On March 9, 2026, the Kremlin published a congratulatory message to the new Supreme Leader of Iran — Seyed Mojtaba Hosseini Khamenei. In the message, Putin not only wished success. He called the events surrounding Iran ‘armed aggression,’ expressed Moscow’s ‘steadfast support,’ and promised that Russia would remain a ‘reliable partner’ of the Islamic Republic. This is no longer a routine diplomatic text. It is a political demonstration of solidarity with a regime that builds its power on war, repression, and the export of violence.
The election of Mojtaba Khamenei as the new Supreme Leader of Iran signaled not change, but the preservation of the old course. This is the son of the liquidated Ali Khamenei, who inherited not only the surname but the entire power vertical tied to forceful control, religious legitimation, and harsh suppression of dissent. There are no signs of softening here. On the contrary, the new figure must prove to the elite and security forces that the system remains the same.
The inheritance of power in Iran signaled: the course does not change
The appointment of the son of the slain Supreme Leader is not a story of ‘stability’ and not an attempt to open a new page. It is a demonstration of the regime’s continuity in the harshest form. The new Supreme Leader receives not only spiritual status but direct control over the army, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and key levers of the state. For opposition-minded Iranians, this means more of a tightening of the screws than hope for reforms.
And it is precisely at this moment that the Kremlin does not come forward with a cautious formula, not with a call for de-escalation, and not with diplomatic neutrality, but with an actual political embrace of the new master of Iran. On paper, it looks like a congratulation. In essence, it is a public confirmation of an alliance. Moscow hastened to show that it supports not just the state of Iran, but precisely the current system of power, with its forceful logic and readiness to continue on the path of confrontation.
Why this looks not like protocol, but like one war regime congratulating another
When the Russian authorities, waging war against Ukraine, call the strikes on Iran ‘armed aggression’ and simultaneously promise ‘steadfast support’ to the new Supreme Leader of Tehran, it can no longer be perceived as an ordinary ceremonial. For Israel, for Ukraine, and for the entire region, it looks like another confirmation of the axis in which Moscow and Tehran have long been on the same side of the conflict.
One regime has made war the main tool of foreign policy. The other has built a system over many years where terror, intimidation, proxy structures, and military pressure have become part of the state model. Therefore, many have a straightforward reaction: one terrorist regime congratulated another on retaining power.
Formally, this is a letter from the head of state. But in essence, it is a political signal to the entire region. Moscow does not distance itself from Iran’s hard line. It binds itself even more closely to it. And the more openly this sounds today, the harder it will be later to portray Russia in the Middle Eastern crisis as an outside observer. This role for the Kremlin ended long ago.
What this means for Israel
For Israel, this story is important not only as an episode around the change of power in Tehran. It shows a broader picture: the Kremlin continues to integrate Israel into the general anti-Russian and anti-Western contour, where the Jewish state is increasingly presented as part of a hostile camp. Support for Iran at such a moment is not an accidental phrase and not a separate diplomatic gesture. It is an element of a consistent line that Moscow has been pursuing for a long time.
Against this backdrop, NAnews — Israel News | Nikk.Agency notes a simple thing: the news of March 9, 2026, should be read not as a dry protocol message, but as a direct confirmation of a war alliance. It is more correct to formulate it this way: Moscow publicly blessed the continuation of the Iranian course after the change of supreme power.
And so, it is not just about a letter, not about a ceremony, and not about diplomacy. It is about an alliance of two regimes for which violence, fear, and war have long become the habitual language of politics.