🇺🇦🇷🇺Ukraine vs Russia

Why Russia Is Worried About Strikes in the Caspian While Others Stay Silent

The strikes reportedly exposed a corridor used for sanctions-busting trade and possible weapons transfers between Russia and Iran.

Kyiv Post

75

26 Mart 2026

4 min read

0 views

For decades, the Caspian littoral states presented the sea as a special zone: closed to outside military interference, governed by cooperation among the five coastal countries, and protected by agreements meant to preserve peace and regional balance. That long-standing principle was put to the test when Israeli strikes on March 18-19 reportedly hit Iran’s naval base and port at Bandar Anzali, damaging Tehran’s Northern Fleet, destroying vessels, and hitting a naval command center and repair yard.

Yet the response was strikingly uneven. Russia issued direct and forceful criticism, while Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan remained cautiously silent.

JOIN US ON TELEGRAM

Follow our coverage of the war on the @Kyivpost_official.

Calculation more than indifference

None of the three had much to gain from publicly protesting a strike on Iranian military infrastructure, especially given the risk of being drawn into a wider confrontation involving Iran, Israel, and potentially the US.

Russia, by contrast, saw the strikes as directly affecting its own interests. Moscow has issued the strongest criticism so far, viewing the attack not only as a blow to Iran but also as a threat to a strategic and economic corridor in the Caspian. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova condemned the strike on Bandar Anzali, describing the port as an important trade and logistics hub for food and civilian goods. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, in a call with his Iranian counterpart Abbas Aragchi, said any spread of war into the Caspian would create “unacceptable risks” for Russian personnel and could bring “catastrophic environmental consequences.”

Other Topics of Interest

EXPLAINED: White House and Iran Set Ceasefire Conditions That Can’t Be Reconciled

Trump and Tehran have outlined competing conditions to end the war, but their demands amount to opposing ultimatums, making a negotiated ceasefire highly unlikely.

American analyst Paul Goble told Kyiv Post that the strike carried two messages. First, it was intended to show that “there are no safe havens anywhere in Iran,” demonstrating that attacks could reach well beyond the country’s southern coast, nuclear sites, or leadership compounds. Second, Goble argued, it signaled that Israel – and implicitly the US - was closely monitoring the links between Iran and Russia across the Caspian, including the movement of sanctions-prohibited goods and possibly weaponry through northern ports.

In Goble’s reading, the strike was important not only for what it hit, but for what it exposed. The old Caspian order, built on rhetoric about keeping outside powers out and preserving the basin as a peaceful regional space, has already been weakened in practice by Russia-Iran military and logistical cooperation. That is why Moscow reacted so strongly: its own influence and transport corridor were directly challenged.

Moved everything from drones to oil

The Caspian corridor has quietly become a critical artery linking Russia and Iran, carrying far more than military equipment. The Wall Street Journal reports that the route has been used to move everything from drones and missile components to oil, and other sanctioned goods. Shielded from direct Western oversight and largely controlled by littoral states, the Caspian offered a relatively secure trade channel that bypassed traditional maritime chokepoints and sanctions enforcement.

That dual-use character made the corridor especially valuable. It allowed Moscow and Tehran to support both wartime and economic needs, blending civilian cargo with military shipments in ways that were difficult to monitor or disrupt.

Russian-Iranian dominance questioned

Military expert Elkhan Nuriyev told Kyiv Post that what was presented as a mechanism for regional cooperation in fact served to entrench Russian and Iranian dominance over the smaller Caspian states. He said the arrangement worked to Moscow’s and Tehran’s advantage by limiting the role of outside powers and reinforcing what both saw as their privileged position in the basin.

Nuriyev said Azerbaijan’s efforts to deepen cooperation with neighboring Turkey have repeatedly run into resistance from Iran and Russia, which view the partnership as a threat to their traditional influence in the South Caucasus and the Caspian region.

In his view, Russia spoke out because it had the most to lose. The others stayed quiet because they saw little to gain.