**
As tensions escalate in the Middle East, a striking resemblance has surfaced between the ongoing US-Israeli military campaign against Iran and Russia’s protracted invasion of Ukraine. While the contexts and specifics may differ greatly, both conflicts share worrying similarities in their justifications, shifting objectives, and the rhetoric employed by their respective leaders.
Shifting Justifications and Objectives
The military actions undertaken by the United States and Israel have been framed differently throughout the course of the campaign. Initially, American officials characterised their strikes as necessary measures to thwart Iran’s ambitions to develop nuclear weapons. This rationale has since evolved, with officials now asserting that the primary goals include crippling Iran’s missile capabilities and dismantling the military infrastructure that supports its regional proxies. However, as the situation unfolds, these goals have taken on a more expansive tone, with former President Donald Trump openly advocating for a change in Iran’s leadership and demanding Tehran’s “unconditional surrender.”
In a similar vein, Russia’s motivations for invading Ukraine have evolved since the onset of the conflict in February 2022. President Vladimir Putin initially asserted that the invasion aimed to achieve the “demilitarisation and denazification” of Ukraine, a position interpreted as a call for regime change in Kyiv. Over time, the Kremlin has reframed the conflict as a defence of Russian speakers in eastern Ukraine and a bid to secure control over annexed territories.
Rhetoric and Language
The language used by both American and Russian leaders reveals a tendency to depict their military actions as defensive measures. This has led to dubious claims regarding an imminent threat, with US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth stating last week, “We didn’t start this war, but under President Trump, we are finishing it.” Echoing this sentiment, Putin claimed at the beginning of his invasion, “We didn’t start the so-called war in Ukraine; we are trying to finish it.”
Neither leader anticipated their respective conflicts would morph into prolonged engagements. Putin, who expected a swift victory reminiscent of Russia’s rapid annexation of Crimea in 2014, has found himself entrenched in a war now stretching into its fourth year. Meanwhile, Trump entered the confrontation emboldened by the perceived success of a recent military operation in Venezuela.
Notably, both leaders have refrained from labelling their actions as “war.” Putin continues to refer to the invasion as a “special military operation,” a term enforced by stringent censorship laws in Russia. In the US, some officials have similarly avoided the term, with House Speaker Mike Johnson describing the military actions as a “limited operation.” This reluctance has not gone unnoticed, with media outlets drawing parallels between the two narratives, both of which appear to shy away from the stark realities of war.
Political Reactions and Consequences
The reactions from political elites and media commentary further illustrate the similarities in response to these conflicts. Initially met with horror, members of the Russian establishment have largely rallied behind Putin’s efforts, arguing for a decisive resolution to the conflict. Comparatively, some American commentators, who previously condemned Russia’s invasion, now find themselves grappling with the same complexities as they confront the US-Israeli military operations.
Michael McFaul, former US ambassador to Moscow, expressed a sentiment shared by many: “Once our presidents make a decision to go to war, even when I disagree with the decision and process – as is the case with our current war with Iran – I still want our armed forces to win.” This perspective highlights the inherent tension between dissenting opinions and national unity in times of conflict.
The Risk of Prolonged Conflict
Looking ahead, the key question remains whether the United States can navigate the pitfalls that have ensnared Russia in Ukraine. Reports suggest that Trump may consider deploying elite troops to secure Iran’s enriched uranium stockpiles, a move reminiscent of Russia’s initial strategy to deploy airborne forces in Ukraine. Both strategies carry the risk of escalating into a war of attrition, as highlighted by Danny Citrinowicz, a non-resident fellow at the Atlantic Council. He cautioned that “when strategic goals become too ambitious or unrealistic, even a successful military campaign can gradually slide into a war of attrition.”
To avoid such an outcome, Citrinowicz emphasised the necessity of establishing clear, realistic objectives that can be measured and assessed to determine when a campaign can conclude. The echoes of past mistakes resonate, as retired Russian diplomat Vladimir Frolov aptly remarked, “Sounds familiar.”
Why it Matters
The unfolding dynamics of the US-Israeli operations in Iran not only reflect a disturbing continuity in military engagements but also raise crucial questions about the justifications and outcomes of such conflicts. As both nations confront the spectre of prolonged warfare, it is imperative for leaders to critically assess their strategies and motivations, lest they find themselves entangled in a quagmire reminiscent of Russia’s ongoing struggles in Ukraine. The international community watches closely, aware that the implications of these conflicts extend far beyond their immediate borders.
