Iran's reactions to US and European condemnation and sanctions following revelations of its ballistic missile sales to Russia have been restrained, primarily consisting of official statements from officials.
September 11 is far from forgotten, but its aftermath is often viewed through the lens of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. What is frequently overlooked is how these costly and traumatic conflicts, and the geopolitical shifts they triggered, have shaped the current regional dynamics. Today’s complex Middle East quagmire, heavily influenced by Iran’s growing support for various actors, can be traced back to the ripple effects of those wars and the changes they imposed on the region’s power structure.
As hijacked airliners struck New York’s twin towers and the Pentagon, killing thousands, Americans united with a strength not seen since World War II. The global community rallied behind the United States, even supporting its swift invasion of Afghanistan to root out the terrorists responsible for the attacks. This unprecedented unity reflected the world’s collective resolve in confronting the threat of terrorism in the immediate aftermath of September 11.
But the ill-planned 2003 invasion of Iraq opened the floodgates to an Iranian expansion few could have imagined on September 10, 2001, when Saddam Hussein still controlled Iraq, practically begging Washington to be left alone and promising to behave. Disregarding the looming dangers of unintended consequences, the Bush administration relentlessly shoveled coal into the furnace of a reckless train, charging toward disaster in the region.
The Iraqi invasion badly damaged the US image among the Arabs, especially that the original excuse for the war, the alleged existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction proved false. This fueled a chain of events that allowed Iran to step into the power vacuum left by Saddam, reshaping the Middle East in ways no one foresaw. Meanwhile, the unending war in Afghanistan also sapped resources and focus, perhaps diverting attention from Iran's regional plans, while two simultaneous wars undoubtedly did not help the United States.
A few months after the invasion, signs began to emerge that Iran’s Islamic regime was beginning to build influence among Shiites in Iraq and even assisting the growing Sunni insurgency against the United States.
As the Taliban once famously said, “You may have the watches, but we have the time,” the Iranians began experimenting with a model of proxy warfare that today has brought the region to a new phase of instability, war and the partial closure of the Red Sea to a significant portion of world shipping.
As the US withdrew its forces from Iraq in 2009, Iran found a wide-open playing field in the country, exerting influence in local politics and becoming a king maker in the fragile and unstable democratic system in Iraq.
The more the region experienced tremors, the more Tehran capitalized on them to expand its influence, forming a Shiite crescent that now stretches to the Mediterranean. The first significant tremor came with the Arab Spring, followed by the outbreak of popular protests against Bashar al-Assad in Syria. Tehran quickly stepped in, pledging military support to Assad in suppressing the growing rebellion, largely driven by the Sunni majority. By 2011, Iran was fully committed to the Syrian conflict, sending its Revolutionary Guard as "advisors" and organizing Iraqi, Afghan, and other forces to serve as foot soldiers in the brutal civil war. From 2011 to 2014, Iran’s involvement deepened, establishing a crucial foothold in Syria’s devastating conflict, all in an effort to safeguard Assad’s regime and expand its regional influence.
Meanwhile, the United States focused on diplomacy and sanctions aimed at curbing Iran's nuclear ambitions and fought ISIS in Iraq, without responding decisively to developments in Syria. Russia capitalized on the situation, deploying its forces to support Iranian efforts to crush the Syrian rebels. By the time former President Donald Trump partially reversed U.S. policy and took a tougher stance on Tehran, Syria was largely pacified, solidifying Iran’s Shiite crescent of influence extending to the Mediterranean.
During a brief period, following Trump’s “maximum pressure” sanctions and the January 2020 killing of Qasem Soleimani, Tehran's threat appeared to diminish. However, the situation shifted when President Joe Biden initiated new nuclear talks. Although these efforts ultimately proved futile, the US had already relaxed sanctions, allowing Iran to export nearly 1.5 million barrels of oil per day to China. Additionally, just before Hamas's October 7 attack on Israel, Washington unfroze around $16 billion in Iranian assets, further loosening financial constraints on Tehran.
This has sparked criticism that the Biden administration indirectly enabled Iran’s support for the October 7 attack. While there may be some truth to this, one could argue that the roots of the October 7 incident trace back to earlier events—9/11 and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. These pivotal moments set the stage for the ongoing instability in the Middle East, with Iran gradually expanding its influence over the years.
On Wednesday, Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi claimed that Tehran has not sent any missiles to Russia. Araghchi wrote in a post on X: "Once again, US and E3 act on faulty intelligence and flawed logic - Iran has NOT delivered ballistic missiles to Russia. Period - Sanction addicts should ask themselves: how is Iran able to make & supposedly sell sophisticated arms? Sanctions are NOT a solution, but part of problem."
These controlled responses suggest a careful approach by Tehran, seeking to manage the diplomatic fallout without escalating tensions further.
Meanwhile, IRGC-linked Fars News Agency also denied the news quoting "an informed military source" as saying that Iran has not sent ballistic missiles to Russia. Fars wrote that the news was part of psychological warfare against Tehran.
On Thursday, Tehran-based analyst Ali Bigdeli appeared to align with the official narrative, telling a local website that the accusations regarding missile sales are part of a conspiracy aimed at pressuring the Islamic Republic. He suggested this pressure is timed to coincide with President Masoud Pezeshkian's planned meetings with European leaders during the upcoming UN General Assembly in New York later this month.
All media outlets in Iran strictly adhere to government directives on sensitive national security issues. As a result, those reporting on the missile transfers stuck to basic coverage, echoing official statements. Many repeated lines such as labeling Western accusations as “a new wave of psychological warfare,” avoiding any independent analysis or criticism.
However, there were a couple of exceptions. In a commentary entitled "New sanctions for the sake of Russia," conservative Nameh News website wrote: "Iran is paying a high cost for Russia's war against Ukraine. Iran has not been gaining anything from Russia's war against Ukraine."
Nameh News went on to say that the recent missile sales to Russia have triggered new sanctions, including those on Iran Air, which had previously been lifted following the 2015 nuclear deal. The website also emphasized that these sanctions have a direct impact on the Iranian people, underscoring the broader consequences of the missile sales for the nation.
The website stated that if Iran has not sent missiles to Russia, it should pursue international legal action against the US and EU. It also quoted US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who warned that sending ballistic missiles to Russia would dangerously escalate the conflict in Ukraine. Iranian missiles, Blinken noted, could significantly enhance Russian forces' capabilities and flexibility, further intensifying the war. These comments reflected concerns over Iran’s involvement and the potential consequences of its missile sales.
The website suggested that Russia should clarify the situation, as Iranian officials have repeatedly claimed neutrality in the Ukraine war. Despite this, Tehran has faced sanctions twice due to its alleged support for Russia. The article also criticized Russia for its silence on the issue and for backing the United Arab Emirates' claim over three Iranian islands in the Persian Gulf, highlighting tensions in Iran's relationship with Russia despite their cooperation.
The Kremlin's Spokesperson Dimitry Peskov finally denied the news Wednesday afternoon and saying reports about Iranian missile supplies were not accurate. Peskov, however, called Iran one of Moscow's important trade partners.
The ultraconservative Kayhan newspaper, funded by Khamenei's office and known for its support of Russia and close ties with Moscow, has remained silent on the missile issue, leaving many in Tehran disappointed as they awaited its reaction. Currently, Kayhan finds itself more isolated than ever, as other outlets criticize its controversial stances on both domestic and international issues.
