The Israel-Iran conflict: lessons about Russia, for NATO
The evolving geopolitical landscape in the Middle East has brought Iran’s military and diplomatic challenges into acute focus. Iran's recent experience, with its proxies largely cowed if not decimated by Israel, and finding itself in a direct confrontation with the U.S, would have been unimaginable pre-October 7th attacks, and certainly to an extent, even two weeks ago. The uncertainty surrounding the ceasefire announced on June 23, 2025, whether it remains intact or is part of a grand bargain that results in the end of the war in Gaza, raises critical questions about the trajectory of the conflict and the region’s stability.
Iran has found little comfort in its proxies or allies during the hostilities of the past few weeks. From the limitations of military technology (Russian made) to the constraints of proxy warfare and international diplomacy, Iran's trajectory provides a series of lessons for Russia too. Below we’ll explore the Russia-Iran relationship, the shortcomings of Russia’s support to its allies, and the broader implications for NATO and the U.S.-Russia standoff, particularly concerning Ukraine.
Did Russian technology pass the test?
In October 2024, Israel successfully neutralised Iran’s last three operational S-300 surface-to-air missile batteries, Russian-made systems that were intended to form the cornerstone of Tehran’s high-altitude air defence. The wave after wave of Israeli strikes, over a 12-day campaign targeting strategic assets within Iran, exposed critical vulnerabilities in the country’s integrated air defence network and gave Israel the freedom of the skies over Iran.
The apparent ease and extent to which Israeli aircraft penetrated Iranian airspace has raised serious concerns among Russian military observers regarding the efficacy of their air defence technologies against a technologically advanced and coordinated adversary such as NATO or Israel.
The failure of Iranian systems to mount a credible defence has underscored a broader trend: the stagnation and degradation of Russian-designed platforms when confronted with modern threats. Both Iran and Russia rely on shared design principles and legacy Soviet-era platforms in their air defence architectures, principles that emphasise layered defences, radar-guided interception, and mobility. However, these systems are increasingly unable to cope with high-speed, low-observable, and precision-guided munitions used by Western militaries.
According to Defence Blog, these concerns are compounded by verifiable battlefield losses in Ukraine. The independent monitoring group Oryx has documented the destruction of at least 335 Russian air defence systems since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine began in February 2022. This includes 18 S-400 launchers, one S-350, over 30 Pantsir-S1 units, and nearly 60 Tor systems — figures based on visually confirmed equipment losses and widely regarded as conservative estimates.
Conclusion: Russian technology failed entirely, leaving Iran defences non-existent; the same systems have failed in Ukraine, can these failings be exploited further?
Could Russia help Iran?
Russia supported Iran with rhetoric, criticising strikes on Iranian territory, however it stopped short of concrete military aid or direct intervention, due to its own constraints (Ukraine) and concern of further sanctions. During the 12 day Israeli-Iran conflict, Iran requested advanced S-400 air-defence systems and nuclear infrastructure aid from Russia but Moscow offered no tangible support. Instead, Vladimir Putin asked President Trump if he would “like help with Iran?”, offering to store Iran’s uranium and mediate talks between Iran and Israel, a proposition opposed by the White House.
Conclusion: Russia and Iran’s weaknesses as strategic allies to one another have been exposed.
Could Iran’s own proxies help them?
The “Axis of Resistance” (Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis) has largely refrained from aiding Iran in its hour (or 12 days) of need. Hezbollah, in particular, didn’t fire a single missile against Israel during the 12 day war. Hezbollah is subject to strategic orders and micromanagement by Iran, meaning its inertia is even more shocking. Heavy Israeli reprisals, leadership decapitations, and battlefield failures have left proxies in retreat, disrupting Iran’s layered proxy strategy.
Conclusion: Israel in the months since the October 7th attacks has reshaped the received wisdom of the Middle East from a strategic military perspective, Israel looks like the region’s new hegemon, and its position as a powerful ally to the US, UK and Europe should not be underestimated.
Security in the balance: NATO and Ukraine
As Russia grapples with its diminishing credibility as a reliable military partner, its inability to support allies like Iran sends a clear signal to NATO: sustained military assistance to Ukraine is effectively undermining the operational capacity of the Russian war machine. The repeated failures of Russian-designed air defence systems to protect strategic partners underscore the qualitative superiority of Western air power; the Russian S-400 air defence system, hailed as “all-powerful,” was powerless to stop Israeli jets in Iran. It also failed entirely to detect a fleet of American B2 stealth bombers resulting in the effective delivery of 420,000 pounds of explosives on Iranian nuclear infrastructure.
Iran’s struggles — militarily, diplomatically, and in terms of the command and control of its proxies, in turn reveal Moscow's overreliance on brittle, hierarchical alliances. The Institute for the Study of War analysis argues that “the lack of a meaningful response from the so-called “Axis of Resistance,” to the Israel-Iran war reveals how exhausted it is after months of fighting the United States and Israel.” For Russia, without credible technological support and capable proxies, even nominal alliances fracture under the stress.
Conclusion: The Israel-Iran ceasefire coincides with the latest NATO summit at which members have agreed increased spending to meet a 5% of GDP target. The outcome of the Israel-Iran conflict, should for NATO and the West, highlight the enduring strength of cohesive, effective defence partnerships and specifically, the strategic imperative of supporting Ukraine (as the US has supported Israel). Iran’s predicament has exposed Russia’s waning influence in the Middle East, revealing its weaknesses and constraints closer to home, which should be strategically exploited regarding Ukraine.
Recently Germany’s defence minister has warned that members of NATO have to prepare for a direct Russian attack that could take place within the next four years; and this week Prime Minister Keir Starmer said the UK must "actively prepare" for a potential "wartime scenario" and has refused to rule out a direct attack on UK soil by Russia or another foe.
Europe and the UK may well come to thank Israel for its actions in Iran but could also take lessons from Israel and apply them to the very urgent problem of Russia, in future. Europe’s own paralysis has been repeatedly called out by President Trump, and whilst a 5% GDP defence spend target has been welcomed, the question of whether NATO will take bold action against an existential threat to itself remains unanswered.