Larry C. Johnson – China and Russia Reaffirm Support for Iran as Iran Weighs Response Options

Once again a good summary of current developments in the Zionist war with Iran

Larry C. Johnson is a former CIA officer and intelligence analyst, and former planner and advisor at the US State Department’s Office of Counter Terrorism. As an independent contractor, he has provided training for the US Military’s Special Operations community for 24 years. Today he runs the website Sonar21

Cross-posted from Sonar 21

Ignore the noise and euphoria that is burbling in Washington, DC in the aftermath of Trump’s strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. The Trump administration is claiming a massive victory, while Iran and the IAEA insist that the US strikes achieved little other than hardening Iranian opposition to further negotiations with Trump. Mission accomplished!

The UN Security Council (UNSC) met today (Sunday) in response to an emergency request from Iran. China and Russia made it clear that they reject the trumped-up US excuse for attacking Iran.

Here’s a summary of what China’s UN Ambassador Fu Cong said during today’s UN Security Council session (June 22, 2025):

• He warned that “Peace in the Middle East cannot be achieved by the use of force”, urging all parties—especially Israel—to immediately cease fire and prevent further escalation or regional spillover.
• Fu stressed diplomatic channels remain open, saying “diplomatic means … haven’t been exhausted,” and urging deeper negotiations to resolve nuclear-related tensions.
• He strongly condemned recent US strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, stating the actions have “damaged America’s credibility” and cautioning that the situation “may go out of control” if unchecked.
• Fu branded the strikes as not only in breach of the UN Charter, but also as a catalyst for inflaming “regional animosities,” emphasizing Beijing’s concerns about external military interference worsening the conflict

Here’s the gist of what Russia’s UN Ambassador Vasily Nebenzya said during today’s Security Council session addressing the US strike on Iran’s nuclear sites:

• “We’re being asked to believe the US fairy tales, to once again inflict suffering on millions of people living in the Middle East.” He drew a direct comparison to Colin Powell’s 2003 Iraq justification, accusing the US of repeating a historically condemned pattern of misinformation.
• “The US has opened a Pandora’s box…No one knows what catastrophe or suffering will follow.”
  He warned that these strikes risked regional escalation and undermining international stability.

Iran’s legislature reportedly voted to close the Strait of Hormuz, but the final decision remains with Iran’s National Security Council. Iran has a range of military, political, and asymmetric options to try to close or disrupt the Strait of Hormuz, a key chokepoint through which about 20–30% of global oil shipments pass. These include:

Naval Forces & Missiles

• Deploy fast attack boats (e.g., IRGC Navy swarms) to harass or ram tankers.
• Mine the strait using naval mines or disguised civilian ships.
• Shore-based missile attacks (e.g., anti-ship cruise missiles like Noor or Khalij Fars).
• Torpedo or missile strikes from mini-subs or coastal batteries.

Drone and Air Power

• Attack tankers or escort vessels using explosive-laden drones or kamikaze UAVs.
• Use drones for surveillance and targeting of ships.

Asymmetric and Proxy Operations

• Use proxies like Yemen’s Houthis to attack Red Sea or Gulf shipping routes (e.g., Bab el-Mandeb).
• Deploy commandos or sabotage units to disable ships covertly.
• Cyberattacks against ports, shipping companies, or naval systems.

Legal or Political Declarations

• Declare the Strait “closed” to enemy shipping, citing Article 38 of UNCLOS on transit passage (though Iran hasn’t ratified UNCLOS).
• Harass ships of adversarial nations under pretense of customs or inspections.

Demonstration/Threat Strategy

• Conduct missile tests or naval exercises to signal readiness.
• Target a single ship as a warning to raise global oil prices and induce panic.
• Announce intent to retaliate if attacked further.

I think Iran’s ultimate decision hinges on a number of factors. First, Iran is not likely to shut off the flow of oil that would harm India or China, which means Iran is likely to consult with those governments. Second, Iran is not eager to sabotage its relations with Saudi Arabia, and is also going to talk with Mohammad Bin Salman before taking this step.

The biggest factor is Russia. Iran’s Foreign Minister Araghchi is in Moscow and is going to meet with President Putin. Putin has made it clear in the last few days that Russia is prepared to provide all support Iran requests to boost air-defense capabilities, provide intelligence and expand efforts to build up Iran’s ability to produce nuclear energy. The ball is in Iran’s court.

I think Iran will delay hitting any US targets in the Gulf or Syria as long as the massive assets the US deployed to the region are in place. It is very expensive for the US to keep those air and naval assets in place for an extended period, especially given concerns that by focusing on Iran the US has weakened its capabilities in the INDOPACOM, i.e., China. Instead, Iran will continue its attrition campaign against Israel.

The US attack has provided Iran with an important PR victory that is resonating among Islamic countries and other members of the Global South. Iran, if it is smart, will play the long game, rather than go for an emotionally driven retaliation. If Iran continues to successfully strike Israel, the euphoria in the US about the “success” of the attacks on the nuclear sites in Iran will fade and Trump will come under more pressure to strike again. If Iran agrees to accept Russia’s proffer of assistance, such as deploying several S-400 systems around strategic sites throughout Iran, then the US will face a more formidable challenge if it decides to renew strikes inside Iran.

Israel has a real problem with its air-defense system, especially with the Arrow interceptor missiles. Arrow interceptor missiles are built and assembled in Israel by Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI). The US Missile Defense Agency and MDA budgets have consistently funded half or more of the Arrow program annually—e.g., ~$119 million out of a $163 million total on Arrow 2 in FY 2014. Since 2003, Boeing has manufactured around 35–50% of critical components for both the Arrow 2 and Arrow 3 systems—covering electronics, motor casings, radar seekers, booster casings, and missile canisters—at its Huntsville, Alabama facility.

Arrow interceptors cost roughly $2.5–3 million each. During the past week, Israel has fired at least two Arrows for every single Iranian missile launched at Israel. It is estimated that IAI produces perhaps 20–50 Arrow interceptors annually, across both Arrow 2 and Arrow 3. Just do the math… Israel will run out of these missiles if Iran continues to launch multiple ballistic missiles, and neither Israel, nor the US, has the production capability to replace Israel’s supply. Oh, I forgot to mention… some of the Iranian missiles reportedly cost only $500,000. In other words, Israel is firing at least $6 million in Arrows to try to destroy a $500,000 Iranian missile. Fears in Tel Aviv and Washington that Israel will exhaust its supply of missiles is genuine.