- By Ajeet Kumar
- Tue, 10 Mar 2026 03:15 PM (IST)
- Source:JND
- Russia, China showed restraint after Iran leader's death.
- Geopolitics prioritizes power, survival over moral principles.
- States act on strategic interests, not permanent alliances.
Ever since Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed in a joint Israel-US airstrike in the last week of February, many expected that Russia and China-- Iran's two largest allies- would step in to assist during this crisis. However, neither Beijing nor Moscow has played an assertive role in the ongoing US-Israel-Iran war. China's foreign ministry issued only a formal condemnation of the supreme leader's killing, while Russia echoed a similar restrained sentiment.
Earlier expectations that Presidents Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping would provide at least moral support-- or perhaps more-- have not materialised.
Despite possessing formidable military capabilities, both leaders have refrained from direct confrontation.This restraint has sparked widespread discussion worldwide: Has any morality been left in geopolitics?
How geopolitics work?
The global system operates on an inherently anarchic principle, lacking any supreme authority or moral arbiter. Just as nature functions without condemnation, a lion kills a deer, a whale consumes smaller fish, world powers act according to power dynamics and survival imperatives rather than ethical principles.
A famous phrase in geopolitics sums it up: "Might is Right." International relations are largely governed by Realism and Neorealism. Influential thinkers such as Kautilya (Chanakya) and Kenneth Waltz have emphasised that states first prioritise survival, then security, and only afterward pursue broader national interests.
Morality always in the last row
The core insight of these theories is that moral frameworks remain secondary; power ultimately determines outcomes. This is not the first time a country has faced attack while much of the world watches as a mute spectator. Historical examples abound: the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Korean and Vietnam Wars, US interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, and now the US-Israeli campaign against Iran all illustrate how power politics shapes global events.
US President Donald Trump's recent press conferences and White House communications exemplify this dominance, through massive military spending, a global network of bases, crippling sanctions on Iran, and economic coercion. His administration’s night raid to capture Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro is a recent case in point. At the time, some countries voiced diplomatic concerns, but Trump paid them little heed.
Why has China not assisted Iran?
Beijing avoids direct confrontation to safeguard its economic interests, Asian alliances, and Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) investments. While the closure of the Strait of Hormuz has triggered a global crude oil crisis, China has diversified its energy sources and continues to import discounted Russian oil, reducing its vulnerability.
Why has Russia not supported Iran?
Russia remains deeply engaged in its four-year war with Ukraine and relies on external partners (including North Korea) for advanced technology and munitions. Sending forces to Iran could risk losing hard-won territorial gains in Ukraine. Moreover, the current disruption presents a golden opportunity for Moscow: with Iranian and Gulf oil exports severely curtailed, Russia can increase its market share and revenue from energy sales. Ultimately, in this unforgiving arena, states form alliances based on strategic interests rather than morality.
As former US Secretary of State and political scientist Henry Kissinger famously observed, there are no permanent friends or enemies, only permanent interests. For weaker and developing nations, survival demands a pragmatic foreign policy: strengthening military capabilities, ensuring economic stability, building political resilience, and forging mutual defence arrangements to resist exploitation by greater powers.