The US and Israeli military operation against Iran quickly grew beyond a regional crisis and drew reactions from around the world. North Korea was among the harshest critics, calling Washington and Tel Aviv’s actions “shameless gangster behavior.” Russia and China used more restrained wording, but they also condemned what had happened.
On March 1, Vladimir Putin, offering condolences over the death of Ali Khamenei and members of his family, referred to a “cynical violation of all norms of human morality and international law” without naming those responsible. By March 2, Kremlin readouts of Putin’s calls with the leaders of the UAE, Qatar and Bahrain were explicitly describing “US and Israeli aggression” as pushing the region toward the brink of a full-scale war. In Beijing, officials said Iran’s sovereignty and security had been grossly violated and called for an immediate halt to military operations.
The crisis also showed, the article argues, how limited the real alliance is between China, Russia, Iran and North Korea, often described by Western analysts with the acronym CRINK. The comprehensive strategic partnership treaty signed by Moscow and Tehran in January 2025 does not include direct mutual defense obligations. The Institute for the Study of War said Russia’s formulaic statements only highlighted its inability to provide meaningful support to Iran.
China, according to analysts cited in the piece, is also unwilling to move beyond political messaging. Experts allow for only limited non-military or dual-use support if the war becomes prolonged. In practice, the full extent of CRINK’s backing has amounted to public statements and diplomatic pressure.
Within the European Union, the response was far more uneven. EU leaders and foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas called on all sides to show restraint and comply with international law, without directly naming the United States or Israel. According to Politico, references to international law became the main point of dispute among EU foreign ministers, with some governments wary that such language could be read as criticism of Washington.
Among major European leaders, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez stood out for openly condemning the unilateral actions of the US and Israel as a dangerous escalation. Most other European governments focused instead on criticizing Iranian strikes on countries in the region and repeating calls for de-escalation. Brussels also acknowledged the need to prepare for consequences in energy, security, transport, migration and the nuclear sphere, but announced no concrete measures.
Inside the United States, views were even more divided. Reuters/Ipsos found that 27% of Americans supported the strikes, 43% opposed them, and 29% were undecided. A Washington Post poll released on the evening of March 2 showed 39% in favor and 52% against. Members of Congress are discussing a resolution to limit presidential war powers without legislative approval, while US media reported tensions inside Donald Trump’s administration between advocates of a harder line and those urging more caution.