From Vietnam to Iran; a comparison of China, Soviets-Russia, and North Korea’s involvements against US aggressive wars
"An imperialist war does not cease to be imperialist when charlatans, or chatterboxes, or petty-bourgeois narrow-minded people throw out emotional 'slogans'." (Lenin) And, An anti-imperialist war does not cease to be anti-imperialist when charlatans, chatterboxes, or petty-bourgeois narrow-minded people throw out emotional slogans due to their subjectivity and/or flat-out pro-imperialist stands. " the national movement of the oppressed countries should be appraised not from the point of view of formal democracy, but from the point of view of the actual results, as shown by the general balance sheet of the struggle against imperialism, that is to say, "not in isolation, but on a world scale. (Lenin)”
There has been so many commentaries
on the war of US-Israel genocidal fascist imperialist against Iran. Most of the
Western and Western educated “leftist” commentaries had nothing to do with left
but were all subjective, based on fantasies and wishful thinking especially
when the issue was related to the stand and involvement of Russia, China and
North Korea. Although the core reasons for their involvements in theoretical sense
were different, in strategical-practical sense it has the same core reasons; question
of existence.
Lets start from the US aggressive imperialist war against Vietnam in where millions of Vietnamese have been massacred. (Article is based primarily on Chinese, Vietnamese and Soviet historical sources, excluding Western narratives.)
Vietnam War (1965–1975) – Involvement of the Soviet Union, China, and North Korea
North Korea’s direct
involvement in Vietnamese anti-imperialist war has long been obscured by
the West consciously as a part of their anti-propaganda, however, later
confirmed especially by US and Vietnamese archives.
North Korea’s Air force combat deployment during 1966–1967
is a significant proof of its direct involvement. North Korea deployed 87 pilots (203rd Fighter Aviation Regiment)
flying MiG-17s, based at Gia Lam, Hanoi. They trained Vietnamese pilots
and directly engaged US aircraft. According to US records, North
Korean pilots shot down 26 US warplanes; several North Koreans were
killed.
Kim Il-sung reportedly said: “Treat
Vietnamese skies as our own, treat Hanoi as Pyongyang, treat President Ho Chi
Minh as our own leader.”
North Korea deployed 800+- specialists, including psychological warfare and tunnel warfare experts. They passed on their combat experience from the Korean War to Vietnamese fighters. Over 80 North Koreans died in Vietnam.
It’s material aid exceeds US$50
million in cash, plus artillery, trucks, and uniforms.
Soviet Union was a
“backstage supporter” rather than a direct combatant. No Soviet combat units
were deployed to Vietnam.
Soviet Military aid scale
(1965–1973)
Over US$2 billion in military
aid, plus 1 billion rubles in economic aid. From 1965 to 1975, the
USSR supplied over 510,000 tons of military equipment, a major share of
the total socialist aid which is approx. 2.4 million tons.
High-end weapons: 316
aircraft, 23 SA-75M (SA-2) air defense systems, two regiments of S-125 systems,
687 tanks, over 70 naval vessels.
In the 1972 “Điện Biên Phủ
in the air” campaign, Soviet-supplied SA-2 systems shot down 15 US B-52
bombers using 1,240 missiles – nearly all from the USSR.
By 1968, Soviet aid accounted for
50% of total socialist aid to North Vietnam, surpassing China’s
contribution.
Its indirect involvement was related
to Political and strategic backing especially
during the Sino-Soviet split. Soviets coordinated aid from Eastern European
allies (Czechoslovakia, Poland, East Germany, etc.).
China’s involvement was the
most direct, comprehensive, and sustained among socialist allies, including
large-scale combat troops.
Between 1965–1975 over 320,000
People’s Liberation Army personnel served in North Vietnam as
anti-aircraft, engineering, railway, and construction units.
Anti-aircraft forces made up of 16 divisions, 63 regiments, exceeding 150,000
men. During which they had 2,153 engagements, 1,707 US aircraft shot down,
1,608 damaged.
China repaired 1,778 railway sites, 577 km of new/upgraded rail,
1,206 km of roads, 305 bridges, two airfields with hardened aircraft shelters,
239 tunnels (over 25 km), nine wharves, 15 submarine cables. During this period
China cleared 42 mines, opened Haiphong and other ports.
As for material aid China
supplied 1.6 million tons of supplies, total value over US$20 billion. Supplied
military hardware (1965–1976) worth RMB 4.26 billion – enough to
equip over 2 million troops.
It is important to note that during
the anti-French war China was the sole military supplier to the Viet
Minh, providing all weapons and ammunition.
As Indirect involvement China Provided
transit for Soviet and other aid through Chinese territory. Trained Vietnamese military personnel.
Chinese casualties in Vietnam war
is stated as : 1,100 killed, 4,200 seriously wounded.
Iran War (2024–2026) –
Involvement of China, Russia, and North Korea
North Korea has been a
key “teacher” for Iran’s missile program, with deep technical
cooperation. Its direct involvement first and foremost is related to the Missile technology origin of Iran. Iran’s
early ballistic missile programs relied on North Korean support.
The “Shahab” series was
assembled with North Korean assistance. The “Hwasong-5/6” formed the basis for Iranian
copies. Iran’s “Shahab-3”
(medium-range ballistic missile) was derived from North Korea’s “Nodong.” Iran’s “Khorramshahr” missile is linked
to North Korea’s “Musudan.”
Missiles Iran fired at Israel in
2026 are suspected to contain North Korean-made parts or technology.
Its indirect involvement is more
related to diplomacy and political policy like high-level visits like North Korea’s Minister of External Economic
Relations Yun Jong-ho’s visit of Iran which is rare and seen as evidence of
deepening military cooperation.
North Korea-Russia-Iran the
“Triangular military circle” a strategic alignment against the US with their growing coordination in ballistic missile and
loitering munition technology is an unspoken concern of the US.
Russia
Russia is the most substantial
military supporter of Iran in this conflict. While US forces “block” Iranian
ports, Russia and Iran maintain a steady flow of military and commercial
goods via the Caspian Sea – a “geopolitical black hole” inaccessible to
US/NATO naval forces without violating the sovereignty of littoral states.
Russia supplies drone parts to
help Iran rebuild its drone force, which has lost an unknown percentage of its
inventory. Over the past six months, Iran has sent Russia over 300,000
artillery shells and 1 million rounds in exchange for Russian advanced air
defense systems and technology.
Russia reportedly supplied Man-portable
air defense systems (MANPADS). According to a secret December 2025 agreement for 500 Verba
MANPADS and 2,500 missiles, to be delivered 2027–2029. Reportedly, Russia transfers
captured Western weapon components in Ukraine to Iran.
As for short and long term indirect
involvement, the joint naval exercise “CASAREX 2025” (in name a
search-and-rescue drill) to solidify Caspian military dominance and long-term
development of a 7,200 km trade corridor from the Baltic to the Indian Ocean,
bypassing Western-controlled routes are good examples.
China
China’s involvement is
characterized by strategic ambiguity; official denial, but US allegations of
technology and component transfers. Chinese Ambassador to the US Xie Feng
called reports of Chinese military aid to Iran “fake news” aimed at smearing
China and provoking Sino-US confrontation. China states it “stands firmly on
the side of peace” and promotes ceasefire talks.
However China has a
history of selling or transferring technology for C-802 anti-ship
missiles, C-701 missiles, M-7 ballistic missiles, and drone
technology (some of which is believed to have influenced Iran’s “witness”
drones). The US Treasury and State Department have sanctioned several Chinese
mainland and Hong Kong companies for allegedly helping Iran obtain weapon parts
and satellite imagery. China denies these allegations, yet orders the companies
to disregard the US sanctions.
Iran supplies China with oil,
including for strategic reserves, providing economic resilience. China with the
new Iran-China railway supplies Iran its consumer and other needs to keep the
economy afloat.
Key difference is that in Vietnam, socialist allies (especially China and North Korea) fought alongside Vietnamese forces. In the Iran War, support is indirect, covert, or technological – no known foreign combat troops have entered Iran.
Based on available information,
the involvement of foreign experts in Iran is not a matter of
probability in some cases, it is a confirmed reality.
The likelihood of Russia, China,
and North Korea sending expert professionals to train Iranian personnel
varies significantly by country.
As for Russia the deployment of Russian specialists and comprehensive training is a confirmed pattern, not just a probability. Evidence includes visits by missile and air defense specialists and confirmed plans from leaked Russian intelligence to train Iranian crews on advanced drones. Russia's extensive military experience and deep strategic alignment with Iran make this their primary support method.
The probability of China sending
official state experts is low, minimal or extremely covert. China's official
stance is one of non-involvement, with its Ministry of National Defense
denying providing defense systems or drones to Iran and cautioning against the
spread of misinformation. While there are unconfirmed reports of a
"special action group" and Iranian claims of a "counter-espionage
team" in 2015, and a phenomenon of Chinese STEM-educated civilians volunteering
online strategies, there is no evidence of Chinese state-sanctioned
experts on the ground.
The deployment of North Korean
experts to train Iranian personnel is highly likely, consistent with their
decades-long, direct collaboration. Reports indicate that engineers
and specialists travel between the two countries to exchange knowledge,
with North Korean experts having helped design Iran's underground
"missile cities". Unlike China's cautious approach, North
Korea operates as an active partner, providing weapons systems, technology,
engineers, and underground facility expertise, and even building missile
test facilities inside Iran.
The claim that North Korea
heavily assisted Iran with building its underground facilities is highly
credible and well-documented, representing a cornerstone of their
strategic alliance.
North Korea has essentially
handed Iran the blueprint for its own survival. Iran's "missile
cities", vast tunnel networks, bunkers, and launch sites buried deep
within mountains; all are directly based on North Korean models. The
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)'s missile sites have been created
using North Korean blueprints, with their experts helping Iran build them.
This expertise includes multi-layered rock protection, the use of decoys,
and extensive tunnel systems.
North Korea’s decades-long
assistance has proven crucial to Iran's defense, creating a
"hardened" and redundant infrastructure. By housing production,
storage, and launch capabilities within resilient mountain bases connected by
rail, Iran's arsenal can survive sustained bombing campaigns and remains
a potent threat, as evidenced by reports that 91% of its missile facilities
along the Strait of Hormuz were restored after heavy airstrikes.
Conclusion
Iran war is a sharp geopolitical
question. For Russia and North Korea, Iran is already functioning as an
indirect existential buffer. For China, it is potentially existential depending
on how the conflict escalates.
An “existential threat”
means a threat to the survival of the regime, state, or its core strategic
interests. An indirect existential threat means that if Iran falls
completely (regime collapse, military defeat, or forced surrender to US/Israeli
demands), the consequences for the supporting power would be so severe that
they could undermine that power’s own survival or grand strategy.
For Russia, Iran is already
an existential necessity, not merely indirect. Russia is fighting a protracted
war in Ukraine against a US-led NATO arsenal. Iran provides Russia with
thousands of Shahed drones, artillery shells, and missile technology. Without
Iran, Russia’s offensive and attrition capabilities would degrade significantly.
A defeated Iran would mean the collapse of that supply line.
Russia uses the Caspian to
move weapons to Iran and receive Iranian shells. If Iran fell, US/NATO
influence would reach Russia’s southern soft underbelly (the Caucasus
and Central Asia). That would be a strategic encirclement worse than NATO’s
eastward expansion.
Russia defines itself as an anti-US
great power. Losing Iran would be a catastrophic defeat in that global
contest – comparable to losing Syria but far larger. Russian military planners explicitly
see Iran as a “forward defense” of Russia’s southern flank. That’s why, Iran
is not just an ally – it is a critical enabler of Russia’s own war effort and
strategic depth. Its defeat would be directly existential.
For North Korea, Iran is existential
via the “axis of resistance” theoretical logic and moral solidarity with anti-imperialist struggles.
North Korea’s own missile program
(Hwasong, KN-23, etc.) has been refined through testing and cooperation with
Iran. The two share data, components, and possibly test sites. If Iran’s
missile infrastructure is destroyed, North Korea loses a crucial partner for
troubleshooting and advancing its own systems; systems that are the
backbone of its nuclear deterrent.
Both regimes face the same
existential threat: US-led regime change. A US victory in Iran would free
up American military, intelligence, and political resources to focus entirely
on North Korea. The “Washington–Seoul–Tokyo” alliance would tighten. Iran’s
survival ties down US assets in the Middle East – a classic “two-front” problem
for the US.
North Korea’s leadership sees
Iran as proof that anti-US resistance can survive decades of sanctions and
military pressure. An Iranian collapse would be a crushing ideological blow,
potentially emboldening South Korean hawks and weakening Pyongyang’s
domestic legitimacy. That’s why Iran’s
defeat would directly accelerate pressure on North Korea itself. So while
not immediate physical survival, it is existential in a strategic and
temporal sense.
China is the most cautious and the
least immediately dependent on Iran, but the “indirect existential”
logic applies in two ways.
1- Energy and economic
security
China imports a significant
portion of its oil from Iran (often at discounted prices, using
sanctions-bypassing mechanisms). However, China has diversified suppliers
(Russia, Saudi, Iraq, Africa). Losing Iranian oil would hurt but not kill
China’s economy. So not directly existential on energy grounds alone.
2- The broader US containment
framework ; the core of the issue
Iran sits at the heart of the “Axis
of Resistance” against US domination in West Asia. If Iran falls, the US
will effectively control: Iraq, Syria (via proxies), the Gulf states, and
Afghanistan’s backyard. That would complete a US arc from the Mediterranean
to the Indian Ocean, directly flanking China’s Belt and Road Initiative
(BRI) and its energy lifelines through the Strait of Hormuz. More importantly,
a US victory in Iran would free the US military and intelligence
apparatus to fully pivot to the Indo-Pacific; Taiwan, the South China Sea, and
technology decoupling. Beijing’s worst nightmare is a US unencumbered by Middle
Eastern quagmires. China is also
watching the precedent: if the US can topple Iran using Israel as a proxy
without direct mass US troop deployment, that model could be applied to
other “anti-US” regimes.
However, China has two buffers
that Russia and North Korea lack. Its economic integration with the US/West gives it
leverage that Russia and North Korea do not have. It has not (publicly) committed to Iran’s
military survival; it has officially
stayed neutral.
Thus for China, Iran is not
yet existential, but could become existential if the US wins
decisively and then immediately pivots to containing China. Beijing is
therefore assisting Iran just enough to keep the US bogged down, but not so
much as to provoke direct confrontation.
For Russia and North Korea, Iran is already an indirect existential
question; for China, it is a pre-existing condition that could become
existential.
Erdogan A
22 May, 2026
.jpg)
