September The conflict involving Iran, Israel and the United States has increasingly developed into a wider geopolitical contest, drawing Russia and China into the diplomatic picture. However, describing the situation simply as a formal “Russia-China-Iran alliance versus Israel” would be misleading. The three countries have overlapping interests, but their relationships and strategic calculations are not identical.

The current crisis is therefore better understood as a combination of regional conflict, great-power rivalry, energy security and competing diplomatic blocs.

Iran at the Centre of the Conflict

Iran is directly involved in the confrontation with Israel and the United States. Tehran has rejected pressure from Washington and has continued to demand recognition of its sovereignty and security interests.

The conflict has also affected the strategically important Strait of Hormuz, a major route for global energy shipments. China has repeatedly called for restraint and for the reopening of the waterway.

On September 16, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi met Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in Beijing and called for Iran and the United States to return to substantive negotiations. China also urged measures to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

Russia’s Relationship With Iran

Russia has developed increasingly close political and security relations with Tehran.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has publicly supported Iran and criticised U.S. sanctions and military pressure. During a September 2026 meeting with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, the two governments discussed opposition to sanctions and cooperation between Moscow and Tehran.

But Russia’s relationship with Iran does not automatically mean Moscow will enter the war directly on Tehran’s side.

Russia continues to face major military and strategic demands from its war in Ukraine. Analysts have therefore described Moscow’s approach as one that combines political support for Iran with efforts to protect Russia’s own wider interests.

China’s Position Is Different

China is also a major partner of Iran, particularly economically and diplomatically.

Beijing has criticised military escalation and maintains a strategic relationship with Tehran. At the same time, China has extensive economic and energy relationships across the wider Middle East, including with countries that have interests different from Iran’s.

That makes China’s position more complicated than simply joining an anti-Israel military bloc.

Chinese officials have instead repeatedly emphasised negotiations, restraint and diplomatic solutions. Wang Yi’s September meeting with Araghchi was another example of Beijing trying to position itself as a diplomatic actor while protecting its economic and energy interests.

Where Does Israel Fit?

Israel sees Iran as a major security threat and has sought to prevent Tehran from developing military capabilities that Israel considers dangerous.

Israel’s military campaign against Iran has therefore become a central part of the current regional conflict. The confrontation has also involved the United States, making the crisis much larger than a bilateral Israel-Iran dispute.

The result is an increasingly complicated strategic environment in which Israel and the United States are closely aligned, while Iran has political and strategic relationships with Russia and China.

However, Russia and China have not formed a mutual-defence arrangement requiring them to fight Israel on Iran’s behalf.

Is There Really a “Russia-China-Iran vs Israel” Bloc?

Not in the formal military-alliance sense.

Russia, China and Iran share several broad interests, including opposition to certain U.S. policies and criticism of unilateral sanctions. But their priorities differ.

Iran’s priority: protecting its sovereignty, military capabilities and regional position.

Russia’s priority: maintaining its geopolitical influence while managing the Ukraine war and relations with Middle Eastern states.

China’s priority: protecting trade and energy supplies, expanding diplomatic influence and avoiding a major war that could damage its economic interests.

This difference explains why Moscow and Beijing can support Iran diplomatically without necessarily committing their armed forces to the conflict. Earlier reporting by Reuters similarly described Russia and China’s support as constrained by their own strategic interests.

The United Nations Adds Another Dimension

The polarization has also appeared at the United Nations.

On September 17, Russia and China vetoed a U.S.-backed proposal concerning continued monitoring of sanctions that had been reimposed on Iran over its nuclear programme. The sanctions themselves remained in effect.

This illustrates an important distinction: diplomatic opposition to U.S. policy does not necessarily equal military participation in the Iran-Israel conflict.

The UN has consequently become another arena where competing positions over Iran, sanctions and international security are being expressed.

BRICS and the Global South

The crisis has also tested the limits of groups such as BRICS.

At the September 2026 BRICS summit in New Delhi, members supported a joint call for restraint and protection of civilians. Chinese President Xi Jinping also called on BRICS countries to contribute to peacemaking efforts in the Middle East.

At the same time, BRICS countries do not have identical positions on the conflict. The organisation is primarily an economic and political grouping rather than a collective military alliance.

Why the Polarization Matters

The consequences extend far beyond Iran and Israel.

The conflict has implications for:

• Global oil and gas markets
• Shipping through the Strait of Hormuz
• China’s energy security
• Russia’s energy revenues
• U.S. military resources
• Middle Eastern security
• UN diplomacy
• BRICS cooperation
• Global trade and inflation

The Strait of Hormuz is particularly important because disruptions there can affect energy markets well beyond the Middle East.

A New Cold War?

It may be tempting to describe the situation as the beginning of a new Cold War-style division, with Russia, China and Iran on one side and Israel and the United States on the other.

But the current structure is more complicated.

Russia has substantial interests in the Middle East but also wants to avoid an uncontrolled confrontation with Washington. China has close ties with Iran but simultaneously depends on stable energy supplies and commercial relationships throughout the region. Iran itself remains the country directly confronting Israel and the United States.

Therefore, the emerging polarization is better described as a flexible geopolitical alignment rather than a single military bloc.

The Bottom Line

The Iran-Israel conflict has exposed a widening divide in international politics, but the phrase “Russia-China-Iran versus Israel” should be treated as an oversimplification.

Iran is directly involved in the conflict. Russia and China have provided diplomatic and political support to Tehran and opposed aspects of U.S. pressure, while both have also pursued their own national interests and avoided an automatic commitment to direct war.

The central question now is whether diplomacy can prevent the conflict from expanding further—or whether continued confrontation will deepen the geopolitical divisions already visible across the Middle East and the wider international system.