Iran’s recent war experience suggests an important but often overlooked reality: Iran’s relations with its neighbors are deeper, older, and more resilient than many U.S. policymakers appear to understand. Despite American pressure, Israeli regional partnerships, and years of sanctions, most of Iran’s neighbors avoided direct hostile action against Tehran. Several countries instead helped Iran, mediated between Iran and its adversaries, or deliberately avoided steps that could inflame the regional war.
This does not mean Iran has no tensions with its neighbors. The UAE continues to dispute Iran’s sovereignty over Abu Musa and the Greater and Lesser Tunbs. During the recent conflict, the UAE and Bahrain were widely viewed inside Iran as politically aligned against Tehran. At the same time, Qatar and Oman maintained close communication with Iran and continued balancing and mediating roles, while Saudi Arabia stopped short of fully joining a direct anti-Iranian military alignment.
Iraq remains one of the clearest examples of regional solidarity with Iran. Iraqi groups actively fought alongside Iran or in support of Iran’s regional position, while ordinary Iraqis organized fundraising campaigns and humanitarian support. Iraqi mosques collected donations for Iranian civilians, and widely shared videos showed Iraqi children donating personal belongings to support Iran. For many Iraqi Shiites, the war was not viewed simply as a geopolitical conflict, but as part of a wider confrontation involving Palestine, Israel, Shiite identity, and American regional power.
Pakistan also played a major role. Despite close defense relations with Saudi Arabia, Islamabad did not align itself against Tehran. Instead, Pakistan acted as a mediator between Iran and the United States, while public opinion inside Pakistan reflected substantial sympathy toward Iran, including among Sunni communities. Pakistan reportedly kept logistical and port access channels open to Iran during periods of regional pressure, demonstrating the limits of formal alliance structures when confronted with geography, domestic opinion, and fears of regional destabilization.
Afghanistan presents one of the most complicated but revealing cases. Relations between Iran and Afghan migrants have often been tense, yet visible gestures of solidarity also emerged during the conflict. Iranian officials publicly thanked both the Afghan people and authorities for condemning American and Israeli attacks on Iran. Videos circulated on Iranian social media showing Iranian citizens chanting, “Thank you, honorable Afghans,” in appreciation for Afghan support. Afghan merchants in Herat reportedly raised funds for Iran despite Afghanistan’s severe economic crisis, while Afghan political and religious figures called for diplomacy and de-escalation.
Azerbaijan’s position during the conflict was complicated and ultimately contested. Before the war intensified, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev explicitly told Iran’s Defense Minister that Azerbaijan would not permit any action from its soil that could threaten Iran, describing relations between the two countries as “friendly and brotherly.” Following the killing of Khamenei on 28 February 2026, Aliyev visited the Iranian Embassy in Baku, signed the book of condolences, and recalled his meetings with the Supreme Leader with the “most pleasant impressions.” Azerbaijan also facilitated humanitarian aid deliveries to Iran.
However, the relationship deteriorated sharply when, on 5 March 2026, Iranian drones targeted civilian sites in Azerbaijan’s Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic, striking the passenger terminal of Nakhchivan International Airport and a school and injuring civilians. Aliyev called it a “terrorist act” and ordered his armed forces to prepare response measures. Azerbaijan denied Iranian claims that its territory had been used for Israeli operations, and Aliyev noted that he had repeatedly assured Tehran this would not occur. The subsequent dispatch of humanitarian aid to Iran was in part a de-escalatory gesture in the wake of this crisis, not a straightforward act of regional solidarity. The episode illustrates that even where neighbors sought to avoid alignment against Iran, the conflict’s spread across numerous regional countries generated its own dangerous frictions.
Turkey went even further and openly opposed the war against Iran, notable for a NATO treaty ally of the United States. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan repeatedly condemned Israeli attacks on Iran, warning that the war threatened to destabilize the entire Middle East and violated international law. Turkish media discourse and public opinion also reflected substantial sympathy toward Iran, while demonstrations against the war were held in several Turkish cities.
In Central Asia, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan maintained constructive relations with Iran and reportedly provided humanitarian assistance. Tajikistan’s case is especially significant because Tajik Persian is fundamentally part of the broader Persian linguistic and civilizational sphere. Centuries of shared literary, historical, and religious heritage continue to shape cultural affinity toward Iran.
Armenia likewise maintained warm relations with Tehran throughout the conflict, viewing Iran as both an economic partner and an important strategic counterbalance in a difficult regional environment.
Humanitarian support for Iran came from a surprisingly wide range of regional actors. Iranian officials stated that Iraq delivered large shipments of food and medicine, while Tajikistan reportedly sent humanitarian supplies. Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, India, and Chinese humanitarian organizations were also mentioned among those providing aid to Iran during the conflict.
This regional behavior reflects Iran’s unusual depth. Iran is not Afghanistan, Iraq, or Libya. It is a larger country with a much longer state tradition, a bigger population, a stronger historical identity, and deep cultural, religious, linguistic, and economic links across its borders. These ties give Iran strategic flexibility under sanctions and during war while making regional isolation far more difficult than many in Washington assume.
Historical continuity and imperial memory remain central. Several neighboring societies were historically linked to Persian political and cultural spheres across different imperial periods. Parts of present-day Iraq, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan were separated from Iranian sovereignty through wars and treaties during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The Persian language functions as a civilizational bond extending beyond Iran’s borders, facilitating literary continuity, religious exchange, and cultural empathy across a broad geographic arc stretching from Afghanistan and Tajikistan to parts of Iraq and the Caucasus.
Shia Islam and Iran’s religious centrality also play a major role. For many Shia communities across Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, and the Gulf, Iran and the city of Qom possess deep religious significance. At the same time, broader pan-Islamic sentiment has shaped regional reactions, especially where the conflict has been framed as a confrontation involving Israel, the United States, Palestine, and the Muslim world.
The lesson is clear: Iran’s neighborhood is not naturally anti-Iranian. Many neighbors may distrust Tehran or compete with it, but they also understand that Iran is a permanent regional reality. For them, destroying or destabilizing Iran would produce refugee flows, economic disruption, sectarian instability, and potentially a much wider regional war.
For policymakers in Washington, this carries an important implication: strategies based on building a unified regional coalition against Iran are likely to encounter structural resistance that pressure alone cannot overcome. Iran’s power is not solely military or nuclear. It is also historical, cultural, demographic, geographic, religious, and civilizational.