On the eve of the 2025 Parliamentary Elections, Moldova is undergoing profound transformations due to internal contradictions, domestic political instability, and large-scale external influences. In the current climate, where it is debated whether the country is closer to a point of productive change or, conversely, to continuing its current authoritarian trajectory, an analysis of the key factors shaping the present reality is particularly valuable. This is because there is evidence that this is not just an ordinary election process; moreover, it is a process likely to drag the country to a potential point of no return, with the capacity to alter its ultimate civilizational paradigm.

A brief analysis of domestic politics

In recent years, the ruling regime, led by the Party of Action and Solidarity (PAS) and Maia Sandu individually, has pursued a policy of increasing pressure on the opposition, regional movements, and the Russian-speaking population. During this process, the formation of an authoritarian state focused on complete censorship in the information sphere has been observed. For example, textbooks glorifying the Romanian fascist dictator Ion Antonescu have been introduced into the school curriculum. Local authorities are taking repressive measures against political opponents under the pretext of combating “Russian interference.” It is observed that alternative politics are being obstructed through pressure on politicians such as Alexandr Nesterovschi, Irina Lozovan, and Marina Tauber. Furthermore, celebrations of Victory Day on May 9, which represents the victory over Fascism in World War II, are being banned. This signifies a gradual abandonment of democracy and the strengthening of authoritarian tendencies.

Particular attention should also be paid to the situation in Gagauzia, an autonomous region where the authorities are pursuing a policy of limiting powers and applying economic pressure. According to many political scientists in the country, such actions could push the population of the autonomous region toward protests and conflicts. This, in turn, would further destabilize the internal order.

In the context of the upcoming elections, the active use of laws restricting protesters’ rights and attempts to reshape the electoral process in the regions are being observed. For example, the current government clearly demonstrates its intention to control the outcome of the vote and minimize the influence of opposition forces by changing the electoral procedure in Gagauzia.

Another issue is the “Transnistria Issue.” The Moldovan authorities appear to be pursuing a policy of economic and humanitarian pressure on the Transnistrian Moldavian Republic [the self-proclaimed name of the breakaway state]. Measures such as a policy of double customs duties, a banking blockade, and a ban on the supply of medicines are being observed. Transnistrian leader Vadim Krasnoselsky claims that a “policy equivalent to a policy of genocide” is being implemented against them and states that the Moldovan government is attempting a physical and political destruction of the region.

A brief analysis of foreign policy

Despite the country’s leadership’s efforts to sever ties with the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and reduce cultural and economic links with Russia, these measures are leading to a worsening economic situation and rising internal tensions. Notably, the country’s export figures are declining following the termination of the visa-free regime with most CIS countries and the decision to refuse cooperation with Russia. According to official figures, exports are projected to decrease by approximately 45% by the end of 2024, and exports to the Russian market have already fallen by more than 50%. Such indicators point to significant economic isolation, which negatively impacts the well-being of the population.

However, despite the authorities’ geopolitical orientation, the majority of the population still prefers a pro-Russian or a balanced foreign policy (according to polls, more than 60% of respondents lean towards a foreign policy orientation towards Russia or both centers of influence—the Russian Federation and the European Union). This highlights the internal conflict between the intelligentsia, which supports pro-Western strategies, and the citizens who wish to maintain cultural and historical ties with Russia.

The reaction from the EU and other Western structures is also clear: on the eve of the elections, the European Commission approved aid to Moldova. This demonstrates Europe’s efforts to strengthen its influence and stabilize the country on its new course. However, such financial support (€2 Billion) raises concerns about the country’s dependence on external donors and potential conditionalities.

On the other hand, active militarization is being observed in Moldova with the clear support of NATO and the European Union. The national army has been increased to 8,000 personnel, and integration into European air defense systems is underway. Additionally, Moldovan highways and airspace are being used by Western forces to support the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

Freedom of expression and geopolitics

The activation of an information policy aimed at controlling the media and suppressing freedom of expression holds a special place in the context of Moldova. During the election campaign, authorities are enacting bills that restrict public protests and are also attempting to suppress Russian-language media outlets, which provide objective information to a significant portion of the population.

A key factor here is the attempt by Russia and the West to influence the domestic political situation through information warfare. This is becoming a harbinger of potential crises and increased internal discord. It is likely to lead to economic hardship and social tensions, examples of which have been seen in many forms in the recent past.

Meanwhile, the Moldovan economy continues to face serious challenges. Industry is declining, energy dependence on gas and electricity imports remains high, and tariff policies are causing public discontent. In 2024, exports to both Russia and other CIS countries have decreased, further worsening the economic situation.

From a sociological perspective, youth and the Russian-speaking population in particular appear to be under significant pressure. The authorities are taking steps to limit the rights of ethnic minorities, for instance, by denying them opportunities to participate in elections or rejecting integration measures for Russian-speaking citizens. This is causing resistance and the development of potential conflict situations.

Interaction and integration processes with Romania

One of the most critical issues here is the granting of Romanian citizenship to Moldovans. Additionally, there is an intensification of integration efforts with Romania, implemented through the inclusion of Romanian businesspeople in the economy and media influence on public opinion. Experts believe this strategy could lead to a loss of the country’s sovereignty and the de facto assimilation of the Moldovan people into Romania, or to an expansion of integration into the European Union.

The majority of the population remains neutral or holds sentiments favorable to integration with Russia. In contrast, the steps initiated by the authorities to move closer to the EU, coupled with nationalist rhetoric, are causing internal resistance.

In conclusion, the situation in Moldova ahead of the 2025 parliamentary elections is characterized by a high degree of internal tension, growing external dependence, and a struggle for the country’s identity. The political elite, under the influence of external powers, is using repressive methods to consolidate its power and control over the region, which leads to risks of authoritarianism. Internal contradictions, the economic crisis, and the level of citizens’ distrust in the government are creating the preconditions for protest movements and further division in society. Moldova’s development prospects appear to depend on its ability to maintain political stability, balance external influence, and secure public support for change. The ability of internal forces to reach a consensus that considers the views of various ethnic and regional groups and remains committed to the path of developing democratic institutions and economic sustainability stands out as one of the most crucial aspects of this process.

On June 20, the mutual airstrikes between Israel and Iran entered their second week, with both sides suffering heavy losses. The confrontation is escalating, and a ceasefire seems unlikely in the short term. Moreover, the U.S. has openly supported Israel’s strikes on Iran, intercepting Iranian missiles and drones, and is preparing to join in the offensive. President Trump has not only threatened Iran to “completely surrender” but also sent three aircraft carrier fleets to the Middle East, raising the possibility of a two-against-one situation that could resemble the Yugoslav war—defeating the opponent through prolonged joint airstrikes.

The Persian Gulf is a vital oil hub, and Iran’s nuclear facilities are a main target, raising the risk of global oil and gas disruptions and possible nuclear leakage or proliferation. This conflict is more concerning than most regional wars and affects global stability. Beyond the military and diplomatic specifics, it’s necessary to assess the rights and wrongs of the Israel-Iran conflict from a grand historical perspective. This marks a final showdown after over forty years of hostility, ending years of mutual insults, threats, and proxy wars. Now both countries are engaging directly in a high-intensity duel.

Firstly, Israel’s preemptive strike lacks legitimacy and justice, drawing widespread international condemnation. As a UN member, attacking another member without a formal declaration of war—based only on suspicion of nuclear development—violates international law and the UN Charter. It is a blatant infringement of Iran’s sovereignty and civilian rights, and a reckless challenge to modern legal and civilizational norms.

This is not Israel’s first violation of another nation’s sovereignty. In 1956, Israel joined the UK and France in the Suez Crisis. In 1967, citing the potential threat of an imminent attack by Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, Israel launched a preemptive strike, taking the initiative to destroy the air forces of the three countries. It subsequently occupied Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula, Syria’s Golan Heights, and seized the Palestinian Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem—the holy city—from Egypt and Jordan. In 1981, Israel flagrantly violated the airspace of Jordan and Saudi Arabia, launching a long-range airstrike with a large formation of aircraft to destroy Iraq’s nuclear facility under construction. In 2007, the Israeli Air Force penetrated deep into eastern Syria and bombed a nuclear reactor that was also under construction. Between 2009 and 2012, the Israeli Air Force carried out multiple long-distance strikes over a thousand kilometers away in Sudan, targeting what it claimed were dangerous threats.

Admittedly, Israel was indeed in a state of hostility or ceasefire with these Arab countries, and the governments of these countries did harbor animosity toward Israel. It is also possible that some of them were preparing for war. However, Israel has consistently invoked its small territorial size, lack of strategic depth, and encirclement by hostile forces as justification for launching preemptive offensives, in order to maintain absolute military superiority and ensure its own security. In reality, since its establishment in 1948, Israel has never fundamentally overcome its strategic predicament. One key reason lies in its excessive reliance on military means and its deep attachment to warfare, leading it to become, in effect, a military force operating under the guise of a state.

Now possessing nuclear weapons and overwhelming superiority, Israel’s justification for attacking Iran over suspected nuclear ambitions is widely condemned as unjust and hypocritical.

The confrontation between Israel and Iran is a continuation of the “Sixth Middle East War,” which erupted on October 7, 2023. Although the immediate trigger was the offensive launched by the Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), the deeper root lies in Israel’s long-standing illegal occupation, exploitation, and encroachment upon Palestinian territories. It reflects the persistent dynamic of occupation and resistance, plunder and counter-plunder, that has defined the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for over half a century. While this round of war may appear to have resulted in a military victory for Israel—defeating Hamas and its allies, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Syrian government, and even humiliating Iran for its involvement—the underlying cause of the conflict remains unresolved: Israel’s continued refusal to return the Palestinian, Lebanese, and Syrian territories it illegally occupies.

According to international law, peoples under occupation have the right to armed resistance, and states subjected to aggression have the right to self-defense. This is the crux of the Middle East dispute and the reason why Israel finds itself increasingly isolated and lacking in international support.

That said, Iran cannot be regarded as entirely innocent in the face of Israeli attacks. Israel’s illegal occupation of Arab territories is fundamentally a dispute between Israel and Arab states, and international opinion has largely sided with the Arab position, consistently condemning Israel’s occupation practices. However, since the establishment of the Islamic Republic in 1979, Iran has refused to recognize Israel as a sovereign state and has maintained a hostile stance toward a country with which it neither shares a border nor has any territorial disputes. Moreover, Iran has continuously supported Hezbollah in Lebanon and hardline Palestinian factions in their military struggle against Israel, thereby constituting a substantive challenge to Israel’s national security and regional stability.

In recent years, Iran has used its involvement in the international war on terror and its nuclear deal with the Obama administration to secure tacit recognition of its regional sphere of influence. It successfully established the “Shia Crescent” from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean, forming a Tehran–Baghdad–Damascus–Beirut–Sana’a axis. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and large numbers of Shia militias have infiltrated Syria and set up numerous military bases, posing a direct threat to Israel. This in turn has prompted Israel to repeatedly bomb Syria—who has the will but not the ability to retaliate—ultimately leading to the collapse of the Assad regime that ruled Syria for decades.

Iran’s deep involvement in Middle East conflicts—especially the Palestinian-Israeli and Arab-Israeli conflicts—is not based on international legal norms, but rather on pan-Islamist ideology. This ideology holds that Muslim countries have a duty to liberate occupied Islamic lands and oppressed Muslim brothers. However, traditional religious law cannot replace modern international law, and sympathy for Palestinians, Lebanese, or Syrians cannot justify proxy warfare. Over time, Iran has become not just the base and backer of Israel’s enemies but has also brought war and disaster upon itself. From the perspective of international law and international relations, it is not excessive to say Iran “brought the attack upon itself.”

In essence, is Iran really aiming to solve the Palestinian-Israeli and Arab-Israeli conflicts? If it were, Iran would support peaceful negotiations based on UN resolutions, and at least acknowledge Israel as a sovereign state, even if not normalize relations. Iran would align with the collective stance of Arab nations, advocating “land for peace,” and recognize Israel’s sovereignty contingent on withdrawal from occupied Arab lands. Instead, Iran has pursued a path that overrides Arab nations’ consensus, attempting to dominate Arab-Israeli territorial disputes like an impatient outsider. Iran’s Middle East policy is fundamentally driven by Persian nationalism—under the guise of reclaiming Arab lands, it seeks to increase regional influence while avoiding the disadvantages of being an ethnic and sectarian minority in the Arab-dominated Middle East.

Third, the pain and historical choice facing the peoples of Israel and Iran. When war breaks out, it is the ordinary people of both nations who suffer most. But the greatest value of this war may be whether it awakens public opinion in both countries—enough to reshape national policy and eliminate the cycle of hostility.

Both Israel and Iran, to varying degrees, are democratic nations—at least in law, with separation of powers and regular leadership changes. While their systems differ—Israel as a Western-style multiparty democracy and Iran as a theocratic authoritarian Islamic republic—both countries’ political structures ultimately reflect the will of their people. The enduring policies that brought today’s conflict cannot be blamed solely on governments; the people share responsibility.

Israel’s aggressive and expansionist policies are deeply tied to the worldview, security mindset, and sense of justice of its Jewish majority. Centuries of exile and suffering—culminating in near extinction—have become a cultural gene that prioritizes survival and security over neighborly rights. This has prevented strong public pressure to return occupied lands for peace, and instead enabled far-right forces to drive policy toward militarism, giving the government unchecked power and exposing Israelis to endless danger.

As millions of Gazans live in what’s called “the world’s largest prison,” as over 50,000 Palestinians have died in the past year and continue to bleed and starve, the Israeli public remains numb. Watching their government seize neighboring land and fuel national prosperity while ignoring the lasting hatred this creates, Israelis drink poison as if it were wine. When current far-right leaders drag the country into war with Iran to save their political careers, the response is panic and calls for harsher retaliation—not reflection on the nation’s course.

Iran, meanwhile, regularly changes leadership but maintains its confrontational foreign policy—with the consent or apathy of its people. Over 40 years ago, Iranians overthrew the corrupt and brutal Pahlavi monarchy in a revolution led by clerics. The new Islamic Republic soon plunged into an eight-year war with Iraq, costing nearly a million lives. Yet these painful lessons did not shift public will toward focusing on internal development. Instead, Persians embraced a mix of nationalist nostalgia, martyrdom in holy wars, and emotionalism—fueling continued confrontation with Arab neighbors and the outside world.

Over the past few decades, the Arab-Israeli conflict has undergone a major transformation. Starting with peace between Egypt, Jordan, and the PLO with Israel, and progressing to the normalization of relations between Israel and the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan, the political landscape of the Middle East has shifted significantly. The region’s political main theme has turned toward peace, reconciliation, cooperation, and development. However, the Iranian people continue to blindly follow their government’s outdated and rigid policies, enduring hardship and political repression, sacrificing economic development and national progress, while stubbornly clinging to anti-Israel rhetoric and ambitions to eliminate Israel. They persist in claiming the mission of reclaiming Arab lands, even at the cost of engaging in a prolonged struggle with the U.S. and the West, dragging their country into isolation and turning their capital into a city that people flee.

2,500 years ago, the ancestors of the Iranian people established the first empire spanning Asia, Africa, and Europe—the Persian Empire. The Achaemenid dynasty ruled with an inclusive and open approach. It was this dynasty that generously freed the Jews from Babylonian captivity after 70 years of enslavement. The Jews were so moved that they revered the Persian king Cyrus the Great as a savior. The Jewish princess Esther, concealing her identity, became queen and won the favor of King Xerxes. Together with her powerful uncle Mordecai, they used their influence to eliminate their enemies, the Amalekites, and protect the Jewish people. These legendary stories represent a historical peak of Jewish-Iranian coexistence and harmony.

Yet in the modern age, Israel and Iran have become bitter enemies for nearly half a century due to diverging national policies. This is a tragic irony, a misfortune for both nations and their people, and a betrayal of the shared legacy of Jewish and Persian civilizations. The ongoing and escalating indirect war between Israel and Iran will have no winners regardless of the outcome. Hopefully, the decision-makers and voting citizens of both nations will awaken from the flames of war, shift their policies, abandon mutual hostility, and join Arab states in upholding the principle of “land for peace.”

They should work to resolve the Palestinian issue based on the two-state solution, expand the Abraham Accords by supporting the return of Lebanese and Syrian territories through negotiations, and build mutual understanding, acceptance, and respect. Only then can the long-standing conflict between Israel and Iran come to an end. Together, they can help the Middle East break free from cycles of war and chaos, and move toward peace and development like other regions that have already put large-scale violence behind them—making up for lost time and missed opportunities for prosperity.

Prof. Ma is the Dean of the Institute of Mediterranean Studies (ISMR) at Zhejiang International Studies University in Hangzhou. He specializes in international politics, particularly Islam and Middle Eastern affairs. He previously worked as a senior Xinhua correspondent in Kuwait, Palestine, and Iraq.

As someone who has wanted to bomb Iran for nearly 30 years, it’s not hard to understand that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has his own agenda and is using claims of Iran developing nuclear weapons as a pretext. This demonization campaign has been quite long-running. Even in the 1990s, he persistently made this claim, which had no basis in fact. In fact, US intelligence reports at the time clearly showed this claim to be false. The most recent US intelligence report, published this past March, says the same thing. Despite this, Netanyahu persists with his claims, wildly exaggerating them. One of his latest claims is that Iran will build nuclear weapons and distribute them to terrorists.

Iran’s right to a peaceful nuclear program, conducted with full transparency under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA], should be considered a normal state of affairs. Indeed, in 2015, under President Obama’s leadership, the US and the UK supported this agreement, and it was signed. At the time, Iran also stated that it had no nuclear weapons program and welcomed being fully open to inspections.

When Trump took office in 2017, he withdrew from this agreement in 2018—likely due to pressure from the Israel lobby in the US—plunging everything back into uncertainty. Trump’s “maximum pressure” policy, on the contrary, pushed Iran to increase its uranium enrichment activities. It is extremely interesting and confusing that Trump, having withdrawn from a previously agreed-upon deal during his first term, would now strive to return to it in a potential second term. It would be naive to think that Trump has learned from the past and wants to correct his mistake.

It is very clear that Israel, under Netanyahu’s leadership, wants to topple the Iranian regime using the nuclear program as a pretext. It is advancing toward this goal step by step, virtually paralyzing opposing forces and preventing them from offering any meaningful response. At this point, it is also moving away from the typical Western approach of preferring “the devil you know.”

The pretext of nuclear bombs instead of weapons of mass destruction

An attempt to bring about regime change in a Middle Eastern state was also made 20 years ago in Iraq. We witnessed the horror created by the Iraq plan, which led to the rise of ISIS and the deaths of millions. At the time, US Secretary of State Colin Powell, in his speech at the UN, said, “Saddam Hussein has chemical weapons. Saddam Hussein has used such weapons and has no qualms about using them again against his neighbors and his own people.” In his presentation, Powell used reconnaissance photos, detailed maps and charts, and even recorded phone conversations between high-ranking members of the Iraqi army. The phrase “weapons of mass destruction,” which he repeated 17 times during his hour-long speech, accompanied by information that intelligence officials had assured him was reliable, became the public justification used by the Bush administration to legitimize the invasion of Iraq.

A month and a half after Powell’s UN speech, President Bush ordered airstrikes on Baghdad. In a televised address to the nation, Bush said this was the beginning of a military operation “to disarm Iraq, to free its people, and to defend the world from grave danger.” US forces, along with their internal collaborators in Iraq, overthrew the Saddam Hussein regime within a few weeks, and evidence of Iraq’s so-called “weapons of mass destruction” was nowhere to be found.

The Bush administration used the credibility of Colin Powell—known for his opposition to war, particularly US military interventions in the Middle East—to bring about regime change in Iraq. Powell later described his UN speech as a “major intelligence failure” and a “blot” on his record. Before he died, Powell expressed his regret, admitting that his sources had turned out to be wrong, flawed, and even deliberately misleading.

If Israel succeeds in neutralizing Iran—and perhaps even turning it into an ally in the medium to long term—guess which conventional power in the region will be its next target? Efforts to demonize Türkiye have been underway for a long time, although they are currently on the back burner. A bilateral confrontation in the region would unfold on a very different footing than a trilateral balance; we had better take precautions and fasten our seatbelts.