout could be severe. In the United States, gasoline prices are sacrosanct. Any administration that allows them to spiral out of control faces serious domestic repercussions. For Trump, this could turn into a serious vulnerability. So, what exactly did the US accomplish with its midnight strike on three targets in Iran? 1. Iran's critical nuclear infrastructure appears to be intact – or at worst, only minimally damaged. 2. Uranium enrichment will continue. And let's just say it plainly now: so will Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. 3. Several countries are reportedly ready to supply Iran with nuclear warheads directly. 4. Israel is under fire, explosions are echoing through its cities, and civilians are panicking. 5. The US is now entangled in yet another conflict, this one carrying the very real possibility of a ground war. 6. Iran's political leadership has not only survived – it may have grown stronger. 7. Even Iranians who opposed the regime are now rallying around it. 8. Donald Trump, the self-styled peace president, has just launched a new war. 9. The overwhelming majority of the international community is siding against the US and Israel. 10. At this rate, Trump can kiss that Nobel Peace Prize goodbye – despite how absurdly compromised the award has become. So, congratulations, Mr. President. Truly a stellar start.
