**
In a striking comparison, the ongoing military campaign led by the United States and Israel against Iran shares notable similarities with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, specifically in the shifting narratives and justifications used by both sides. Analysts have highlighted these parallels, pointing out how both situations have evolved to reflect changing strategic goals, ambiguous timelines, and a reluctance to label their actions as outright war.
Changing Justifications for Military Action
Since the onset of the US-Israel campaign against Iran, the official rationale has morphed significantly. Initially framed as a necessary measure to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the narrative has expanded to include objectives such as weakening Iran’s missile capabilities and undermining its military support for regional proxies. Recently, former President Donald Trump has escalated the rhetoric, suggesting a desire for regime change in Tehran and advocating for what he terms “unconditional surrender.”
This evolution mirrors the Kremlin’s approach in Ukraine, where President Vladimir Putin initially cited the need for “demilitarisation and denazification” as justifications for the invasion. As the conflict dragged on, the narrative shifted towards protecting Russian-speaking populations in eastern Ukraine and asserting control over territories that Russia subsequently annexed.
Language of Defence and Denial
Both governments have employed similar language to frame their military actions as defensive. In a statement reflecting this sentiment, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth claimed, “we didn’t start this war, but under President Trump, we are finishing it.” This echoes Putin’s assertion from February 2022, when he insisted, “We didn’t start the so-called war in Ukraine; we are trying to finish it.” Such rhetoric raises questions about the true nature of these conflicts and the motivations behind them.
The reluctance of leaders in both nations to formally acknowledge their actions as acts of war further complicates the discourse. Putin has insisted on referring to his invasion as a “special military operation,” a term enforced through stringent censorship laws. In the US, some officials have described their actions with euphemisms, with House Speaker Mike Johnson labelling it a “limited operation” instead of a war.
Political Reactions and Public Perception
The response from political elites and media in both Russia and the United States has been somewhat predictable. Initially, there was widespread condemnation of military aggression in both contexts; however, as the conflicts evolved, many commentators began to align themselves with their respective governments’ narratives. In the US, former Ambassador to Moscow, Michael McFaul, expressed a sentiment common among critics: “Once our presidents make a decision to go to war, even when I disagree… I still want our armed forces to win.”
This dynamic raises critical concerns about the potential for public opinion to shift in favour of military engagement, despite initial reservations. The transformation in perspectives highlights a pattern observed in historical conflicts, where the justification for war often becomes more palatable over time.
Avoiding the Quagmire
Experts warn that the United States must tread carefully to avoid the pitfalls that have ensnared Russia in Ukraine. Reports suggest that Trump is contemplating deploying elite forces to Iran to secure its enriched uranium stockpiles, a move reminiscent of Russia’s early strategies in Ukraine that resulted in heavy losses.
Danny Citrinowicz, a non-resident fellow at the Atlantic Council, cautioned against overly ambitious strategic goals, stating, “when strategic goals become too ambitious or unrealistic, even a successful military campaign can gradually slide into a war of attrition.” This sentiment is echoed by retired Russian diplomat Vladimir Frolov, who dryly noted, “Sounds familiar,” highlighting the cyclical nature of military conflicts and the dangers of escalating commitments.
Why it Matters
The unfolding military operations against Iran by the US and Israel not only have profound implications for regional stability but also resonate globally, as they echo the patterns established by Russia’s ongoing conflict in Ukraine. As the narratives surrounding these conflicts evolve, it becomes imperative for policymakers to establish clear, achievable objectives to avoid the traps of prolonged warfare. The lessons drawn from both situations could serve as critical warnings for international actors engaging in military interventions, ultimately shaping the geopolitical landscape for years to come.
