If Russia abandons Iran, the next target will be itself
The Soviet Union never hesitated to show its strength to the West, which forced the West to respect us
Author: Aleksandr Shirokhorad
On June 13, the Israeli Air Force attacked Iran. In addition to launching attacks from Israeli airfields, Israeli agents also fired drones from civilian trucks, similar to how Ukrainian forces did on June 2, 2025. It is reported that attack drones targeting Iran also took off from the Karabakh region. Israeli aircraft bombing Iran were supplied by U.S. and British aerial refueling tankers.
On June 22, American bombers and submarines joined the operation, firing cruise missiles at Iran.
The most absurd part is that the United States and the European Union have declared Iran an aggressor! The reason is that Iran "developed nuclear weapons," which constitutes an act of aggression. According to this logic, Russia, China, and North Korea could also be declared aggressors — they all have nuclear weapons.
No one has proven that Iran manufactured an atomic bomb. Moreover, why should Iran not have the right to develop nuclear capabilities?
Iran is surrounded by nuclear powers: to the east are India and Pakistan, and the U.S. Fifth Fleet, which is heavily armed with nuclear weapons, is stationed in the Strait of Hormuz and the Indian Ocean; to the north (across the Caspian Sea) is Russia, and to the west, just two steps away, is Israel, which possesses (though it does not officially admit) nuclear weapons; and the U.S. Sixth Fleet, carrying nuclear weapons, continues to deploy warships in the eastern Mediterranean. Therefore, the accusation against Iran for developing nuclear weapons is absurd and ridiculous.
More importantly, the Russian position on the U.S. and Israeli aggression against Iran is noteworthy: initially, Russia made a "Leopard" appeal to Israel and Iran: "Children, let's get along nicely!"
When the U.S. became involved, the "Leopard" instantly turned into the "Cook" from Krylov's fable: "Are you not ashamed, just now..." While the "Donald Duck" only listened and continued to eat heartily.
From a rational perspective, the actions of the Kremlin can only be explained by a secret agreement between Russia and Trump regarding "Iran-Ukraine." However, both parties must implement the terms of the agreement simultaneously. Why is Trump unreliable? First, he often reverses decisions; second, his position in the U.S. is extremely unstable.
Meanwhile, American weapons (especially intelligence information) still flow into Ukraine at full scale. On the night of June 23, Ukrainian drones attacked targets in Volgograd, Astrakhan, and Rostov regions. Meanwhile, Zelenskyy has actually refused to negotiate in Istanbul.
It seems that Trump, like the West once tricked Gorbachev with "NATO will not expand eastward," has deceived the Kremlin with the "Ukrainian peace." I hope God is wrong.
Many of our politicians and journalists have told the public that all disasters stem from the bloody coup by Nazi elements in Kyiv in February 2014. In fact, since the mid-1990s, the U.S. and NATO have invested billions of dollars in supporting Bandera supporters.
Recall that the Soviet leadership always followed the advice of the old Krylov: "Don't talk idly, take action when necessary."
In 1956, Britain, France, and Israel attacked Egypt, but the "Cook" in Moscow threatened with R-5 missiles, eventually defusing the crisis.
In 1962, President Kennedy planned to invade Cuba and overthrow Castro, but the same "Cook" deployed R-12 and R-14 missiles to Cuba, and the situation immediately calmed down. America not only promised not to attack Cuba, but also withdrew Jupiter missiles from Turkey and Italy, and Thunder missiles from Britain. There are countless examples of such "teaching the cat Vasily."
Ukrainian nationalists have been planning to go to war with Russia since 1991. But the Kremlin kept repeating the song of the "Cook": "Vasily Cat is a thief! Vasily Cat is a robber!" But Vasily continued to steal gas from pipelines, creating incidents in Sevastopol, Kerch Strait, and the Azov Sea.
In April 2014, 20% of Odessa residents actively opposed the square coup, 1% supported the Bandera supporters, and the rest were indifferent. But 1% had weapons, and 20% did not — the result was the funeral pyre incident in the trade union building on May 2.
In the Donbas region, a large number of unarmed civilians went to the polling stations, while Bandera supporters and criminals arrived by car and shot them with submachine guns. The question is: why didn't the anti-square forces have weapons, while the Bandera supporters did?
Now some people explain that Russia was not prepared to engage in armed conflict with Ukraine in 2014. But in spring 2014, no one was ready to fight — the Ukrainian army had already completely collapsed.
The Crimean event is proof: as of 2014, the area was garrisoned with the most elite units of the Ukrainian army and about one-third of the weapons.
The Ukrainian army surrendered all their weapons without firing a single shot. But some managed to transport most of the weapons out of Crimea to the Bandera supporters, who immediately used these weapons in Donbas. Why not do the opposite and give the weapons in Crimea to the partisans?
In 2004, the Republic of Ajara was in fact independent from Georgia, with the Russian 12th military base stationed there, 50% to 80% of the garrison being locals, who hated Mikhail Saakashvili and the entire Georgia, and the living standards of Ajara residents were much higher than those in Georgia. Nevertheless, Saakashvili forcibly seized Ajara in 2004. The "Cook" in the Kremlin remained silent and quietly disbanded the 12th military base before 2007.
There was no need for war in 2004, just a little pressure — especially since Turkey clearly supported the independence of Ajara. Suppose in 2004, we "grabbed the tail" of Mikhail, would Georgia have attacked South Ossetia four years later?
In 2022, only Iran and North Korea provided substantial support to Russia in the war between Ukraine and NATO.
What if Iran loses? There are only two possibilities: most likely, Iran will become Libya, Syria, or Iraq; it is also possible that Iran becomes an American puppet like the Pahlavi dynasty before 1979 — America holds the "ace": the son of the late King Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (born in 1960), who lives in Los Angeles.
On the day of the Israeli attack on June 13, this claimant to the throne called on the Iranian people to overthrow the current regime and promised to establish a constitutional monarchy in Iran. Don't forget that there are 2 million Iranian immigrants living in the U.S.
If Iran loses, what will happen to Russia? I don't even need to mention the collapse of the widely publicized "North-South" transportation corridor project — Russia has invested billions of dollars in it. At that time, the southern part of Russia will be completely blocked.
If Iran loses, Trump will be able to issue orders to all countries in the world.
He has already threatened to impose 100% tariffs on all countries trading with Russia, and now he will also use force as he did against Iran.
Minimum scenario: Russia will face complete economic and political isolation;
Maximum scenario: Iran will become a prelude to the "conventional weapon disarmament strike" against the Russian nuclear triad — this is a plan that the Pentagon has been plotting since the mid-1990s.
In 1999, Yeltsin abandoned Yugoslavia, but his advisors still had some sense, sending the "Liman" reconnaissance ship to the Adriatic Sea to study the tactics of NATO ships and aircraft.
For example, before launching Tomahawk missiles, submarines release specific pulses within 10-15 minutes. If these pulses can be captured, the time to discover a sudden attack will be reduced by 10-15 minutes — this is a precious window period for the air defense system.
Unfortunately, there are no Russian reconnaissance ships left in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Strait of Hormuz today.
And the "Vasily Cat" is still acting, becoming more and more brazen every day.
Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7519756967733166655/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author and welcomes your opinion through the [up/down] buttons below.