Israel-Iran War: Could China, Russia, Pakistan, or the U.S. Join the Fight?

As the Israel-Iran conflict escalates, with Israeli strikes on Iran’s nuclear and military sites and Tehran’s retaliatory missile barrages, the specter of a broader war looms.

The June 13, 2025, Israeli operation, dubbed “Rising Lion,” targeted Natanz, Fordow, and senior IRGC commanders, killing figures like Mohammad Bagheri and Hossein Salami. Iran’s response, over 100 drones and dozens of ballistic missiles, has intensified fears of a regional conflagration.

Could global powers like China, Russia, or the U.S., or regional players like Pakistan, be drawn in? Here’s an analysis of their potential involvement.

China: A Reluctant Bystander with Economic Stakes

China’s reaction to the Israel-Iran war has been cautious, reflecting its strategic neutrality and economic priorities. Beijing condemned Israel’s June 13 strikes, with Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian urging restraint to avoid “grave consequences.” China’s primary concern is Middle East energy stability, as it imports over 50% of its oil from the region, including 10% from Iran. A wider war risks spiking oil prices, disrupting China’s economy, and threatening its Belt and Road Initiative projects.

Despite its 25-year strategic partnership with Iran, signed in 2021, China is unlikely to join the fight militarily. Beijing has historically avoided direct involvement in Middle Eastern conflicts, preferring diplomacy to bolster its image as a peace broker. Recent reports confirm China supplied Iran with ammonium perchlorate for ballistic missiles, but this is logistical support, not combat engagement. China’s mediation of the 2023 Saudi-Iran deal and the 2024 Beijing Declaration for Palestinian unity underscore its preference for soft power.

However, if the U.S. enters the fray, China might escalate rhetorically or provide Iran with advanced defensive systems, like radar technology, to counterbalance Washington. Direct intervention remains improbable unless China’s energy imports or regional investments are directly threatened. Beijing’s muted response to Iran’s proxies, like Hezbollah and the Houthis, suggests it prioritizes stability over ideological alignment.

Russia: A Complicated Ally with Divided Loyalties

Russia’s ties with Iran have deepened since the Ukraine war, with Tehran supplying drones and missiles to Moscow. Yet, Russia’s involvement in an Israel-Iran war is constrained by its overstretched military and complex regional relationships. On June 13, Russia backed Iran’s call for a UN Security Council meeting, condemning Israel’s strikes alongside China. Foreign policy analysts suggest Moscow may offer Iran intelligence or air defense systems, as it reportedly did after Ismail Haniyeh’s assassination in 2024.

However, Russia’s historical ties with Israel, including coordination in Syria, complicate its stance. Moscow has maintained a delicate balance, avoiding direct confrontation with Israel despite its support for Iran and Syria. Russia’s offer to store Iran’s excess uranium in June 2025, as part of U.S.-Iran nuclear talks, signals its interest in de-escalation. A direct military role is unlikely, given Russia’s focus on Ukraine and domestic economic strain. Instead, Moscow might amplify disinformation campaigns, as seen post-October 7, 2023, to undermine Israel and the U.S. while supplying Iran with limited matériel.

If the U.S. joins Israel, Russia could increase arms transfers to Iran, including S-300 or S-400 systems, but full-scale intervention risks alienating Gulf states like Saudi Arabia, where Russia seeks influence.

United States: A Reluctant Partner Pulled In?

The U.S. has publicly distanced itself from Israel’s June 13 strikes, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio stating, “We are not involved in strikes against Iran.” However, Israel’s reliance on U.S. intelligence, air defense systems, and munitions, like MK-84 bunker-busters, ensures indirect American involvement. President Trump’s praise for Israel’s operation, coupled with his warning to Iran of “further attacks” if nuclear talks fail, suggests conditional support.

Trump’s second term prioritizes avoiding Middle Eastern wars, as articulated in his inaugural speech: “Success is the wars we never get into.” Yet, if Iran targets U.S. assets, bases in Iraq or the Gulf, or escalates against Israel with significant casualties, Washington could be drawn in. The U.S. led a coalition in April 2024, alongside the UK, France, and Jordan, to intercept Iranian missiles aimed at Israel, demonstrating its defensive commitment. A direct Iranian attack on U.S. forces could prompt retaliatory strikes, though a full-scale war is unlikely given Trump’s aversion to entanglement.

Gulf states, hosting U.S. troops, fear Iranian retaliation. Saudi Arabia and the UAE, while quietly aligning with Israel against Iran, denied airspace use for Israel’s strikes, signaling reluctance to be openly involved. If the U.S. escalates, it risks oil price surges and strained Gulf relations, a scenario Trump seeks to avoid.

Pakistan: A Vocal Supporter, but Limited Actor

Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar condemned Israel’s “unjustified” strikes, declaring solidarity with Iran and warning of regional instability. Pakistan, which does not recognize Israel, has a history of rhetorical support for Iran, but its involvement is unlikely to extend beyond words. Claims that Pakistan offered Iran “nuclear cover” or plans to strike Israel if the U.S. intervenes are implausible, given Pakistan’s economic fragility and focus on domestic security.

Pakistan’s military cooperation with Iran is minimal, though both nations share concerns over Balochistan militancy, as seen in their 2024 tit-for-tat strikes. Historical context from Operation Cyclone (1979–1989) shows Pakistan and Israel covertly collaborated against Soviet forces, highlighting pragmatic alignments over ideology. Today, Pakistan’s strained ties with the U.S. and reliance on Saudi aid limit its ability to act as Iran’s ally. Direct involvement would risk alienating Gulf donors and inviting Israeli or U.S. retaliation, far beyond Pakistan’s capacity.

Analysis: A War of Proxies, Not Superpowers

The Israel-Iran war risks expanding through proxies rather than direct superpower involvement. Iran’s “Axis of Resistance”, Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis, and Iraqi militias, has already condemned Israel’s strikes, with Hezbollah warning of regional “ignition” and Houthis claiming Iran’s “legitimate right” to respond. These groups could intensify attacks on Israel or U.S. interests, pulling Washington deeper into the conflict.

China and Russia, while sympathetic to Iran, prioritize their own strategic goals, energy security for Beijing, Ukraine for Moscow, over a Middle Eastern war. Their support will likely remain non-combat: diplomatic cover, intelligence, or limited arms. The U.S., despite Trump’s restraint, faces pressure to back Israel defensively, especially if Iran’s retaliation overwhelms Israeli air defenses. Pakistan’s role is overstated; its economic and military constraints make active participation improbable.

The wildcard is escalation dynamics. If Iran targets Gulf energy infrastructure or U.S. bases, or if Israel sustains its campaign against Iran’s nuclear sites, the conflict could spiral. Gulf states, caught in the crossfire, may demand U.S. protection, complicating Trump’s non-interventionist stance. A prolonged war could also shift China and Russia’s calculus, particularly if global oil markets collapse or U.S. dominance grows.