What if Russia and China Had Announced on Friday That They Would Intervene Together to Protect Iran against Unprovoked Aggression

To Defend International Law and the UN Charter, Prevent Regional War, Maintain Stability in Global Energy Supplies

by John Helmer / March 4th, 2026

At about noon, Moscow time, on Friday February 27, the Russian Security Council met in a video session. The regular weekly meeting of the Council is often at the end of the week.

The Foreign and Defense Ministers, Sergei Lavrov and Andrei Belousov,  and the head of the Foreign Intelligence Service, Sergei Naryshkin, participated.  Unless Russian intelligence had suffered an unprecedented and catastrophic failure, the Russian decision-makers knew that the US and Israel were about to launch their new war against Iran.

The Kremlin communique of the meeting posted at 13:50 said:  “The discussion focused on steps needed to strengthen the constitutional order. Justice Minister Konstantin Chuichenko delivered the report.”

President Vladimir Putin and the Security Council agreed not to say anything about the situation in Iran.

The next day, Saturday February 28 at 13:54 the Russian Foreign Ministry announced what it had known in advance: “The scope and character of the military, political, and propaganda preparations that preceded this reckless step, including the deployment of substantial US military forces to the region, leave no doubt that this is a deliberate, premeditated, and unprovoked act of armed aggression against a sovereign and independent UN member state, in direct violation of the fundamental principles and norms of international law.”

An hour later  Lavrov telephoned Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Aragchi. By then the daylight attacks on Teheran and other targets around Iran had been under way since about 07:40 Moscow time — for more than five hours. Lavrov and the Kremlin already knew the  strikes had targeted the compounds of the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, President Masoud Pezeshkian, the Iranian Security Council and military leaders.

The public disclosure said: “The Iranian minister briefed Sergei Lavrov on IRI [sic] leadership’s steps to repel the aggression by the United States and Israel, which had once again derailed talks on peaceful settlement of the issues concerning Iran’s nuclear programme. He informed Sergei Lavrov about the plans to convene an urgent meeting of the UN Security Council. Sergei Lavrov condemned the absolutely unprovoked armed attack by the United States and Israel on Iran in violation of principles and standards of international law while totally ignoring hard repercussions for the regional and global stability and security. He pointed out the need to promptly stop the attacks against the Islamic Republic.”  The communiqué was posted at 15:06.

An hour later the Security Council was meeting again, also by video, not face to face. The Kremlin posted the brief notice at 16:30: “The situation surrounding Iran was on the agenda.” At exactly the same time, the state news agency Tass reported Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov as saying “the meeting participants discussed the situation around Iran.”

At 19:15, the Foreign Ministry posted the announcement that Lavrov had telephoned the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Qatar,  Mohammed Al Thani. Referring to the US use of Qatar territory for the ongoing attacks, and the Iranian counter-attack, the communiqué said: “it is necessary that all the sides fully take into account the legitimate interests of the Arab countries of the Persian Gulf. Sergei Lavrov has reaffirmed the well-known Russian initiative on building a collective security architecture of in the Gulf area.”

Twenty-four hours passed; Saturday turned into Sunday.

At noon, Moscow time,  Putin announced that he had sent Pezeshkian a message without speaking directly: “Please, accept my deepest condolences on the assassination of Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran Seyyed Ali Khamenei and members of his family, committed in cynical violation of all norms of human morality and international law. In our country, Grand Ayatollah Khamenei will be remembered as an outstanding statesman who made an enormous personal contribution to the development of friendly ties between Russia and Iran and to raising them to the level of a comprehensive strategic partnership. Please, convey my most sincere sympathy and support to the family and friends of the Supreme Leader, as well as to the leadership and to the entire people of Iran.”

Five hours later at 17:11, the Foreign Ministry announced  it had “received the news of the killing of the Supreme and Spiritual Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, members of his family, and senior Iranian officials in US and Israeli missile strikes with outrage and deep sorrow. The Russian Federation strongly and consistently condemns the practice of political assassination and manhunt for leaders of sovereign states that goes against the fundamental principles of civilised interstate relations and constitutes a grave violation of international law.”

The Ministry also noted: “Retaliation strikes at the US military bases in the Arab countries of the Persian Gulf, along with the activation of anti-aircraft defence systems, have caused damage to the international airports in Dubai, Kuwait City, sea ports, high-rises and hotels in Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia. It has been reported that navigation has been stopped in the Strait of Hormuz. This can lead to the blocking of hydrocarbon exports to the region and create a significant imbalance in the global oil and gas markets. We call for immediate de-escalation, cessation of hostilities, resumption of political and diplomatic processes, to settle any existing problems on the basis of the UN Charter and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The legitimate interests of all the states in the Persian Gulf must be taken into account.”

At 18:21 Lavrov telephoned China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi. The Russian report said they “highlighted the unity of Moscow’s and Beijing’s positions…They expressed their readiness to continue working together to help stabilise the situation”. They “condemned the large-scale military strikes launched by the United States and Israel against Iranian territory… They stressed that such acts of aggression represent a grave violation of international law and the fundamental principles of the UN Charter.”

In the Chinese Foreign Ministry’s version, it was noted that Lavrov had requested the call, not the other way round, nor by reciprocal agreement.

“China,” declared Wang, “has consistently upheld the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and opposed the use of force in international relations. It is unacceptable for the United States and Israel to launch strikes on Iran during the Iran-U.S. negotiations… it is also unacceptable for them to blatantly kill the leader of a sovereign state and incite government change…these actions violate international law and basic norms of international relations.”

Wang proposed, according to the communiqué, “an immediate cessation of military operations. Prevent the spread and spillover of war and prevent the situation from getting out of control. China attaches great importance to the security of Gulf countries and supports them in exercising restraint.”

John Helmer is an Australian-born journalist and foreign correspondent based in Moscow, Russia since 1989. He has served as an adviser to government heads in Greece, the United States, and Asia, and has also worked as professor of political science, sociology, and journalism. Read other articles by John, or visit John's website.

 

The War With Iran Is Based on Bullshit

by Lee Camp / March 4th, 2026

If you have your “Reasons For Bombing Iran & Assassinating Their Leader” bingo card out right now, it should almost be full. At various times Donald Trump has said that the US is raining hellfire down on the Iranian people because:

1. We need to stop their nuclear program. (Trump said he already blew it to smithereens last summer but apparently it’s back and stronger than ever!)
2. The Ayatollah didn’t treat his people well. (So bombing those same people is the answer. Besides, if the US bombs every leader who treats his people poorly, then I assume the Pentagon is aiming at Donald Trump as we speak.)
3. Iran is the largest state sponsor of terror. (I guess that would be if you don’t count the United States which has murdered around 6 million innocent people in just the “War on Terror.”)
4. Iran tried to rig the 2020 and 2024 elections against Donald Trump. (There’s no evidence of this and it’s never been brought up before this week, but sure, why not? Also the Ayatollah kidnapped my dog.)
5. Israel was going to attack Iran, and Iran was going to retaliate against the US. Therefore, the US might as well kill a bunch of people in Iran in advance rather than stop Israel from attacking Iran. (Apparently Marco Rubio is admitting Israel is the tail that wags the dog.)

None of these are the true reason, of course. The true reason has to do with the petrodollar, dollar hegemony, oil supplies, and China. I explained it in more detail here. Of course, those things would be true next year as well — So why not start this war with Iran next year? Well, the timing probably has to do with how dosh-garn difficult it is to distract the entire world from credible allegations that you r**e children.

FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Lee Camp is an American comedian, writer, podcaster, news journalist and news commentator. Read other articles by Lee, or visit Lee's website.

Hoisted by Your Own Petard

by Peter Blunt / March 3rd, 2026

The Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Hosseini Khamenei, has been an obvious prime target for assassination by the US/Israel perhaps for the whole of his period in office, which began in 1989. It will have been just as or more obvious that his status in this regard would be amplified in the event of a fresh outbreak of war. Yet he was killed in broad daylight on the first day of the latest US/Israeli attacks, while at his office in his family compound.

Puzzling to say the least.

Not so, however, for mainstream media like the BBC who depicted the incident as you might expect, observing that ‘Iran knew the supreme leader was in the sights of its enemies and so the failure to identify and deal with these vulnerabilities in the intervening months suggests a deep failure for Iranian security and counterintelligence or else the ability of Israel and the US to continue to adapt their methods to find new ways of tracking.’

A stereotypical Western (Orientalist) response you might suppose, summarised as: ‘silly, naïve, weak (etc.) Iranians outwitted (again) by clever, sophisticated, and always superior Westerners’.

Not being an Orientalist, I wondered what other explanations there might be.

The most plausible it seems to me is that Khamenei chose to martyr himself for reasons that are not difficult to divine.

First, he was 86 and had served his country as its supreme leader for more than 35 years. His death would trigger institutionalised means for an orderly succession designed to ensure seamless transition.

Second, he was clearly a man of considerable resolve, bravery and principle who had stood up to the bullying and humiliations inflicted on his country and its citizens by the US and Israel for the better part of half a century and had refused steadfastly to give in.

Third, the leadership of Iran would have been keenly aware of the strategic importance of the manner in which the religious and constitutional leader of the country comported himself during these times of extreme danger. They clearly decided that it was better and more honourable (and strategically astute) for the supreme leader not to be seen by Iranians to be scurrying around like a terrified hunted animal from one place of safekeeping to another. Rather, they chose a business-as-usual approach knowing that if Israel and the US attacked, he could be killed.

Fourth, this approach would serve at least three purposes. It would deliver a very public ‘up yours’ to the US/Israel; in the event of his death, it would add considerably to the anti-US/Israel rage already felt by a majority of the Iranian population; and it would solidify support for the regime and help to unify the nation.

Fifth, for Khamenei, surely it would have been impossible to conceive of a more honourable way to die – in the service of your country and your faith.

If this hypothesis is correct, it means that for the US and Israel what was already likely to have been a drawn-out war that they could not win has been made much more so.

It is also somehow fitting that the current incumbent of the White House – whose hubris and arrogance seem boundless – might have fallen victim to this ‘rope a dope’ strategy.

FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Peter Blunt is Honorary Professor, School of Business, University of New South Wales (Canberra), Australia. He has held tenured full professorships of management in universities in Australia, Norway, and the UK, and has worked as a consultant in development assistance in 40 countries, including more than three years with the World Bank in Jakarta, Indonesia. His commissioned publications on governance and public sector management informed UNDP policy on these matters and his books include the standard works on organisation and management in Africa and, most recently, (with Cecilia Escobar and Vlassis Missos) The Political Economy of Bilateral Aid: Implications for Global Development (Routledge, 2023) and The Political Economy of Dissent: A Research Companion (Routledge, forthcoming 2026). Read other articles by Peter.