Russia’s assessment is political in nature and intended to challenge the US’ claims of victory.
Andrew Korybko
RT and other media reported that Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova described the US-Iranian ceasefire as a “crushing defeat” in an echo of the exact same wording employed by Iran’s Supreme National Security Council.
Interestingly, that part of her press conference wasn’t included in the
Foreign Ministry’s official transcript, which readers can review here.
In any case, the question thus arises of why Russia assesses the
ceasefire in that way, especially when Iran suffered immense damage.
Its
air and naval forces are reportedly destroyed, civilian and energy
infrastructure was struck multiple times, and Iran ultimately agreed to
the ceasefire and the resumption of talks with the US despite the US
attacking Iran twice thus far during prior such talks in less than 12
months. While one might still argue that Iran didn’t suffer a “crushing
defeat”, it still most definitely suffered quite a lot and without
destroying a single US ship, which its media surrogates hyped supporters
up to expect to no avail.
Be that as it may, the US’ regional bases were struck many times by Iran despite the US’ air defenses, its Gulf
and Israeli allies both suffered a lot of damage to their military and
civilian infrastructure as well, and Iran also didn’t truly experience
the regime change that Trump has since boasted about. While it’s true
that several waves of government leaders were killed, the Islamic
Republic remains intact, and there was also no rebellion among urban
civilians or peripheral minorities such as the Kurds like many expected.
As of now, Iran still has enriched uranium in its possession, half of its missile launchers, and
thousands of drones, thus meaning that the US hasn’t (at least not yet)
denuclearized nor demilitarized it. These facts therefore discredit
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth’s boast
about an “historic and overwhelming victory”, though he’s correct in
claiming that “the next targets would have been their power plants,
their bridges and oil and energy infrastructure, targets they could not
defend and could not realistically rebuild.”
Nevertheless,
Trump ultimately eschewed that apocalyptic course of action due to the
IRGC changing its mind about “embracing martyrdom” as they perceive
their deaths in that scenario as being and instead embracing diplomacy,
though he can still resort to it if their talks fail to achieve the US’
goals. For that reason, at this point in time, the outcome of the Third Gulf War remains uncertain. That might change, however, depending on the outcome of their talks or if hostilities resume.
Either
way, nobody expected Russia to assess the ceasefire any differently
considering its ongoing rivalry with the US with whom it’s fighting by
proxy in Ukraine. Any attention that Russia draws to the immense damage
that Iran suffered and which was presented in support of the argument
that the US didn’t suffer a “crushing defeat” would only be it accuse it
of war crimes and generate sympathy for Iran. Likewise, echoing its
Supreme National Security Council’s wording was meant to show support,
which succeeded.
All in all, the Third Gulf War arguably didn’t
end in any of the combatants’ “crushing defeat” since they were all
harmed in various ways, though Iran much more than anyone else due the
US’ and Israel’s much stronger aerial forces that wreaked destruction
all across the Islamic Republic. Russia’s assessment is therefore
political in nature and intended to challenge the US’ claims of victory.
The outcome of the conflict still isn’t known and can’t be determined
till a peace deal is agreed to.