As Iran faces widespread strikes from the U.S. and Israel, its would-be allies from the Axis, North Korea, China and Russia have been largely absent, condemning Washington and Tel Aviv but doing little else. In “Fault Lines: Iran and the Fragility of Anti-Western Alliances,” Bradley Jardine and Edward Lemon outline the broad themes of mistrust and distrust in Iran’s relationships with Russia, China, and North Korea – critical fault lines that run through Iran’s foreign policy and one which shapes, and often constrains, its strategic choices.
Iran’s geopolitical alignments are marked by underlying tensions and fractures: historical grievances, suspicion of foreign entanglements, divergent strategic interests, and ideological incompatibilities have left Tehran wary of fully embracing these partnerships. Policymakers and analysts require a clear-eyed understanding of these fault lines: appreciating how and why Iran’s closest partnerships are fraught with mistrust is essential to accurately assessing the durability and limits of the so-called “Axis” challenging the West.
Iran’s partnerships with Russia, China, and North Korea may appear increasingly close, but beneath the surface, they are defined by mistrust, asymmetry, and hard-edged pragmatism. Centuries of foreign encroachment, the 1979 revolutionary slogan “Neither East nor West” and repeated experiences of being sidelined by great power partners have left Tehran deeply wary of all three states. Iran cooperates with them out of necessity, not affinity—fully aware that their interests diverge, their strategies clash, and their commitments often falter when pressure mounts. What emerges is not a cohesive anti-U.S. bloc, but a set of transactional, fragile relationships that Iran navigates with caution and strategic anxiety.
Several themes emerge throughout our analysis of these strategic tensions:
Suspicion Towards Foreign Powers
Historical precedent has instilled a wariness in Tehran’s diplomatic approach. The Iranian collective memory is replete with episodes that cast Russia, China, and (to a lesser extent) North Korea as untrustworthy or even predatory powers. For centuries, the Russian Empire and its Soviet successor were Iran’s primary antagonists, and the scars of that era remain raw in Iran’s national consciousness. Notably, after the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini famously branded the United States the “Great Satan” and the Soviet Union the “Lesser Satan,” signaling that Iran would trust neither superpower. This revolutionary mantra of “Neither East nor West” set the tone for Iran’s foreign policy – even as Tehran later found common cause with Moscow and Beijing against U.S. dominance, it did so with eyes open to the potential for treachery.
Self-Interest over Cooperation
Diplomatically, Iran’s relations with Russia, China, and North Korea reveal a pattern of calculated cooperation tempered by caution. Iranian leaders engage these powers out of necessity and shared short-term goals, yet they consistently hedge against the possibility of betrayal or abandonment. Iran’s partnerships are transactional, not fraternal; they persist not because of shared values but in spite of profound value differences, bridged only by pragmatic necessity.
Lack of Reliability
Historical patterns indicate that all three external partners take steps that contradict Iran’s interests when it suits them. Iranian analysts privately question Moscow’s commitment to follow through, recalling how Russia has abruptly canceled or delayed projects in the past under external pressure. When Beijing slowed its oil purchases in late 2018 after new U.S. sanctions (opting to avoid secondary sanctions on its companies), Iranian commentators accused China of opportunism, effectively profiting from Iran’s plight but abandoning it when push comes to shove.
Power Asymmetries
Iranian political and business elites frequently lament that economic agreements with China are structured overwhelmingly to Beijing’s advantage, reinforcing perceptions that China views Iran less as a partner than as a sanctioned market to be commercially exploited. Similar frustrations surface in Iran’s security establishment, where commanders privately acknowledge that Russia routinely treats Tehran as a subordinate actor, particularly in conflict theaters such as Syria, where Moscow has overridden Iranian preferences or excluded Iran from key negotiations. North Korea’s economic and military dependence on China produces its own set of imbalances, while Iran’s weaker geopolitical position vis-à-vis both Moscow and Beijing means that it often lacks the leverage to shape outcomes even in areas of shared interest. These asymmetries generate persistent resentment and mistrust, underscoring that the relationships among these states are hierarchical, transactional, and uneven—far from the image of an equal, unified anti-U.S. bloc.
Differing Strategies
Although all four Axis countries oppose the U.S. and seek to revise the international order to suit their interests, they do not agree on the approach. China favors gradual, institution-shaping revisionism through economic statecraft, multilateral engagement, and calibrated competition that avoids outright confrontation. Russia relies on disruptive tactics—military aggression, hybrid warfare, and coercive diplomacy—to overturn regional security arrangements. Iran seeks to erode U.S. influence in the Middle East through asymmetric warfare, proxy networks, and ideological mobilization. North Korea, by contrast, employs nuclear brinkmanship and isolationist defiance to extract concessions and guarantee regime survival. These divergent strategies mean that while their interests occasionally align tactically, they do not share a unified vision or collective roadmap for reshaping global order and often prioritize competing regional agendas over genuine strategic coordination.
Ideological Differences
Undergirding the diplomatic, military, and economic spheres are stark ideological and identity differences that further fuel mistrust. Iran’s Islamic Republic is founded on a revolutionary Shi’a Islamist ideology and a narrative of resisting imperial powers. This worldview is fundamentally different from those of Russia’s secular great-power nationalism, China’s communist authoritarianism, or North Korea’s dynastic Juche ideology. The absence of a unifying ideological bond means that Iran and its putative allies lack the kind of deep trust that comes from shared values or political models. Instead, each side often views the other’s ideology with a mix of opportunism and caution.