Military exercises go beyond being mere joint drills between the armed forces of various countries aimed at improving interoperability.

They are also a show of strength and a message of deterrence to hostile parties, warning them against any aggressive actions. These maneuvers may also carry political messages. This is the context behind the significance of the joint naval exercises “Security Belt 2025,” launched on March 10, 2025, between the naval forces of Russia, China, and Iran at the port of Chabahar in southeastern Iran.

What Messages Do These Drills Convey?

To begin with, this marks the fifth time such exercises have taken place among the three nations since 2019. According to sources, the drills include targeting maritime objectives, boarding and inspection operations, damage control, and joint search and rescue missions. A total of 15 naval warships, support vessels, combat boats, and helicopters from the three countries participated.

While these exercises may appear routine to some, their location in the northern Indian Ocean is strategically vital for the maritime security interests of the participating states. Moreover, they come at a critical time when all three countries are facing heightened tensions with the United States.

The drills occur amid:

• Escalating U.S. rhetoric against Iran, with talk of negotiations or other options to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, especially given reports that Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile is approaching weapon-grade levels.
• Russia offering to mediate between the U.S. and Iran on the nuclear issue, advocating for peaceful resolution—while simultaneously involved in U.S.–Russia and U.S.–Ukraine talks over the war in Ukraine, with military escalation on the ground.
• Continued trade tensions between the U.S. and China, initiated by former President Donald Trump’s imposition of 25% tariffs on all Chinese steel and aluminum imports, followed by Chinese retaliatory tariffs on coal, LNG (15%), oil, and agricultural equipment (10%).

Strategic and Political Messages

These maneuvers deliver both security and political signals:

• Western accusations have long alleged that Iran supplies Russia with drones for its war in Ukraine.
• China and Iran are engaged in a 25-year strategic cooperation agreement, which includes military and security collaboration.
• The drills represent a continuation of joint security coordination and a symbolic act of political alignment among the three nations, each with contentious relations with Washington.

Nonetheless, it’s important to recognize the limits of this coordination:

• The relationship between these countries, while tactically cooperative, falls short of being a full strategic alliance—largely constrained by their respective diplomatic calibrations with the U.S.
• All three give high priority to the maritime domain:

1. Iran views the development of its ports and control over the Strait of Hormuz as vital to its regional influence.
2. China, which traditionally avoided regional security entanglements, has increasingly asserted itself in maritime security, especially after the rise in Houthi attacks on commercial shipping in the Red Sea. In February 2024, it deployed Fleet 46, comprising a missile destroyer, missile frigate, a supply ship, and over 700 personnel, including special forces and helicopters.
3. Russia, for its part, signed a naval base agreement with Sudan in February 2025.

These developments reflect growing regional naval influence among the three powers—not in terms of ship count alone, but in their geostrategic implications for global maritime security efforts.

Limits and Calculations of Political Maneuvering

An important question arises: What are the boundaries of this trilateral political maneuvering in the face of U.S. power, especially if these joint drills become a recurring annual event?

Former President Trump’s dismissive reaction—saying he was “not at all concerned” about the military drills—was telling. His statement reflects not just confidence in U.S. naval supremacy but also a realistic view of U.S. relations with the three states:

• Despite growing Russian-Iranian ties, Russia does not favor a nuclear-armed Iran, and has not consistently opposed sanctions on Tehran.
• In U.S.–China relations, the scale of mutual investments renders a full economic decoupling unlikely.
• U.S.–Iran relations, though volatile, are unlikely to escalate into direct military confrontation.

Strategic Outlook

Even if such exercises are routine, a strategic reading of the policies of China, Russia, and Iran reveals shared ambitions for regional influence:

• For China, it aligns with the goals of the Belt and Road Initiative.
• For Russia, it ensures leverage in pivotal maritime nodes, particularly if it loses access to Syrian ports.
• For Iran, despite regional setbacks and declining influence over proxy groups, maritime security remains a core domain for asserting influence.

Final Thought

In conclusion, two key points emerge:

Mutual benefits—not ideological alignment—define the nature of relations, whether as partnerships or tactical alignments.

Strategic partnerships take years to form, and are not necessarily military in nature, especially given today’s evolving and interwoven security landscape.

Still, the growing proximity between the three states may serve as a bargaining chip with the United States—but is unlikely to fundamentally reshape the regional or global balance of power.

Note: This article has been automatically translated, the full article is available in Arabic.

Source: Akhbar Al Khaleej

Dr. Ashraf Keshk, Senior Research Fellow