Russia sold Iran to Israel

Get to know the details of the events that unfolded around the world up to the middle of this week in the Midweek program of QALAMPIR.UZ.

Russia betrayed Iran

The claim that Russia betrayed Iran, as it once did Libya and Syria, was one of the most dramatic political developments of the week. While Libya and Syria remain on their own respective paths, they have long been strategic partners, and a cooperation agreement was signed between them and Russia on January 17 this year. Just a few months later, when Israel launched an attack on Iran, accusations surfaced that Russia, Iran’s strategic partner, had assisted Israel. This indicates that Moscow may face deeper isolation on the international stage. What makes the situation more striking is that the allegation came from a senior Iranian official, making a serious charge against Moscow. Seyed Mohammad Sadr, a member of the Expediency Discernment Council, stated in an interview with the Iranian channel Seenergyir that Russia provided intelligence to Israel during the 12-day conflict between Iran and Israel. According to him, the June armed clashes between Tehran and Tel Aviv demonstrated that the strategic alliance with Moscow was worthless.

“Russia gave Israel information about the location of Iran’s air defense systems. For example, they (Russia) simply said, ‘We are not happy that Israel attacked Iran,’” Sadr said.

“Turkey is a member of NATO. And what is NATO? It is against Russia. Yet Russia agreed to sell S-400 systems to Turkey. This is not the strategic partnership we have been talking about for so long,” he added.

Indeed, Moscow’s tone during the conflict was notably restrained. Russia merely stated that the actions of the United States and Israel were unacceptable, but it did not provide any assistance to Iran. Even the recently signed Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Agreement between Tehran and Moscow was insufficient. The agreement, designed to regulate bilateral relations for the next 20 years, included cooperation in defense, counterterrorism, energy, finance, and culture. However, in June, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov stated that Moscow’s military or other assistance to Tehran during the conflict would depend on Iran’s formal requests. Peskov made the comment following a meeting between Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow. Yet he left unanswered whether Russia would supply Iran with S-300 or S-400 air defense systems, as Iran’s air defenses had been crippled at the time. In the end, Araqchi returned to Tehran empty-handed. Moscow justified its inaction by saying Tehran never officially asked for help.

Two months later, Iran’s disappointment with Moscow became more apparent, especially at such a high level. The Expediency Council is no trivial institution—it is Iran’s top legislative body and considered even closer to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei than other branches of government. It consists of more than 40 senior clerics, politicians, and former officials. Sadr’s remarks about Russia’s betrayal are thus seen as a clear signal that ties between Tehran and Moscow are deteriorating. However, he stopped short of advocating a complete break, noting that Iran should maintain serious relations with Russia but cannot fully trust it.

There are strong indications that Tehran has already begun to place its trust in another global power. Reports following the war with Israel suggest that Iran turned to China and started acquiring advanced defense systems from Beijing. At a time when Moscow remained silent, many were surprised by reports of Chinese cargo planes carrying aid entering Iranian airspace and disappearing from radar. This marked a turning point in relations, with Beijing’s assistance during the Israeli strikes laying the foundation for closer ties. Given China’s heavy reliance on oil, a potential escalation of the conflict and Iran’s possible closure of the Strait of Hormuz would have had devastating consequences for Beijing. Nevertheless, this rapprochement appears to have gone beyond temporary aid. After the 12-day conflict, Iran reportedly began exploring cooperation with China to revive its missile program.

According to Ynet, Iran is actively rebuilding its defense capabilities following the war, focusing on new air defense systems and missile development. Western intelligence reports indicate that Tehran, which suffered significant losses during the conflict, prefers to partner with China to restore its missile program. Unlike nuclear weapons development, Iran’s work on ballistic missiles is not restricted by international treaties. Intelligence agencies have already observed signs of renewed military cooperation between Tehran and Beijing. Following the October 2024 conflict, China reportedly began supplying Iran with specific military equipment. Now, intelligence suggests Beijing could play a pivotal role in restoring and modernizing Iran’s missile capabilities, a development that has raised alarm in Israel. Israeli officials are said to have conveyed their concerns to Beijing, though it is unlikely that China, which often disregards U.S. interests, would pay much attention to Israeli warnings.

Netanyahu seeks revenge on Turkey

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has sought symbolic revenge on Turkey by recognizing the massacres of Armenians committed in 1915, when the Ottoman Empire was still formally in existence, as genocide. He did not issue an official declaration but made the statement on August 26 during an interview with American businessman and social media host Patrick Bet-David. During the discussion, Bet-David asked:

“Why has no Israeli Prime Minister ever called the killing of Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks by the Ottoman Empire a genocide?” Netanyahu replied, “Yes, but I said it now. Period,” confirming that he considers the events to be genocide.

Netanyahu thus became the first Israeli Prime Minister to make such a public acknowledgment. Until now, Israel had refrained from officially recognizing the events of 1915–1916 in the Ottoman Empire as genocide. One factor was the fragile state of diplomatic relations with Ankara. In recent years, particularly against the backdrop of the war in Gaza, relations between Israel and Turkey have sharply deteriorated. Netanyahu’s brief but striking remarks quickly spread on social media, sparked protests, and reached Turkish officials. The Turkish Foreign Ministry condemned Netanyahu’s comments, stating, “A person accused of genocide against Palestinians is politicizing history to hide his crimes.”

Debate over the Armenian Genocide has persisted for decades. While most countries recognize the mass killings as genocide, Turkey maintains that the deaths occurred under wartime conditions rather than as part of a deliberate extermination campaign. Historical records show that during World War I, in January 1915, Enver Pasha attempted to push Russian forces back in the Battle of Sarıkamış, but the Young Turk army suffered a catastrophic defeat. Although shortages and harsh conditions were the primary causes, the Young Turk leadership blamed the Armenians. Historical sources indicate that Armenian soldiers were demobilized, transferred to labor battalions, and later massacred. Historians estimate that around 1.5 million Armenians perished during this period.

Some historians argue that while the massacres were deliberate, associating them solely with the Ottoman Empire is historically inaccurate. Although the empire formally existed until 1922 under Sultan Abdulhamid II, by that time the government had lost significant power, and decisions made by the palace carried little weight. Today, numerous Western countries, including Germany in 2016 and the United States in 2019, have recognized the Armenian tragedy as genocide at the federal level.

Xi Jinping is carrying out a major purge in the Chinese army

China is witnessing a sweeping purge of its military under President Xi Jinping, reflecting the realities of one-party rule and Communist Party control. According to Bloomberg, the campaign is the largest shake-up of the armed forces since Mao Zedong’s era. Mao, the founding leader of the People’s Republic of China, dismissed roughly one-fifth of the generals he had appointed during his rule, some of whom were later investigated or disappeared from public view. Xi is now conducting a similarly large-scale removal of senior military officials, a level of action not seen since Mao’s time.

Under previous leaders such as Hu Jintao and Jiang Zemin, China rarely investigated high-ranking officers of the People’s Liberation Army. By contrast, Bloomberg reports that 17.7 percent of the generals appointed by Xi since taking power in 2012 have been dismissed, most during his third term, which began in October 2022. As a result, the Central Military Commission now has only four members, its lowest number since Mao’s rule. When Xi assumed power, the body had seven members.

The disappearance of senior officials under Xi has become increasingly common. The mysterious cases involving former Foreign Minister Qin Gang and Defense Minister Li Shangfu illustrate this trend. Qin, who served as China’s ambassador to the United States from 2021 to 2022 and as foreign minister from December 2022 until July 2023, disappeared from public view on June 25, 2023. Despite being removed from his post, he remained active for several weeks, meeting with the foreign ministers of Vietnam and Sri Lanka as well as Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Andrei Rudenko. A month later, Qin was dismissed and replaced by Wang Yi. Politico reported that Qin’s disappearance may have been connected to Rudenko’s visit to Beijing, during which the Russian diplomat allegedly informed Xi that Qin and relatives of several senior officers were passing nuclear secrets to Western intelligence. Qin is believed to have died in July 2023, either from torture or suicide.

Similarly, Defense Minister Li Shangfu vanished from public view for nearly two months in 2023 before being removed from his position on October 24. Under Xi, such disappearances have often been followed by reports of deaths months later. This pattern reflects a style of political control deeply rooted in China’s Communist Party history.