Napoleon’s old maxim about never interrupting an enemy when he’s making a mistake seems to have informed the calculations of leaders in Moscow and Beijing as Washington’s confrontation with Tehran unfolded. A 14-day ceasefire—accepted by both sides amid mutual claims of victory—has given Russia and China an opening to capitalize on what many view as a costly American misstep in the Middle East.
Throughout the crisis, Beijing and Moscow struck a careful balance. Rather than openly committing large-scale military resources, they provided selective support: limited intelligence sharing, diplomatic backing and measured encouragement. They calculated that Iran did not need to defeat the United States and Israel outright; it only needed to survive the confrontation to remain a strategic counterweight to U.S. influence.
Below are four ways the Iran conflict weakened U.S. standing in the 21st-century contest among great powers.
1) Losing influence across the Middle East
For years Washington has juggled multiple goals in the Middle East, including trying to blunt the regional inroads of rivals, chiefly China and, to a lesser extent, Russia. Under Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping both powers steadily expanded their regional engagement through formal ties, military involvement and diplomatic initiatives. Russia deepened ties with Iran and intervened in Syria; China increased its regional footprint, notably helping broker the 2023 Saudi–Iran rapprochement.
Those earlier trends were already shifting against the United States: the fall of Assad in 2024 eroded Russia’s dependable foothold, and U.S. diplomatic efforts in the Gulf were intended to check Beijing’s influence. But the war with Iran undermined American credibility as a reliable security partner. Gulf states that now view the U.S. as a less dependable protector may be more inclined to diversify security and economic relationships—creating room for Beijing and Moscow to expand their influence.
2) Diverting U.S. focus from other strategic priorities
In the 2020s Washington signaled a desire to pivot attention toward the Western Hemisphere and the Indo-Pacific. Yet by launching or co-launching a campaign against Iran without broader consultations, the administration undercut its own stated priorities and refocused American resources on a new Middle Eastern emergency. That shift pulled attention and assets away from long-term objectives in the Americas and Asia.
The crisis also aggravated fissures with allies. NATO and other partners—already strained by prior U.S. rhetoric and policy unpredictability—were further tested. Those divisions play into the hands of China and Russia, who gain strategic leverage as Washington’s attention is consumed by another theater.
3) Disproportionate economic damage
Iran’s temporary closure of the Strait of Hormuz—through which about one-fifth of global oil passes—triggered predictable economic shocks. Spiking energy prices benefited Russia’s war economy, and Washington’s responses included a temporary easing of some measures on Russian oil, giving Moscow a needed economic reprieve. China, though harmed by energy market turbulence, has bolstered its resilience with larger reserves, a diversified energy mix and greater emphasis on domestic consumption, making it less vulnerable to supply shocks. The economic fallout diminished U.S. leverage in the region as Iran demonstrated an ability to threaten access for countries it views as hostile.
4) Erosion of U.S. diplomatic leadership
The U.S. resort to force and inconsistent rhetoric over the course of the crisis weakened American credibility as an impartial mediator. That perception allowed Beijing to play a more prominent peacemaking role: China pressed Iran to accept a Pakistan-brokered 14-day ceasefire proposal and has been actively promoting its image as an alternative diplomatic actor. Successful Chinese mediation reinforces the narrative that the U.S.-led order is losing its primacy and that Beijing can step into roles traditionally held by Washington. For Russia, the wider consequences include reduced international pressure on Moscow as global attention and U.S. resources are diverted away from the war in Ukraine.
Jeffrey Taliaferro is professor of political science at Tufts University.
This piece is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.
