War in the Middle East: the Ukrainian Perspective

Let us be precise in our definitions: June 13, 2025, did not mark the beginning of an Israeli-Iranian war, but rather a full-scale war in the Middle East. Its reasons go back to the distant past, primarily to the results of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, which led to the formation of a complex Middle Eastern knot of geopolitical, security, and religious contradictions.

Tehran does not recognize Israel’s legitimacy and declares its desire for its complete destruction. To achieve its goal, Iran has managed to develop a wide network of proxy forces in Lebanon, Yemen, Syria (before the fall of the Assad regime), and Gaza (HAMAS). Russia has become Iran’s important ally and military partner. Any agreement between the USA and Iran is disadvantageous to Israel. On the contrary, it is in its interests to involve the USA as much as possible in this war.

This may indicate that the war will not be fast, the circle of its direct participants and involved countries will expand, and the consequences will be devastating. The Ayatollahs will seek revenge not only in the region but throughout the world. To understand this, it is enough to visit Iran, feel the atmosphere in public places, talk to ordinary people, visit a mosque: hatred of Israel, especially of the USA, is engraved in the memory of the people, sprinkled with their blood – hatred emanates from practically everyone and at every turn.

When conducting special operations in the Middle East, Western countries have repeatedly faced terrorist attacks in response. Those were carried out by radical Islamists, usually against the civilian population. Whether such operations achieved the desired effect is a rhetorical question. Let us recall the bloody acts of revenge in Great Britain, Germany, France, Spain, Sweden, Australia, Finland, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Switzerland.

Unfortunately, the world has not found a recipe for effectively combating terrorism over the decades — this must be acknowledged. The method of periodically striking centers, destroying infrastructure, ideological and spiritual leaders, and even regimes has never led to the desired result, but on the contrary, has only radicalized the population.

Therefore, the new war in the Middle East should be viewed in close connection with all previous ones—in their essence, they are wars of an ideological nature. Iran’s nuclear program is not a determining factor in this regard. The effectiveness of the decision to launch missile and bomb strikes on Iran is questionable: it is obvious that the destruction of infrastructure, facilities, and even individual radical leaders does not lead to the elimination of the social base of terrorism and its ideology. This is the main problem.

The main question for us is how this war will affect Ukraine.

On the positive side, there are a few conditional points:

1. Putin’s forced distraction by his Middle Eastern partner, Iran, as well as the need to provide assistance in rebuilding nuclear facilities and technologies that were actually created by Russian professionals.
2. The predicted reduction in Russia’s supplies of “Shaheds” and ballistic missiles.
3. The consolidation of the world around the settlement of yet another war, assistance to the victim country. Ukraine is not alone; now there are a few victims. Technologies of international support are improving.

Most of the consequences for us are still negative:

1. Oil prices have risen, which brings new advantages for Russia through replenishment of its budget and additional opportunities for weapons production. There is no doubt that Putin will take advantage of this.
2. The focus of attention will shift from the “Ukrainian issue” to a new hot spot (or even hot spots). The threat is becoming complex, and forces, means, and resources will be diverted to deal with it.
3. The USA has transferred some of its missiles and anti-drone systems from Ukraine to Israel. Such assistance will continue if the conflict develops—this region has now become a new priority. Even if Ukraine receives American weapons, it will be in much smaller quantities, and the burden in these matters will shift to Europe.
4. Demand for weapons on the global market is increasing significantly, and prices are rising. Each country will once again think about itself. It will become increasingly difficult for Ukraine to find and purchase weapons for the needs of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
5. The USA’s prevention of the development of Iran’s nuclear program through the destruction of the relevant infrastructure shows that it will be extremely difficult for Ukraine to restore its own nuclear technologies and production of tactical warheads. The “guarantor states” that forced us to liquidate our nuclear arsenal in exchange for the empty Budapest Memorandum are unlikely to allow such weapons in Ukraine — the example of Iran is quite telling.
6. Ukraine has found itself in a complicated foreign policy situation. Our country and Iran have unwittingly become victims of military aggression. If Ukrainians condemn the aggression of the Russian Federation and consolidate the entire democratic world around this issue, then we must be consistent in relation to Israel and its partner, the United States. A difficult situation will arise in bilateral relations, and it will be the same in all international forums. The statement by our Ministry of Foreign Affairs assessing events in the Middle East is evidence of this.
7. The negotiation process with Iran, led by Witkoff and other politicians from Trump’s team, has failed at this stage. Putin immediately offered the US President his services as a “peacemaker,” and Trump accepted the terms. As we can see, the “Trump-Putin friendship” will cost us dearly: if Putin succeeds in resolving the conflict in the Middle East, he will be rewarded with the lifting of sanctions and the acceptance of the Kremlin’s conditions regarding Ukraine. Even the very fact of such “deals” with one terrorist against another gives us an understanding of what is really happening.
8. Instability in the world where the rule of law gives way to the rule of force increases the likelihood of other political ambitions being realized, primarily territorial ones. Think of the Baltic States, Moldova, Taiwan… This is exactly how polycentric the Third World War will be (in fact, already is). In such conditions, it will be increasingly difficult for Ukraine to address national security and defense issues.

From many points of view, the war in the Middle East, like any other future wars (today there is no question about the possibility of their unfolding), is not only disadvantageous for us, but also dangerous. Saudi Arabia and Türkiye have already announced the development of their own nuclear weapons. Such positions turn any conflict into a “zero-sum game”. Burning new hot spots and waging wars without rules create extremely vague prospects for Ukraine and the world as a whole.

Unfortunately, high ideas about the possibility of forming a “global coalition of freedom and democracy” have remained in history. We should not delude ourselves and rely on the security umbrella of geographically distant players. The present day dictates other forms of “interest-based alliances” — groups of neighboring states formed on the basis of an understanding of the vital necessity of jointly confronting specific threats. We should find our place and, preferably, take the lead in our regional security bloc—this is a real opportunity and the most pragmatic prospect.

Yuriy Romaniuk,
Candidate of Pedagogical Sciences