ANALYSIS: Zelensky Sounds the Alarm — Russia Could Deploy Troops to Iran

A Weakened Russia Playing a Global Game of Influence

We must resist the temptation to view Russian foreign policy solely through the lens of brute force. Since the start of the conflict in Ukraine, Vladimir Putin has found himself in a contradictory position: an army bleeding resources in Ukraine, an economy under pressure from sanctions, and a military-industrial base struggling to keep pace with ammunition consumption. And yet—and this is where simplistic analysis falls short—this weakened Russia continues to expand its strategic presence around the world. In Africa, through the Wagner Group and its successors. In Syria, where the Tartus base remains a Mediterranean foothold. In Belarus, with the deployment of tactical nuclear capabilities. And now, potentially, in Iran.

This strategy is not a matter of excess. It is compensatory geopolitics. By multiplying its points of presence and influence, Moscow is sending a message to Western capitals: you can sanction us, you can isolate us, you can support Ukraine—but we will remain an indispensable global player, capable of creating strategic complications across multiple theaters simultaneously. It is a doctrine of calculated dispersion: forcing the adversary to manage multiple crises at the same time, sapping its focus, and fragmenting its diplomatic and military resources. In this context, a deployment in Iran would not be a decision made out of weakness. It would be a decision made to maximize the strategic value of an existing partner while creating a new point of friction for the West.

Putin and Khamenei: A Convergence of Interests, Not Ideology

It would be naïve to view the Moscow-Tehran axis as an alliance based on shared values or a common worldview. What unites Putin and Khamenei is, first and foremost, a convergence of short- and medium-term interests. Both regimes share a common adversary—the United States and the liberal West. Both are subject to sanctions. Both seek to demonstrate their resilience in the face of external pressure. And both need each other for very practical reasons: Russia needs military equipment and ammunition that its own industries cannot produce quickly enough; Iran needs a strategic partner capable of providing diplomatic cover in the UN Security Council and access to advanced military technologies—particularly in the fields of air defense and cruise missiles.

What strikes me about this convergence is its potential durability. Alliances based on fear of a common enemy are particularly strong—they do not require mutual trust; they require only the persistence of the perceived threat. As long as Washington remains the designated adversary of both regimes, this axis has a structural raison d’être, regardless of any tensions that may arise behind the scenes.

Why Is Zelensky Talking About Iran When His War Is in Ukraine?

Zelensky is not naive. He knows that international attention is a limited resource, and that every time he speaks, he is staking some of his credibility. If he chooses to warn of a possible deployment of Russian troops to Iran, it is because this directly serves his strategic interests. First, by broadening the definition of the Russian threat beyond Ukraine’s borders, he forces capitals that are still hesitating—those in the Persian Gulf, certain European capitals, and Asian actors—to take a stand. If Russia is a threat to regional stability in the Middle East, then supporting Ukraine ceases to be a European issue and becomes an international one. It is a clever rhetorical maneuver, but it would be a mistake to reduce it to that—the substance of the warning is real.

Furthermore, by raising the alarm about Iran, Zelensky is signaling to the United States and Israel that their respective issues are linked. U.S. policy toward Iran—nuclear negotiations, sanctions, military options—is directly connected to U.S. policy toward Ukraine. Allowing Russia to establish a military foothold in Iran would radically alter the security equation for Israel, which would find itself facing an Iranian adversary bolstered by Russian expertise in air defense. This is an argument that Tel Aviv hears very clearly. And it is an argument that, when relayed in the corridors of Washington, can have concrete effects on the level of U.S. support for Ukraine.

The Invisible Front: How the War in Ukraine Is Also Being Fought in the Middle East

Since the start of the conflict, there has been an invisible front that receives little coverage in the mainstream media but is at the heart of concerns for Western military leadership and intelligence agencies: the supply front. Russia is waging a war of materiel. It is consuming ammunition at a rate that its industry struggles to keep up with on its own. Iran has filled part of the gap with drones. North Korea has supplied massive quantities of artillery shells—several million, according to estimates by U.S. and South Korean intelligence agencies. China, without directly supplying weapons, has provided electronic components, machine tools, and dual-use equipment that fuel the Russian defense industry. This supply front is just as critical as the military front in determining the outcome of the conflict.

We collectively underestimate the importance of this logistical front. The war in Ukraine is not just a war of men and territory. It is an industrial war, a war of production capacity, a war of supply chains. And in this war, the Russia-Iran-North Korea axis has built something functional, resilient, and difficult to sever. That is what should be keeping Western strategists awake at night.

A warning that calls for a reassessment of priorities

Zelensky’s warning comes amid a Western context that is itself fraught with tension. In Europe, a series of elections has produced more fragmented parliaments and governments that are more hesitant to support Ukraine. In Germany, the debate over the delivery of Taurus long-range missiles has illustrated the paralysis that can grip democracies when faced with difficult decisions. In the United States, Donald Trump’s return to the White House has introduced radical uncertainty regarding the continuity of U.S. support, with statements that alternate between pressuring Kyiv to negotiate and sending contradictory signals to Moscow. Against this backdrop of uncertainty, Zelensky’s warning about Iran is also a call to shake off strategic lethargy.

Ukraine’s partners must understand that the war in Ukraine is not one that can be managed with minimal support. It is a war whose outcome will determine the credibility of Western alliances for the coming decade. If Russia achieves a positive outcome—even a partial one—in Ukraine, if it manages to consolidate a military presence in Iran, if it demonstrates that Western pressure can be kept at bay by a coalition of authoritarian states—then the signal sent to Beijing, Pyongyang, and all the regimes watching the outcome of this conflict to gauge their own ambitions will be catastrophic. This is no exaggeration. It is the logic of geopolitical precedents.

The risk of an Iran militarily bolstered by Moscow

For Israel and the Persian Gulf states, the prospect of an Iran benefiting from direct Russian military assistance and a Russian troop presence on its soil represents a major shift in the regional security equation. Israeli strikes against Iranian infrastructure—including air defense installations—were made possible, in part, by the shortcomings of that defense. If Russia transfers its expertise in surface-to-air systems—systems whose sophistication it has demonstrated in the Ukrainian context—and if Russian technicians or soldiers participate in their operation, Israel’s window for military action against Iran will close dangerously. This represents a structural shift in the regional security environment, with consequences that extend far beyond the Ukrainian issue alone.

There is something almost dizzying about the way all these issues intertwine. The war in Ukraine does not end at the banks of the Dnieper. It extends into the corridors of Iranian diplomacy, into the strategic calculations in Jerusalem, and into the military staff meetings in Beijing where observers are watching and drawing lessons. To refuse to see this interconnectedness is to refuse to see the war for what it truly is.

Tehran: Between Vulnerability and Strategic Opportunism

To properly analyze the scenario described by Zelensky, one must understand the position Iran currently finds itself in. The mullahs’ regime is simultaneously more vulnerable and more opportunistic than it has been in a long time. It is vulnerable because its regional proxies have suffered significant setbacks. Hezbollah, considered the crown jewel of the Shiite Crescent, lost a significant portion of its leadership and military capabilities during the Israeli strikes of 2024. The Assad regime in Syria has fallen, depriving Iran of a vital land corridor to Lebanon. The Houthis still hold on to Yemen, but are under constant pressure. And domestically, protest movements—though suppressed—have left cracks in the regime’s legitimacy.

At the same time, it is opportunistic because this vulnerability is pushing Tehran to reconfigure its alliances. Iran needs security guarantees that neither China nor any other actor can provide as directly as Russia. A Russian military presence on Iranian soil—even a symbolic one—would serve as a form of life insurance against a massive American or Israeli strike. For the regime, this is a deal worth making, even at the cost of some sovereignty. Iran has a long history of strategic pragmatism concealed behind ideological rhetoric. Hosting Russian troops would be the most concrete of these pragmatic maneuvers.

Iran’s Nuclear Program in the Equation

It would be impossible to discuss the Iran-Russia relationship without mentioning the nuclear issue. Iran is on the threshold of a level of nuclear capability that its leaders have never before attained. According to reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency, Tehran has enriched enough highly enriched uranium to potentially produce several nuclear weapons if the political decision were made. Russia, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, has the right to veto any resolution aimed at sanctioning or pressuring Iran through the United Nations. This Russian veto is a form of protection that Iran values immensely. In exchange, Tehran can offer Moscow what it needs: drones, ammunition, and now perhaps a physical foothold on its territory.

Iran’s nuclear program and the war in Ukraine are merging into a single strategic issue. This is the conclusion to which Zelensky’s warning compels us. And it is an uncomfortable conclusion, because it implies that solutions to each of these problems can no longer be found separately. Anyone negotiating with Iran on nuclear issues must take Moscow into account. Anyone supporting Ukraine must take Tehran into account. The landscape of these crises has converged.

The Informational Value of Kyiv’s Warnings

A legitimate question arises: What is the basis for Zelenskyy’s warning? Is it an analysis grounded in concrete intelligence, or a public relations maneuver intended to keep international attention focused on the war in Ukraine? The answer, most likely, is both—and the two are not mutually exclusive. Ukrainian intelligence agencies—particularly the GUR (Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ministry of Defense)—have demonstrated remarkable foresight and analytical capabilities since 2022. They warned of Iranian drone deliveries before their use was documented on the ground. They identified North Korean supply routes. They provided information on Russian troop movements that proved accurate. Their track record in intelligence regarding Russia’s military partners is solid.

At the same time, Zelensky is a master communicator. He knows that every statement is as much a diplomatic tool as it is a piece of information. The warning about Iran forces Western partners to take a stance, assess the scenario, and prepare responses. It forces Tehran to issue denials—and those Iranian denials are themselves revealing. It forces Moscow to react—and Russian reactions sometimes reveal more than they intend to hide. In this game of information warfare, early warning is a weapon. Zelensky has made systematic and often effective use of it since the start of the full-scale invasion.

The Faint Signals That Precede Major Transformations

In the history of conflicts and geopolitical realignments, major transformations are almost always preceded by weak signals that contemporaries tend to downplay. Iran-Russia military cooperation is a striking example. For months, Western governments hesitated to acknowledge the deliveries of Iranian drones as a fait accompli—until images of Shahed drones shot down over Ukraine made denial impossible. For months, North Korean ammunition shipments were treated as mere speculation—until irrefutable evidence began to mount. Zelensky’s warning about a possible deployment of Russian troops in Iran must be viewed in this light: it may not yet be a reality, but ignoring the warning would be repeating the analytical errors of the past two years.

I have learned to take early warnings seriously in this conflict. Too often, what was considered an impossible escalation has become a documented reality just a few weeks later. Analytical caution does not mean waiting for absolute proof before reacting—it means honestly assessing the plausibility of a scenario and preparing to respond to it. By this standard, Zelensky’s warning deserves very serious attention.

Western capitals face a scenario they did not anticipate

How are Western capitals reacting to Zelensky’s warning? With a combination of verbal vigilance and practical inaction that all too often characterizes the West’s diplomatic response to emerging crises. There is no shortage of statements expressing concern. Response mechanisms, however, are struggling to be put in place as quickly as the situation demands. Washington is monitoring the situation, Brussels is expressing concerns, and London is seeking clarification. But the fundamental question—what would the West do if Russian troops were actually deployed in Iran?—remains without a clear answer. And this lack of a prepared response is itself a dangerous signal to Moscow and Tehran: the path may be open.

Deterrence diplomacy relies on clear red lines. If actors considering action do not know with certainty what the response will be, they are tempted to test the waters. This is precisely the pattern that preceded the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. The West’s red lines were unclear. The response in the event of an invasion had not been defined or communicated explicitly enough. Putin tested the waters, and he invaded. The same logic applies to Iran. If the West does not clearly define what it considers unacceptable in Iran-Russia military relations—and especially what it will do if those lines are crossed—it sends a signal of impunity that encourages escalation.

Israel: The Most Directly Affected Player

In this equation, Israel occupies a unique position. Unlike NATO members, who can afford to maintain a certain rhetorical distance from the situation, Israel is on the front lines of the consequences of Iranian military buildup with Russian assistance. Israeli strikes in Syria and against Iranian targets in recent months have demonstrated Tel Aviv’s ability and willingness to act militarily when its vital interests are at stake. But this capacity to act relies in part on the ability to fly through Syrian airspace—which no longer has an air defense system—and to strike Iranian targets whose air defense systems have vulnerabilities. Modernizing these systems with Russian expertise fundamentally changes the conditions for any future operation.

What I read between the lines in this situation is a race against time. If the Russian military presence in Iran becomes a reality before clear diplomatic and strategic responses are put in place, the window of opportunity will close. And once it closes, it will remain closed for a long time. This is the nature of geopolitical faits accomplis: they are infinitely more costly to undo than to prevent.

The Story of Those Who Looked the Other Way

The history of the 20th century offers several bitter lessons on the cost of inaction in the face of geopolitical warning signs. These are not comparisons to be made lightly, but they have real educational value: every time a revisionist power has been able to test the limits of the international system without encountering a firm response, it has interpreted that lack of response as an invitation to go further. The logic of authoritarian actors is one of incremental opportunism: every threshold crossed without consequence paves the way for the next one. Putin’s Russia has applied this logic methodically since 2008—Georgia, Crimea, the Donbas, and the full-scale invasion of 2022. At each stage, the cost of earlier intervention would have been lower than the cost of a belated response.

Applying this lesson to the current situation does not mean advocating for irresponsible military escalation. It means advocating for strategic clarity: defining what is acceptable and what is not, communicating these limits credibly, and ensuring that response mechanisms are in place before the crossing of these limits becomes a fait accompli. This is the difference between reactive diplomacy—which plays catch-up with events—and preventive diplomacy, which stays one step ahead. Zelensky’s warning is a call to practice the latter.

Inertia as Foreign Policy: A Luxury We Can No Longer Afford

There is an understandable but dangerous temptation to treat the Ukrainian crisis as a contained regional problem—painful, to be sure, but confined to Eastern Europe. Zelensky’s warning about Iran is a call to abandon this illusion once and for all. The war in Ukraine has become the Gordian knot of a global geopolitical realignment, the threads of which are being pulled simultaneously from Tehran, Pyongyang, Beijing, and Moscow. To treat this war as an isolated conflict is to deny ourselves an understanding of the dynamics that fuel it and will determine its outcome. And ultimately, it increases the risk of an uncontrolled escalation that is in no one’s interest—except perhaps those who have decided that international chaos works in their favor.

Inertia is not neutral. It is foreign policy disguised as indecision. And in the current context, this inertia automatically benefits the actors who have decided to reshape the international order by force. Every day without a clear response is a day won by those who are advancing their agenda.

Mapping Likely Scenarios

In light of Zelensky’s warning, it is useful to map out the various possible scenarios, from the least likely to the most concerning. The first scenario is that of an evolved status quo: military cooperation between Iran and Russia continues to deepen without any physical presence of Russian troops on Iranian soil. In this scenario, technology exchanges, equipment deliveries, and tactical coordination continue, but without crossing the symbolic threshold that an official deployment would represent. This is the scenario that best matches the situation documented so far, but it may underestimate the accelerating dynamics of the bilateral relationship.

The second scenario is that of a discreet presence: Russian military advisers and technicians integrated into Iranian units or strategic sites, without an official announcement, as part of a gradual fait accompli. This scenario has the advantage—from Moscow’s and Tehran’s perspective—of allowing for plausible deniability while producing the desired strategic effects. It is plausible and difficult to counter diplomatically in the absence of irrefutable evidence. The third scenario, the most concerning, is that of an open and announced deployment, presented as a response to Western and Israeli threats against Iran. This scenario would constitute a major shift in the regional security equation and would force all the powers involved to recalibrate their positions.

Available Response Options

What responses does the West have at its disposal? First, the strengthening of sanctions against Iran and against Russian entities involved in military cooperation. Targeted sanctions against individuals and institutions facilitating this partnership would carry symbolic weight and have a practical impact on the financial channels of the cooperation. Second, increased support for Ukraine in terms of air defense and long-range capabilities—to send the signal that deepening Iran-Russia cooperation comes at a cost on the Ukrainian battlefield. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, a strengthened diplomatic engagement with regional partners—the Gulf states, Turkey, and India—to broaden the coalition of actors with a stake in ensuring that the ongoing geopolitical realignment does not come at the expense of regional stability.

None of these tools is sufficient on its own. What is needed is a coherent strategy that combines pressure, deterrence, and diplomacy within a coordinated framework. What we have seen all too often since 2022 is a disjointed response, in which each capital acts according to its own domestic political agenda, giving Moscow and its partners the opportunity to exploit the gaps in this coordination.

Beyond the President at War: A Leading Geopolitical Figure

It would be a mistake to reduce Volodymyr Zelensky solely to his image as a wartime leader, however powerful that image may be. Over three years of conflict, he has developed a capacity for geopolitical analysis and a mastery of strategic communication that make him a global player, not merely a head of state on the defensive. His way of framing the issues—by systematically linking Ukraine’s fate to that of the international order as a whole—has allowed him to maintain a level of Western support that was by no means inevitable. Western democracies have short attention spans. Zelensky has learned to renew interest, find new angles, and connect his struggle to the concerns of a wide variety of audiences.

The warning about Iran is part of this strategy. This is not an improvisation. It is a well-thought-out strategic decision, aimed at several audiences simultaneously: European partners who are questioning the relevance of their continued support; the U.S. administration, which is juggling multiple crises; Israel, which must assess the evolving regional strategic environment; and Asian actors who are watching the outcome of the Ukrainian conflict to calibrate their own policies. Zelensky speaks to all these audiences at once, with a single message but multiple implications.

The loneliness of a leader with a long-term vision

There is something particularly difficult about Zelensky’s position: he is the leader of a country fighting for its survival, yet he must think on a scale that extends beyond his own war. He must convince weary partners, reassure hesitant allies, and warn of emerging threats, all while managing the day-to-day realities of an extremely brutal conflict. And he must do so knowing that every communication error, every warning that does not immediately materialize, every unmet request, weakens his credibility a little more. It is a constant balancing act, walking a tightrope stretched over a precipice. The fact that he continues to perform this act with remarkable consistency is, in itself, a geopolitical reality.

There is a particular kind of loneliness in being the one who sees the storm coming while others are still trying to convince themselves that the sky is clear. Zelensky has lived in this solitude for more than three years. His most important warnings have, in the majority of cases, preceded realities that the world was subsequently forced to acknowledge. This time, we must hope that the world hears him before reality forces the lesson home.

Why This Signal Cannot Be Ignored

Volodymyr Zelensky’s warning about a possible deployment of Russian troops in Iran is not a diplomatic footnote. It is a milestone in the long-term transformation of the international geopolitical order that is currently underway. The war in Ukraine has already redefined the rules of military engagement in Europe. It has strengthened NATO while exposing its internal contradictions. It has accelerated the arms race in Eastern Europe. And now, it is producing ripple effects in the Middle East that are altering the parameters of regional security in ways that policymakers are still struggling to fully grasp. If Russia establishes a military foothold in Iran, it will transform a supplier-client relationship into a defensive alliance that protects both regimes against their respective adversaries. This is a realignment that will endure, creating facts on the ground that will be difficult to undo.

What this situation demands of Western democracies and their partners is something simple to articulate but extraordinarily difficult to put into practice: strategic clarity. Knowing what we want. Defining what we cannot accept. Crafting proportionate and credible responses. Communicating these positions with the firmness necessary for them to be taken seriously. And, above all, to act in a coordinated manner rather than in a scattered fashion. The world of 2025 is not the world of 2019. The rules have changed. The players who have understood this are moving their pieces on the chessboard. The others risk finding themselves on the defensive, reacting to faits accomplis that clearer foresight could have avoided.

What History Will Remember

In ten years, when historians write about this period, they will note that the signs were there. That warnings had been issued. That the trajectories were clear to anyone who wanted to see them. What they will write about the responses depends on what is done in the coming weeks and months. Zelensky has sent the signal. The question is whether those with the means to act will have the clarity and courage to do so before the scenario he describes becomes a documented reality—and no longer a hypothesis that can still be averted.

I always come back to the same question after analyzing this type of situation: at exactly what point did we decide to let others reshape the world while we deliberated? This is not a matter of blame—it is a matter of clarity. Democracies are slow by nature, by their very nature. But their slowness comes at a cost in a world where other actors have decided to no longer play by the rules. It is the Ukrainians who are paying this cost most directly. It is future generations who will pay it most enduringly.

Signed, Jacques Pj Provost