In a striking reflection of recent geopolitical conflicts, the military campaign led by the United States and Israel against Iran bears notable similarities to Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine. While the contexts differ significantly, both confrontations have been characterised by shifting objectives, questionable justifications, and a reluctance from leaders to label their actions as acts of war. As the situation evolves, experts caution that the risks of prolonged conflict loom large for both nations involved.
Shifting Justifications and Objectives
The US-Israel initiative against Iran has vacillated in its stated aims since its inception, often drawing comparisons to the Kremlin’s justifications for its actions in Ukraine. Initially, US officials framed the airstrikes as a necessary measure to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions. However, as the campaign progressed, rhetoric has intensified, with calls for regime change from figures including former President Donald Trump, who has demanded Tehran’s “unconditional surrender.”
In contrast, when Russian forces invaded Ukraine in February 2022, President Vladimir Putin cited the need for “demilitarisation and denazification” of the country, language widely interpreted as a pretext for regime change in Kyiv. Over time, the Kremlin has redefined its goals, framing the conflict as a defence of Russian-speaking populations in eastern Ukraine, all while annexing territories under the guise of securing Russian interests.
The Language of War: Defensive Postures and Evasive Terminology
Both the US and Russian administrations have employed similar linguistic strategies to describe their military actions. Leaders from both countries have asserted that they are responding to an imminent threat, despite experts deeming such claims to be dubious at best. Recently, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth remarked, “We didn’t start this war, but under President Trump, we are finishing it,” echoing sentiments expressed by Putin at the outset of the Ukraine invasion.
Interestingly, both leaders have shied away from labelling their military actions as “war.” Putin has consistently referred to the invasion as a “special military operation,” a term enforced by stringent domestic censorship laws. Meanwhile, some US officials, including House Speaker Mike Johnson, have avoided the term “war,” instead categorising the conflict as a “limited operation.”
Historical Context and Strategic Lessons
Reflecting on the historical context, it is noteworthy that neither President Putin nor President Trump anticipated a drawn-out conflict. Putin appeared to expect a swift victory similar to the annexation of Crimea in 2014, while Trump was buoyed by the successful US operation that ousted Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro earlier in the year. This underestimation of conflict duration has led to increased complexities on both fronts.
In the early stages of the Ukraine invasion, Russia deployed elite airborne troops to capture a critical airport near Kyiv, a gamble that resulted in significant losses. Currently, reports suggest Trump is contemplating sending elite forces into Iran to secure its enriched uranium stockpiles, indicating a potential escalation that could mirror earlier miscalculations.
The Risk of Unintended Escalation
Analysts are raising alarms about the potential for the US-Israel campaign to devolve into a war of attrition—a pitfall that ensnared Russia in Ukraine. Danny Citrinowicz, a non-resident fellow at the Atlantic Council, emphasised the importance of establishing clear, realistic military objectives. “When strategic goals become too ambitious or unrealistic, even a successful military campaign can gradually slide into a war of attrition,” he warned.
Reflecting on the situation, retired Russian diplomat Vladimir Frolov dryly observed, “Sounds familiar,” highlighting the cyclical nature of geopolitical challenges faced by both nations. As the US and Israel navigate their campaign against Iran, the international community watches closely, aware of the broader implications.
Why it Matters
The unfolding dynamics between the US-Israel coalition and Iran, in parallel to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, underscore a critical moment in international relations. The decisions made today will reverberate for years to come, influencing not only regional stability in the Middle East but also the future of global diplomatic norms. As leaders grapple with the ramifications of their military actions, the need for clear, achievable objectives becomes paramount to avoid the pitfalls of prolonged conflict seen in recent history. The world is watching, and the stakes have never been higher.