BLUF: Alliances of Convenience

One of the most telling aspects of the recent Israel-Iran conflict—what some are calling the “12-Day War”—was who didn’t show up. Iran’s supposed allies were largely silent. Even as Iran’s foreign minister made a high-profile trip on Monday to Moscow to meet with Vladimir Putin, Russia offered little more than words. No weapons. No military backing. Just diplomatic pleasantries—much to Tehran's frustration we have to imagine.

Iran supplied Russia’s invasion of Ukraine with artillery and ammunition, including sending thousands of Shaheed drones, which has helped keep Putin’s war machine turning. Yet, Moscow remains reluctant to reciprocate. Seeking to maintain ties with Israel, avoid further Western sanctions, and limit tensions with the United States, the Kremlin’s lack of actions seem to suggest restraint better serves its broader interests.

China followed a familiar playbook. Despite its close strategic and military ties to Iran, Beijing remained on the sidelines—only issuing statements criticizing the U.S. and Israel while calling for de-escalation.

By contrast, the United States, Israel, and key allies engaged in direct coordination to intercept and neutralize Iranian missile strikes during the 12-day period, underscoring the durability of U.S.-led alliances. While critics initially dismissed President Trump’s foreign policy as overly transactional, this episode has instead drawn attention to the fragility of authoritarian partnerships based on convenience rather than shared values or obligations.

It’s no coincidence that this week, we saw NATO partners commit towards greater spending targets—an indication of renewed confidence in collective security. Whether by design or circumstance, President Trump’s actions—and the contrasting inaction of our adversaries—have illustrated the limits of authoritarian alignment and the enduring strength of America’s global partnerships.

If you are interesting in receiving our full newsletter every Thursday, subscribe here.