**
As tensions escalate in the Middle East, the ongoing military campaign led by the United States and Israel against Iran exhibits striking similarities to Russia’s protracted invasion of Ukraine. Analysts point to shifting objectives, ambiguous timelines, and questionable justifications that frame both conflicts, raising concerns about the potential for a drawn-out engagement in Iran akin to the war in Ukraine.
The Shifting Narrative
The military actions undertaken by the US and Israel against Iran have been presented through various lenses, often altering the narrative as circumstances evolve. Initially, American officials characterised the strikes as a necessary measure to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions. However, as the conflict has progressed, the rhetoric has shifted towards degrading Iran’s missile capabilities and dismantling its military infrastructure that supports regional proxies.
Donald Trump’s recent statements amplify this transformation, with the former president advocating for regime change in Tehran and calling for the “unconditional surrender” of Iranian leadership. This shift mirrors the Kremlin’s own fluctuating justifications for its invasion of Ukraine—initially framed around the “demilitarisation and denazification” of the nation, only to later morph into claims of protecting Russian speakers in eastern Ukraine and securing annexed territories.
Language and Legitimacy
The language used by both administrations reveals a tendency to frame their military actions as defensive, despite an apparent lack of solid legal justification. US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth articulated the position that “we didn’t start this war, but under President Trump, we are finishing it.” This echoes Putin’s earlier statements regarding the Ukraine conflict, where he insisted that Russia was not the aggressor.
Such rhetoric raises questions about the legitimacy of the operations and the potential for escalation. Neither leader anticipated being embroiled in a prolonged conflict. Putin initially believed that his invasion would be a swift operation, akin to the rapid annexation of Crimea in 2014. Similarly, Trump’s confidence following a successful operation in Venezuela seems to have buoyed his approach to Iran.
Avoiding the Quagmire
A crucial concern for American and Israeli leaders is whether they can steer clear of the pitfalls that have beset Russia in Ukraine. Reports indicate that Trump has suggested deploying elite forces to secure Iran’s enriched uranium stockpiles, a move reminiscent of Russia’s early military decisions that resulted in significant casualties.
Experts warn that if strategic goals become overly ambitious or unrealistic, even a successful military campaign can devolve into a protracted war of attrition. Danny Citrinowicz, a non-resident fellow at the Atlantic Council, emphasised the importance of establishing clear, realistic objectives that can be measured to avoid the trap of endless conflict.
Retired Russian diplomat Vladimir Frolov’s wry observation—“Sounds familiar”—serves as a sobering reminder of the historical precedents at play.
The Domestic Response
The domestic reactions to these military engagements also signal a notable parallel. In Russia, the initial shock of the Ukraine invasion eventually gave way to a unified front among political elites, many of whom now advocate for perseverance in the conflict. A similar dynamic appears to be emerging in the US, where figures who previously criticised military action are now rallying behind the troops, regardless of personal disagreements with the decision to engage.
Michael McFaul, former US ambassador to Moscow, articulated this sentiment when he stated that despite his objections to the war in Iran, he desires victory for American forces. This inclination to support the military once conflict has begun reflects a broader trend in which nationalistic fervour often supersedes critical examination of the conflict itself.
Why it Matters
The evolving military landscape in the Middle East poses significant implications for international relations and domestic politics alike. As the US-Israel campaign against Iran unfolds, the echoes of Russia’s tactics in Ukraine serve as both a cautionary tale and a potential roadmap for the future. The outcomes of these conflicts will not only shape geopolitical dynamics but could also profoundly influence public perception and policy decisions within the United States and beyond. As history has shown, the path from initial military engagement to prolonged conflict can be perilous, necessitating a careful evaluation of objectives and strategies to avert further escalation.
