Viktor BED
Research Institute of Strategic and Political-Legal Studies
Carpathian University named after Augustin Voloshyn
Uzhhorod, June 23, 2025
- Introduction
On June 22, 2025, the United States launched strikes against Iran’s strategic nuclear facilities—an action that became not merely another military operation, but a turning point in global instability and the onset of a new phase of international confrontation. Under the pretext of “fighting evil,” the U.S. has in fact been drawn into a dangerous adventure—on someone else’s terms, in someone else’s conflict, and without a clear strategic vision. This escalation is a symptom of geopolitical confusion, distorted priorities, and a manifestation of deep internal dysfunction within the American leadership.
Of particular concern is the condition of the incumbent president, Donald Trump, whose emotional volatility, impulsiveness, and inconsistency increasingly cast doubt on his capacity for effective global leadership. At the center of this crisis are deliberate manipulations by the Israeli leadership, which seeks external mobilization in the face of domestic failures, as well as the general strategic weakness of the Western alliance.
The result is a strategic advantage for China and Russia, which are gaining new opportunities to strengthen their geopolitical positions—alongside the intensified and expanded Russian war of aggression against Ukraine, fueled by Western destabilization and the diminishing ability of the West to respond decisively. All of this unfolds against the backdrop of the European Union’s reactive helplessness, further highlighting the depth of the crisis facing today’s system of global governance.
- President Trump: Condition, Team, and Managerial Incompetence
In 2025, Trump is no longer a charismatic leader. He is an elderly man exhibiting signs of progressive psycho-emotional decline, impulsive behavior, egocentrism, and a steadily diminishing capacity for critical thinking. His team is politically inert, ideologically underdeveloped, personally loyal, but effectively devoid of strategic minds.
- This creates a vacuum—and that vacuum is quickly filled by external agents of influence. In this context, Israel emerges as one of the primary actors exerting such influence.
- Israel: Crisis of Power and the Tactics of External Diversion
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu finds himself in a state of internal political siege:
- a loss of public trust following the mass casualties from Hamas and Hezbollah attacks;
- a continuing crisis with Palestine;
- pressure from right-wing coalition partners demanding a hardline war approach;
- the looming threat of early elections and a potential loss of power.
The strategy of invoking an “external enemy” is being employed as a means of mobilizing society and diverting attention from domestic failures.
Ideologically, it is presented as a battle between light and darkness; morally — as a “defense of civilization”; but in practical terms, it is a political maneuver for the survival of the ruling elite.
- Drawing the United States into a Military Gamble
The Israeli leadership, through:
- appeals to shared values;
- religious and psychological mobilization;
- targeted information campaigns within the conservative circles of the U.S.;
- emotional pressure (including public addresses by religious leaders);
- — managed to push President Trump into a move that is strategically unsupported: lacking allied backing, legal mandates, or any coherent “day-after” plan.
- The Russia–Ukraine War Amid the Strike on Iran: Parallels, Risks, and Forecasts
Ukraine, which remains in a state of war with the Russian Federation, is directly dependent on the focus and resources of the United States.
Risks:
- A shift of strategic attention from Ukraine to the Middle East;
- A fragmentation of military and economic support;
- Growing fatigue within American society from “endless wars.”
A potential gain for the Russian Federation is the opportunity to intensify its offensive without facing active Western pressure.
Opportunities:
- The radicalization of Iran and its allies may compel the West to consolidate;
- If Iran becomes isolated, Russia could find itself in deeper diplomatic isolation;
- However, overall, the 2025 strike on Iran plays directly into the Kremlin’s hands.
- The Position of China and Russia: Plans, Expectations, Countermoves
Russian Federation:
The escalation between the United States and Iran is clearly beneficial to Russia, as it:
- distracts Washington;
- fuels global chaos and drives up oil prices;
- helps consolidate the anti-Western bloc.
Putin is exploiting the situation as “proof of U.S. hypocrisy,” claiming that America “attacks sovereign nations without UN approval,” while simultaneously escalating nuclear rhetoric.
China:
Beijing maintains a publicly neutral stance but:
- condemns violations of international law;
- strengthens its energy and military ties with Iran;
- promotes a strategy of economic leadership amid Western destabilization.
- China and Russia may turn the Middle East into a “second theater” where the United States is gradually bled dry.
The European Union: An Indecisive Player in a Game That Sets Its Own House on Fire
Political Fatigue and Strategic Fragmentation
The EU has proven unprepared for yet another geopolitical front. Its response to the U.S. strikes on Iran has been sluggish and fragmented—reduced to ritualistic calls for restraint and respect for international law.
Member states are divided in their positions:
- France, Spain, and Italy advocate for diplomatic resolution and the avoidance of a major war;
- Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary partially support the U.S.’s hardline approach;
- Germany remains a silent center of hesitation—concerned about energy risks, but lacking the political will to lead.
- The EU is paralyzed—both institutionally and psychologically. Brussels is weary from the war in Ukraine, economic instability, upcoming elections across member states, and mounting pressure from right-wing populist forces.
The Deferred Threat: Iran–Israel–USA Is Not a “Distant Conflict”
Europeans mistakenly believe that the Middle East is not their concern. However:
- Iran’s missiles can reach the Mediterranean;
- A new wave of refugees from the Middle East could flood into the EU;
- Radicalization within Arab enclaves in European cities is a real threat;
- Energy prices are poised to surge again, plunging markets into deep turbulence.
A Strategic Paradox
The EU wants to act as an arbiter, yet it lacks the strength, the resolve, and a unified foreign policy.
While the United States, under Israeli influence, carries out attacks; while Russia and China maneuver strategically; and while Ukraine is fighting for survival—Europe stands aside, losing its agency.
- Who Will Pay the Price?
- The civilian population of Israel — in the event of missile attacks;
- The citizens of Iran — in the case of escalation;
- Ukraine — as it loses the strategic focus of the United States;
- The global market — as it loses predictability;
- The United States — as it risks repeating the scenario of a “war without victory.”
- Conclusions
- The United States has been drawn into war not from a position of strength, but under the pressure of information warfare and political weakness.
- Israel is not waging a battle for security, but rather for the political survival of its ruling elite.
- Russia and China are the primary beneficiaries of this new wave of escalation.
- Ukraine risks losing effective Western support unless it can offer a convincing strategy that frames its security as an integral part of global stability — and unless it presents the international community with a new, positive model of action: not only as a victim of aggression, but as an active agent capable of taking initiative, consolidating allies, and promoting strategic mutual benefit.
- General Conclusions
- The United States is acting impulsively and without strategic depth, drawn into someone else’s game.
- Israel is attempting to convert a domestic crisis into an external “victory.”
- Russia and China are the beneficiaries of the conflict.
- Ukraine risks losing Western attention and resources if it cannot keep itself at the center of the global agenda through a proactive, rather than merely reactive, policy.
- The European Union is losing geopolitical agency, displaying only diplomatic instincts—without power or action.
- Strategic Forecast
- Middle East: explosive escalation likely within the next 6–12 months.
- United States: political crisis surrounding Trump and his foreign policy direction.
- Ukraine: must offer the West a new model of partnership effectiveness — not appealing solely to sympathy, but convincingly demonstrating the strategic value of its struggle in defending shared democratic values, security, and global stability. A new diplomatic strategy is needed, one grounded in initiative, agency, and mutual benefit.
- European Union: will either awaken to assume a renewed role in the global order — or ultimately reduce itself to a geopolitical bystander.
- Global system: further erosion of the role of the UN, IAEA, and international law.
Note: This analysis is current as of June 23, 2025. Given the rapidly evolving nature of the aforementioned geopolitical developments, it requires ongoing monitoring, analytical reassessment, and potential updates.
References
U.S. Strikes on Iran: Facts, Statements, Reactions
- Financial Times. Trump taunts Iran with prospect of ‘regime change’ after strike on nuclear sites. – [Electronic resource]. – URL: https://www.ft.com/content/0185cd3e-00b4-4137-9f64-7102f4a8e5ec (accessed: June 23, 2025).
2. The Washington Post. U.S. officials detail Iran bombing raid, noting limited attack for now. – [Electronic resource]. – URL: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/06/22/us-iran-bombing-nuclear-damage (accessed: June 23, 2025).
3. Associated Press. Alarm grows after the US inserts itself into Israel’s war against Iran. – [Electronic resource]. – URL: https://apnews.com (accessed: June 23, 2025).
Geopolitical Consequences: China, Russia, the Middle East
- Reuters. Strikes on Iran mark Trump’s biggest, and riskiest, foreign policy gamble. – [Electronic resource]. – URL: https://www.reuters.com (accessed: June 23, 2025).
- Council on Foreign Relations. U.S., Israel Attack Iranian Nuclear Targets—The Damage So Far. – [Electronic resource]. – URL: https://www.cfr.org (accessed: June 23, 2025).
Donald Trump: Condition, Rhetoric, Governance
- Wikipedia. Age and health concerns about Donald Trump. – [Electronic resource]. – URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_and_health_concerns_about_Donald_Trump (accessed: June 23, 2025).
