16

Iran currently has warm relations with the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), and Russia is apparently willing to accept Iran into the alliance.

Given that Iran is currently under Israeli attack (as well as the threat of United States (US) attack), why doesn't Iran hurry for CSTO protection the same way Ukraine is clamoring for North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) membership? The issue doesn't seem to get mentioned at all in the coverage I've seen

I'm looking for an explanation as to why this doesn't happen, and/or it is not in public consciousness, both in CSTO countries and within Iran itself.

1
  • ? Russia said they would consider a request to join the CSTO in 2007. “ It was stated by a Western observer that the accession failed "basically due to the ayatollahs’ opposition to join a military bloc clearly dominated by a traditionally rival power of Iran such as Russia.” Commented Jun 20, 2025 at 14:43

5 Answers 5

36

In 2020, Armenia requested that the CSTO intervene during their conflict with Azerbaijan (a country Iran borders and has strained relationships with) over Nagorno-Karabach. Their request was ignored and three years later, Armenia lost control over Nagorno-Karabach.

In 2024 the Assad regime in Syria (also an important part of Iran's foreign policy) was overthrown by a regional Islamist militia. Whilst Syria wasn't a member of the CSTO, Russia, the central member of the CSTO, spent the past decade using its military to prop up the Assad regime. Russia could have defended its ally and defeated the militia forces, if they wanted to. They didn't and now Assad lives in exile whilst his overthrowers are welcomed in the UN and receive state visits from France and Saudi Arabia.

Now imagine you're an Iranian military leader. You've seen the CSTO fail to intervene to prevent territory loss of a member. You've seen Russia, the main military force of CSTO, be uninterested in defending its ally against an existential threat which ultimately destroyed them. Do you really think CTSO membership will do anything?

8
  • 9
    Russia did keep Assad on the throne way past his due date (lack of public support, usage of WMDs, etc). Like the Syrian Civil War started in 2011 and it's just recently that Assad has fallen for good. Though sure that Russia is busy fighting another war might be a major factor with regards to their disinterest for wars of their allies. Commented Jun 18, 2025 at 9:54
  • 3
    Yeah, but shouldn't a paper shield be better than none? Commented Jun 18, 2025 at 9:57
  • 3
    Armenia never claimed control over Artsakh. The whole story was officially about a separatist region of Azerbaijan and thus an internal affair of Azerbaijan which CSTO had nothing to do. Commented Jun 18, 2025 at 11:37
  • 2
    @Allure The paper shield does not come for free. By joining, Iran would also be committing to defending other members. They could also choose to ignore the commitment, but showing the world that you don't honor such treaties also has downsides. So they need to weigh the pros and cons, and if the pros are tiny, the cons outweigh them. Commented Jun 19, 2025 at 12:55
  • 6
    Russia could have defended its ally and defeated the militia forces, if they wanted to. They definitely wanted to, but they simply couldn't; they'd committed too much to Ukraine. Thus when the Syrian rebels finally pushed hard enough, there simply wasn't enough time for Russia to rush sufficient forces back to the area to break the rebel advance's momentum. Commented Jun 20, 2025 at 12:01
26

The Islamic Republic of Iran is one of the members of the 121 strong Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) organisation, since 1979. While not exercising much clout in the international arena, NAM is the second largest international body in the world (after the UN), and membership to it thus provides some diplomatic advantages.

Member and observer states of the Non-Aligned Movement (as of April 2022 ) Member (dark blue) and observer (light blue) states of the Non-Aligned Movement - By Ichwan Palongengi, CC BY-SA 3.0

Member countries of the NAM jointly have an avowed foreign policy of not joining any military alliance with one of the superpowers, against another country, as they believe that this compromises their freedom to maintain an independent foreign policy (without which one cannot prioritise their own country's self-interest). Iran joining NATO or CSTO would mean the abandonment of a long held foreign-policy that was adopted based on its historical experience with the superpowers and especially after its disastrous experience of getting dragged into the cold-war because it was once a member of the western-lead CENTO military alliance.

Tehran Times (June 2025): Although Iran had joined NAM during the reign of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, its membership was largely symbolic. The Shah’s regime, widely viewed as aligned with Western colonial powers—particularly the United States and the United Kingdom—failed to adhere to the non-aligned principles in practice. As a key member of the Baghdad Pact—later renamed the Central Treaty Organization (CENTO) — Iran, under the Shah, distanced itself from NAM.

... With the fall of the Shah, Iran’s foreign policy underwent a dramatic transformation. The new Islamic Republic replaced the pro-Western orientation of the previous regime with an “independent, neither East nor West” stance.

By 1981, as the internal political situation in Iran stabilized, Tehran deepened its engagement with NAM. The movement, in turn, expressed support for Iran in various international arenas. During the Iran-Iraq War (1980–1988), NAM condemned the aggression of Saddam Hussein’s regime and made diplomatic efforts to bring an end to the conflict. It also supported the adoption and implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 598, which ended the war ... Iran, the 88th official member of NAM, has since remained an active and influential participant ... The movement has repeatedly voiced its support for Iran’s peaceful nuclear program, including in meetings of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the UN Security Council.

A reading of Iran's history in the 20th century highlights how (due to Iran's geostrategic location and natural energy resource) the superpowers have repeatedly interfered in Iran's political affairs, to curtail its independence and prevent it from becoming a truly independent democracy:

  1. 1908: Russian and British Empire Coup

    Wikipedia: Mohammad Ali Shah Qajar, the Shah of Persia, who ascended the throne in January 1907 opposed the constitution of 1906, which was ratified during regime of his father Mozzafar-al-Din Shah. After his ascension, in August 1907 an Anglo-Russian agreement divided Iran into a Russian zone in the North, a British zone in the South, and a neutral zone in the center. The British switched their support to the Shah, abandoning the Constitutionalists. The Shah later tried to subdue and eliminate the Majles with the military and political support of Russia and Britain.
    More info: History of Iran - Constitutional Revolution

  2. 1925: British Empire Coup

    COUP D’ETAT OF 1299/1921 - the military coup that eventually led to the founding of the Pahlavi dynasty. The Anglo-­Persian Agreement of 1919 (q.v.) had been designed to strengthen the central government under British tute­lage, but British pressure for implementation, which met with strong opposition in Persia, and a new Rus­sian intervention in northern Persia had merely aggra­vated the instability of the Qajar state ... Many, includ­ing local British officials, feared that the withdrawal of British troops from northern Persia would be followed by an attack on Tehran with Bolshevik backing and looked for preventive measures ... Under these circumstances, on ... February 1921, 2,200 men of the Cossack Brigade (q.v.) and 100 gendarmes began a march from Qazvīn to­ward Tehran under the command of Reżā Khan ... On the outskirts of Tehran Reżā Khan told representatives of the cabinet, the shah, and the British legation that the Cossacks intended to install a strong government in Tehran in order to forestall the anticipated Bolshevik assault.

  3. 1941: Soviet and British Empire Coup

    RBTH: [IN 1941] Iran caused much concern among the Allies. Despite its proclaimed neutrality, it adopted strong pro-German positions. The Third Reich had a colossal influence over Iranian politics and economics, and a large German intelligence operation was active in the country. All British and Soviet entreaties to expel numerous German citizens were refused by the Iranian leader Reza Shah Pahlavi. To exclude any chance that Iran may assist - or even - join the Axis war effort ... On August 25, 1941 Soviet and British troops launched a joint invasion of the country, dubbed Operation Countenance ... Reza Shah Pahlavi abdicated in favour of his son Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, under whose guidance the country declared war on Germany.

  4. 1953: USA and UK coup

    Nationalisation: The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, 1951 Britain vs. Iran (PDF): In October 1947, the Iranian Government sought to renegotiate the 1933 Concession Agreement and accused the British of complacency and colonial arrogance ... On 1 May 1951, the Shah of Iran ratified Prime Minister Muhammad Mossadeq’s bill to nationalise the AIOC’s Iranian assets. The Iranians blamed British intransigence for nationalisation and highlighted that the AIOC had exploited Iran for profit. The British, on the other hand, charged the Iranian nationalists with greed and hyperbole ... The British appealed to the United States and depicted Iran as unstable and likely to fall victim to the forces of communism. In August 1953, the CIA, with the help of MI6, sponsored a coup to oust the Iranian Prime Minister, Mossadeq. The Shah installed a regime friendlier to Western strategic and economic needs. A consortium of Western firms now exercised managerial control over operations and oil production, thus ending the oil crisis. However, the legacy of British and American meddling in the internal politics of Iran contributed significantly to the 1979 Iranian Revolution. This saw the unpopular Western-backed monarchy replaced by an anti-Western Islamic Republic, and helped to sow the seeds for future generations of Iranian leaders to be deeply suspicious of foreign intentions.

Note that the NAM philosophy doesn't prohibit member states from forming bi-lateral relationship with any country to strengthen their defence. So Iran can (and does) have a military partnership with Russia and China, and can expand that if necessary.

President Putin has publicly stated that Iran hasn't asked for any advanced weaponry from it, so far, nor does it have a mutual defence pact with it:

Tass (Jun 2025): "You know, we once offered our Iranian friends to work on an air defense system. At the time, our partners did not show much interest. As for the treaty about our strategic partnership that you mentioned, there are no defense-related articles in it. This is the second thing. Third, our Iranian friends are not asking for it. There is practically nothing to discuss," the Russian leader said.

Reuters (Jun 2025): "Our proposal was to create a system, not separate supplies, but a system. We eventually discussed this once, but the Iranian side didn't show much interest in it, and it all died down. As for individual deliveries, yes, of course, we carried out these deliveries at one time. This has nothing to do with today's crisis. It was what is called regular cooperation in the military-technical sphere. And within the framework of international norms."

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has also emphasised that Iran preferred to be militarily self-reliant:

Official Website of the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran: Interview with American commentator (Jul 2025):

Carlson: In the event of a broader war against the Islamic Republic of Iran, how likely do you think it is that Iran’s allies, including China and Russia, will support Iran economically or militarily? And do you expect such support?.

Pezeshkian: “What matters most to us is our belief in God and our convictions. We have the capability to defend ourselves, and if necessary, we will stand our ground to our last breath to protect our country and territorial integrity ...

Note that while western media bias to the US-Israel military operations have conveyed an image of Iran being militarily battered, crippled and unable to respond, the reality is that Iran's military response forced Israeli PM Netanyahu to quickly agree to a ceasefire. In fact, the Netanyahu government had to resort to military censorship to hide how successful Iran's counter-offensive against Israel has been:

Military Watch (Jun 2025): Although the Israeli government imposed strict censorship on reporting or publishing footage of the missile attacks, a growing number of strongly corroborating sources have indicated that the fallout form the attacks has far exceeded prior Western and Israeli expectations. A list of some of the most high profile targets successfully hit by Iranian missiles have included Haifa Port, the Haifa Oil Refinery, Ben Gurion Airport, the Weizmann Institute of Science and Technology, Ben Gurion University, the headquarters of the defence firm Rafael, the Israel Nuclear Research Centre in Tel Aviv, and various strategic industrial targets in the city of Kiryat Gat. Significant military targets include Israel’s equivalent to the Pentagon, the Kariya, as well as key defence ministry buildings and the headquarters of the intelligence agency Mossad. Other targets include Ovda Airbase, Nevatim Airbase where all Israeli F-35s are based, and other facilities hosting fixed wing aircraft across the country. A number of mMissile strikes demonstrated the ability to destroy targets fortified underground, with civilians in bomb shelters, and at least one underground command centre, having been hit.

The Telegraph (Jul 2025): Iranian missiles appear to have directly hit five Israeli military facilities during the recent 12-day war, according to radar data seen by The Telegraph. The strikes have not been made public by the Israeli authorities and cannot be reported from within the country because of strict military censorship laws ... The strikes on the military facilities are in addition to 36 others known to have pierced Israeli air-defence systems, causing significant damage to residential and industrial infrastructure.

Raviv Drucker of Channel 13, one of the country’s best-known journalists, said last week: “There were a lot of [Iranian] missile hits in IDF bases, in strategic sites that we still don’t report about to this day... It created a situation where people don’t realise how precise the Iranians were and how much damage they caused in many places”.

References:

  1. Non-Aligned Movement

  2. Iran’s path to active membership in Non-Aligned Movement after the Islamic Revolution

  3. Russia offered Iran air defense projects, Tehran showed little interest — Putin

  4. Putin on Iran, Khamenei, regime change, Ukraine and NATO

  5. 1908 bombardment of the Majlis

  6. History of Iran - Constitutional Revolution

  7. COUP D’ETAT OF 1299/1921

  8. Why did Britain and the Soviet Union invade Iran with the Nazis at the gates of Moscow?

  9. Nationalisation: The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, 1951 Britain vs. Iran (PDF)

  10. Iran president urges US to stop warmongering by its ally, Israeli regime

  11. ‘Israel Got Hit Really Hard’: How Iran’s Ballistic Missile Arsenal Played a Central Role Deciding the Outcome of the War

  12. Iran struck five Israeli military bases during 12-day war

15
  • 7
    I see no evidence from this that going against NAM principles is a strong motivation for Iran to seek help from CSTO at this point. And that is partially due to the rather fuzzy nature of NAM membership, benefits and enforcement mechanisms. As well as the fact that "peak NAM significance" is long past us. Nor does this answer line up all that well with Iran's recent assistance to, and close alignment with, Russia in the Ukraine war. It sounds good, in theory, but this needs more sourcing to indicate NAM membership is actually a motivation during an existential crisis for Iran. Commented Jun 18, 2025 at 17:27
  • 5
    @ItalianPhilosopher That's because you blind yourself to any non-western political movement and so do not understand the underlying philosophy of NAM. All foreign policies are about prioritising a country's self-interest. NAM politics just adds that this is best done by not getting dragged into superpower politics when they fight amongst themselves. The idea is to be self-aware of your own standing in the world, and maintain an independent foreign policy and military (as far as possible) without aggravating the superpowers (ofcourse, this assumes that superpowers will act rationally). Commented Jun 18, 2025 at 19:07
  • 1
    Thus, NAM doesn't bind its members with its politics - it's more of a forum to discuss how to evolve foreign policies and avoid getting snared into superpower politics. This is why some countries, seeking a security alliance, short-sightedly consider it "useless". It doesn't prohibit member countries from having a military relationship with superpowers or any emerging powers. It just suggests it limits it, to constrain that kind of relationship purely for self-interest / self-defence needs, as much as possible. Commented Jun 18, 2025 at 19:09
  • 2
    Basically, it bluntly tells the superpowers - we'll obey you all as long it doesn't drag us into a conflict with any of you, otherwise if you don't respect our (limited) sovereignty you will be the one forcing us into the "enemy" camp. If you analyse the recent Russo - Iranian treaty, you will find that it has no mutual defence pact. It just has a clause that if either country is attacked by another, they commit to not aid that country. Right now, Iran appears confident in its NAM based foreign policy that it doesn't need to sign a military alliance to get help from either Russia or China. Commented Jun 18, 2025 at 19:12
  • 7
    Again, a lot of yammering about Western imperialism, which is not what the Q was about. I am not interesting in debating the pros and cons of NAM. Or Western behavior. Merely asking you to provided actual references that NAM factors in Iran's not asking CSTO to help out now. You don't do this, all you do is wax lyrical about NAM. Right now, all I see is a lot of speculation and hypothesis about Iranian motivations. Surely, surely, if there some meat to your hypothesis, you'd be able to find some support for it, other than debating it? I don't mind this A, just its lack of sourcing Commented Jun 19, 2025 at 21:39
14

This is an interesting question, upvoted but also not entirely answerable from known information, as it comes close to asking the internal motivations of Iranian leadership.

TLDR: There is in addition to Iran's leadership deciding not to pursue this course, the possibility that they did ask for Russian help and were politely told off.

First of, Russia is the CSTO in terms of military capability and probably decision-making too, much more so than even the US's dominance in NATO. Any assets used to assist Iran would have to be Russian. Which is, as some might remember, three years into a three day special military operation.

Second, as answered, some states have asked for Russian assistance as of late and received a busy signal.

Third, Russia seems to have publicly preempted doing too much in return for Iran's assistance:

TASS Jan 15, 2025 - Russia-Iran comprehensive partnership treaty not aimed against any third parties — Kremlin

"The aforementioned treaty will align with the aspirations of the peoples of the two friendly neighboring countries - Russia and Iran, whose cooperation is not directed against anyone’s interests," he said in a comment to Iran’s IRNA news agency.

The spokesman reminded of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s words that "Russia is never friends with anyone against anyone."

Russia does offer to be a mediator now, which is not a strong indicator of wanting a more assertive, direct, role in this conflict.

Fourth, it is not in Russia's interest to align Israel overmuch with Ukraine. Especially as they've largely lost the leverage their basing of Russian SAM batteries in Syria afforded them. Israel is a very capable manufacturer of military equipment and could help Ukraine quite a bit, even if they sold the gear at market prices. And that's before we even think about the risks of a worsening of Russia-USA relations, which are subject to Trump's whims.

Fifth, though there is no reference to that in CSTO's articles, if they are anything like NATO, they'd have a strong aversion to taking on states in that are already in a state of conflict.

In short, Iran may very well have wished to buddy up but not been given the opportunity. That would not be part of publicly available information.

6

While not officially part of CSTO, Iran apparently has already been invited to join and Russia does already have good connections with Iran including some sort of defense pact:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Russia_relations

Though apparently that still doesn't mean that Russia is likely to get involved in that struggle, at least not militarily, especially since they are busy elsewhere already:

https://www.dw.com/en/iran-israel-russia-putin-trump-military-economy/a-72941338

(Essentially: Not interested in uncontrollable chaos in the Middle East, not officially bound by treaty, official response would produce trouble with the U.S. and Trump currently likes him, Chance to get control as a "mediator", potential behind the scenes support)

So not sure making that relation formal does much of a difference, compared to the current status quo.

1
  • 7
    Can you quote the relevant parts of those articles, in case they ever change or become unavailable? Commented Jun 18, 2025 at 10:44
3

For the record, in the recent past (and relevantly, after the 2022 Russian invasion) Iran did make some formal moves to make itself less unaligned, invalidating one of the fairly voted answers here:

DUBAI, Sept 15 [2022] (Reuters) - Iran has moved a step closer towards becoming a permanent member of a central Asian security body dominated by Russia and China, as Tehran seeks to overcome economic isolation imposed by U.S. sanctions.

Foreign minister Hossein Amirabdollahian on Thursday said Iran had signed a memorandum of obligations to join the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, which is holding a summit this week in Uzbekistan.

The body, formed in the 2001 as a talking shop for Russia, China and ex-Soviet states in Central Asia, expanded four years ago to include India and Pakistan, with a view to playing a bigger role as counterweight to Western influence in the region.

"By signing the document for full membership of the SCO, now Iran has entered a new stage of various economic, commercial, transit and energy cooperation," Hossein Amirabdollahian wrote on his Instagram page.

And actually

On July 4 [2023], Iran officially became a full member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) during a virtual summit hosted by India for the SCO Heads of State Council (Shargh Daily, July 4). Iran initially joined as an “observer member without voting rights” at the July 2005 summit in Astana and, after 16 years, was accepted as the ninth member of the SCO at the September 2021 summit in Dushanbe, Tajikistan (Al Jazeera, September 17, 2021). Since then, Iran has received parliamentary approval for membership documents and protocols from the Islamic Consultative Assembly and submitted the necessary documents to the Secretariat of the SCO.

Iran’s membership in the SCO marks the country’s first foray into a regional organization with a defense and security function since its withdrawal from the Central Treaty Organization (CENTO) in 1979. This development with have a number of consequences in different areas—one of the most significant being its impact on the security arrangements in Central Asia.

(N.B. interesting, albeit somewhat dated 2016 reading on the SCO military exercises: these evolved from an antiterrorism focus to full-blown combined arms drills. And their frequency increased over time.)

Some Russian lawmakers have extended an invitation for Iran to apply to CSTO as recently as 2024. Such invitations seem to go back as far as 2007, even. We know less about Iran's reluctance to these overtures, alas. Perhaps Iran sees SCO as different enough in nature from the CSTO to apply to the former but not the latter. We know that Iranian observers regularly take part in the CSTO Parliamentary Assembly, so they are not totally allergic to it, at least on that political level.

One has to keep in mind that help from Russia to Iran has been pretty slow though, especially since the war in Ukraine turned to a full-scale invasion. The vaunted Su-30s or -35s have yet to show up in Iran, despite years of talks and apparently signed contracts.

And on that level, 'news' of Chinese military cargo planes delivering aid to Iran since June 13, appear to be fake or at least unconfirmed on slightly deeper analysis. Although Iran did purchase a lot of missile fuel from China earlier.


It may be that Iran thought that their recent bilateral treaty with Russia was good enough, or least as good they could get. An Iran-aligned source commented in April:

Yet even if it does not constitute a military alliance, the treaty details mutually agreed moves if there is an attack or threats to either nation’s national security – as in Trump’s careless bombing threats against Iran. The treaty also defines the vast scope of military-technical and defense cooperation, including, crucially, regular intel talk.

But does note some divergence on foreign policy, for instance

The official Moscow position on the Axis of Resistance is an extremely delicate affair. For instance, let’s look at Yemen. Moscow does not officially recognize the Yemeni resistance government embodied by Ansarallah and with its HQ in the capital Sanaa; rather, it recognizes, just like Washington, a puppet government in Aden, which is in fact housed in a five-star hotel in Riyadh, sponsored by Saudi Arabia.

The same applies to Lebanon's Hezbollah, which was a key Russian ally in routing ISIS and other Islamist extremist groups during the Syrian war. When it comes to Syria, the only thing that really matters for official Moscow, after the Al-Qaeda-linked extremists took power in Damascus last December, is to preserve the Russian bases in Tartous and Hmeimim.

Relatedly, other observers have noted too that Russia tries to balance their relationship with Iran with their relationship with Arab countries, siding with the UAE rather than Iran in some island dispute. So despite some (Russian) parliamentary invitations to the CSTO, i.e. from the "peanut gallery", who knows if Putin would really approve it.

Contra to the rosy view in some pro-Tehran venues, other observers read the opposite in that recent bilateral treaty namely that

it turned out to be little more than a bureaucratic summary of the current state of affairs, with dozens of abstract phrases such as “confirm commitment to,” “aspire to,” and “facilitate.” [...] It also shows that the Kremlin remains unwilling to come to Iran’s aid if it is attacked by either the United States or Israel.

And conversely,

Iran—unlike North Korea—is not prepared to send soldiers to fight in Ukraine and plug the Kremlin’s manpower shortage.

4
  • You are confusing a security alliance to a military alliance SCO is not a military alliance (yet) like NATO or CSTO. Its western equivalent is the Quad Security Dialogue (QSD) which is also not an "asian NATO" (yet). Note that India is also a member of SCO and QSD, which wouldn't be possible if SCO or QSD was a military alliance. And can you imagine India and Pakistan being part of the same military alliance (they both are full members of SCO)! Commented Jun 20, 2025 at 14:33
  • @sfxedit: true to some extent, but I think the QSD as such doesn't organize military exercises, which the SCO oddly enough does, but I think not every SCO member participates in those. Actually, I see the Quad did have a few military exercises, but with a much more spotty history compared to SCO. Commented Jun 20, 2025 at 14:43
  • 2
    @sfxedit: Funnily enough North Korea is full member of NAM, and they have a mutual defense treaty with both Russia and China, I think. Likewise, a number of NAM members are signatories of the Rio Pact. So NAM means a pile of nothing. Commented Jun 20, 2025 at 14:51
  • 1
    The Quad does conduct military exercises and India took part in it- Malabar and More: Quad Militaries Conduct Exercises. Same with SCO - India, Pakistan to be part of anti-terror SCO drill in Russia next month. North Korea has conflicts with western superpowers. Thus it forming a military alliance with another superpower is within NAM philosophy. Iran can also do so. Commented Jun 20, 2025 at 16:42

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.