Resit Kemal As / Editor-in-Chief, World Of Global
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s recent harsh and explicit rhetoric toward the Iranian regime is not merely the result of a bilateral tension; it reflects a much broader geopolitical confrontation. These statements simultaneously reveal Kyiv’s growing concerns about the trajectory of the war, the messages it seeks to send to the West, and Ukraine’s search for a clear position within an increasingly polarized global order.
At first glance, the picture is clear: Iran represents a direct threat to Ukraine due to the drones and military assistance it has supplied to Russia. The use of Iranian-made systems in attacks targeting Ukrainian cities has turned Tehran into not just an indirect actor, but a de facto party to the war in the eyes of Kyiv. Zelenskyy’s harsh tone is a natural response to this military reality.
However, the issue goes far beyond this. Behind Zelenskyy’s loud stance against Iran lies a deliberate diplomatic and psychological strategy. The Ukrainian leader seeks to frame the war not only as a confrontation with Russia, but as part of a broader global struggle against an “axis of authoritarian regimes.” In this narrative, Iran serves as a key symbol. Through this framing, Kyiv aims to anchor the war within a moral and ideological context in the eyes of Western public opinion.
This rhetoric also functions as an implicit message to the West. At a time when support for Ukraine is increasingly questioned or showing signs of fatigue, Zelenskyy broadens the threat perception by highlighting an actor like Iran, with whom the West has long had deeply troubled relations. The message is clear: Ukraine is not only defending its own territory, but also the security architecture of the West.
Targeting Iran also provides Zelenskyy with a more functional rhetorical tool than directly confronting Russia. Due to global power balances, criticism of Moscow often remains within certain limits, whereas Iran is viewed as a more isolated actor within the international system. This gives Zelenskyy greater room to employ a sharper and more direct discourse.
Another critical dimension is the psychological front of the war. As Ukraine faces attrition on the battlefield, it seeks to avoid losing the initiative in the realm of narrative and perception. Openly targeting Iran reinforces the perception that the war is not confined to the Ukraine–Russia axis, but is unfolding across a much wider front. This strategy is aimed both at sustaining domestic morale and maintaining visibility on the international agenda.
Moreover, Zelenskyy’s focus on the Iranian regime also carries a message to the Global South. By exposing Iran’s military cooperation with Russia, Ukraine seeks to prompt countries that claim neutrality to reassess their positions. This discourse is part of a broader effort to generate diplomatic pressure.
Ultimately, Zelenskyy’s outspoken stance toward Iran is neither an emotional outburst nor a purely tactical move. It is a multidimensional strategy shaped by military realities, driven by diplomatic necessity, and designed in accordance with the requirements of psychological warfare.
By targeting Iran, Zelenskyy is effectively conveying a broader message: this war is not merely between two countries; it is a struggle over the future of the global order. And this narrative is as vital for Ukraine’s position at the negotiating table as the battles being fought on the ground.