Ukraine's recent decision to designate Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organization is more than a symbolic act. It is a statement of clarity in an age of moral confusion. It recognizes, openly and without euphemism, that the threats facing Ukraine are not isolated or accidental, but part of a broader architecture of authoritarian aggression that stretches from Eastern Europe to the Middle East. Having taken this principled step, Ukraine must now follow its logic to its conclusion: a consistent, visible, and strategic alignment with Israel and the United States across global issues, and especially in the Middle East.
For Ukrainians, the nature of the Iranian regime is not theoretical. Iranian drones have killed Ukrainian civilians, destroyed infrastructure, and become instruments of terror in a war of annihilation waged by Russia. The IRGC is not merely a regional power broker or an internal security force; it is an export hub of violence, destabilization, and proxy warfare. To recognize it as a terrorist organization is to acknowledge reality as it is, not as some would prefer it to be. That recognition places Ukraine squarely within a community of states that refuse to normalize terror under the language of "regional complexity."
This clarity should naturally extend to Ukraine's posture toward Israel. Israel has lived for decades under the shadow of Iranian-backed terror—through Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other proxies armed, trained, and financed by Tehran. The same IRGC that equips militias to target Israeli civilians also supplies drones and missiles to Russia. The axis that threatens Kyiv and Jerusalem is not identical in form, but it is unified in intent: the erosion of democratic sovereignty through violence, intimidation, and chaos.
Some argue that Ukraine should tread carefully in the Middle East, avoiding firm positions in order to preserve diplomatic flexibility or maintain support from diverse international actors. This argument misunderstands both Ukraine's interests and the nature of the current global order. Neutrality in the face of organized terror is not pragmatism; it is vulnerability. Democracies that hesitate to name their enemies invite further aggression. Ukraine's own experience since 2014, and especially since 2022, should have permanently disabused us of the illusion that ambiguity buys safety.
Moral clarity allows for moral complexity without moral equivalence. Ukraine, which knows the cost of war inflicted by an external aggressor, is uniquely positioned to articulate a principled stance: the defense of civilian life, the rejection of terrorism as a political tool, and the insistence that armed groups embedded within civilian populations bear responsibility for the violence they provoke.
The United States remains the central pillar of the democratic security architecture. Its support for Ukraine has been decisive, not only in military terms but also in sustaining the international coalition that has constrained Russia's ambitions. Israel, for its part, represents a model of resilience under permanent threat—an example of how a small democracy can combine military effectiveness, technological innovation, and social cohesion in the face of existential danger. For Ukraine, closer alignment with both is not an act of loyalty alone; it is an investment in learning, cooperation, and shared deterrence.
The Middle East matters to Ukraine not only because of Iran, but because global conflicts are increasingly interconnected. Russian activity in Syria, Iranian influence across the region, and the use of energy, food, and migration as weapons all affect European stability. When Israel confronts Iranian entrenchment in Syria or Lebanon, it is pushing back against the same destabilizing forces that fuel war in Europe. When the United States works to contain Iran's nuclear threat, it is acting to prevent a strategic shock that would reverberate far beyond the region.
Ukraine should therefore be explicit: it stands with Israel's right to self-defense, with America's leadership in confronting authoritarian regimes, and with a rules-based international order that does not excuse terror as "resistance" or aggression as "security concerns." This stance should be reflected in votes at international organizations, in public diplomacy, and in strategic cooperation. Silence or equivocation, especially after recognizing the IRGC as a terrorist organization, would undermine the credibility of Ukraine's moral position.
There is also a deeper, historical dimension to this alignment. Ukraine and Israel share a complex past, marked by tragedy, resilience, and rebirth. Both nations emerged from the wreckage of empires and genocidal violence with a determination to secure their future as sovereign, democratic states. Both understand that history does not guarantee safety, and that survival often depends on the willingness to defend oneself—and to find allies who understand that necessity.
Critics will warn that taking clear positions risks alienating parts of the Global South or complicating relations with certain European partners. But leadership is not measured by the absence of friction. It is measured by the capacity to articulate a vision and to stand by it. Ukraine has already paid an immense price for the world's earlier reluctance to confront aggression decisively. It should not repeat that mistake by hesitating when moral and strategic clarity converge.
The recognition of the IRGC as a terrorist organization was a courageous and correct step. It should be the beginning of a more coherent foreign policy doctrine—one that recognizes the interconnectedness of today's conflicts and the necessity of democratic solidarity. Standing with Israel and the United States does not mean uncritical agreement on every policy. It means a shared commitment to opposing terror, defending sovereignty, and resisting the normalization of violence as a tool of politics.
In a fractured global order, Ukraine's voice carries moral weight precisely because it speaks from experience. By aligning itself clearly with fellow democracies confronting the same authoritarian axis, Ukraine strengthens not only its own security, but the broader struggle for a world in which borders are not erased by force and civilians are not bargaining chips in ideological wars. The choice is not between principles and interests. Today, for Ukraine, they are one and the same.
