The recent volley of Israeli and U.S. strikes targeting Iran’s nuclear and military facilities has laid bare the nature of Iran’s partnership with China. Beijing, long Tehran’s diplomatic backer and largest oil customer, reacted to the crisis with words but no action. Chinese leaders condemned the attacks as violations of Iran’s sovereignty. They repeatedly called for de-escalation and ceasefires. But despite touting a “25-year cooperation” with Iran since 2021, China offered Tehran no tangible support. In practice, Beijing urged all sides to “work to de-escalate” the conflict and vowed to help evacuate Chinese citizens, even as U.S. bombs reportedly “obliterated” key Iranian sites. China’s UN ambassador and foreign ministry reiterated calls to “avoid exacerbating conflicts.” They pushed draft resolutions for an “immediate and unconditional ceasefire.” In short, China stood firmly on the sidelines of the war, limiting itself to admonitions and diplomatic gestures while the rockets flew.
This measured neutrality reflects deep-running patterns in China–Iran relations. Over the past decade, China has become, by far, Iran’s most prominent energy patron. It now takes the lion’s share of Iranian oil, roughly 90% of Tehran’s exports, making Iran “one of China’s closest allies and the biggest buyer of its oil.” Beijing and Tehran inked a much-publicized 25‑year strategic partnership in 2021, promising vast Chinese investment in Iranian energy, infrastructure and technology. Yet most of that money has not materialized. Chinese state firms have largely steered clear of major projects, wary of U.S. sanctions. By mid‑2025, total Chinese investment in Iran still hovered below $4 billion, far less than Beijing has poured into Gulf rivals like Saudi Arabia or the UAE. Iran remains attractive to China mainly as an oil supplier: at about 43 million barrels per month, Iranian crude accounts for roughly 13–14% of China’s imports.
Beijing also depends on the Strait of Hormuz for two-thirds of that flow, so any threat to that choke point worries Chinese strategists. China has quietly propped up Iran with discounted oil purchases, even as it publicly decries U.S. sanctions as “illegal.” In return, Iran has given rhetorical support on issues like sanctions relief and voted with China in international fora. However, beyond the oil trade and the specter of Russia’s anti-Western bloc (the Shanghai Cooperation Organization), Sino-Iranian cooperation has been primarily symbolic, a useful foil to U.S. influence but not a tight alliance of equals.
The latest Middle East strikes underscore the limits of that partnership. Israel’s unprecedented air attacks on Iran this summer, reportedly aimed at nuclear research facilities and senior commanders, marked a sharp escalation. Iranian missiles and drones rained down on Israeli targets in response, and for the first time, the conflict spilled beyond the region when American forces joined in. According to U.S. officials, President Trump ordered strikes that “obliterated” multiple Iranian nuclear sites, employing bunker-busting bombs, Tomahawk missiles, and air strikes. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu then declared a “historic victory” even as U.S. intelligence assessed Iran’s program set back only by months. The carnage and drama played out in Washington, Tel Aviv, Tehran, and New York, put great power rivalry on full display.
Through it all, Beijing’s role was to talk. In Beijing’s telling, China was “deeply worried” about the war and immediately urged calm. Xi Jinping spoke with Russia’s Putin and called for a ceasefire. Foreign Minister Wang Yi phoned Iran’s counterpart to “explicitly condemn” the strikes on Iranian soil. China’s UN mission co‑authored a Security Council draft demanding an “unconditional ceasefire,” even as the U.S., another veto‑holding member, weighed its veto. Spokespersons repeated the formula of international law and humanitarian concern: China “opposes any action that infringes on sovereignty” and will “strengthen communication” with all parties to restore peace. Yet Beijing has offered no military backing to Iran or any punitive measures against Israel and the U.S. Aside from evacuating roughly 3,000 Chinese nationals from Iran and Israel, its policy was to lobby everyone to the table, however ineffectively.
Strategists note that this behavior is a textbook example of the Chinese playbook. China has long sought to position itself as a “responsible stakeholder” that can mediate conflicts; however, in reality, its leverage is limited. Analysts observe that China’s response has amounted to “steady oil buys and ritual calls for ‘dialogue’… no drones or missile parts” for Iran. When U.S. jets bomb an Iranian site, China’s partnership “shrinks to statements,” one expert quipped, since Beijing wants cheap oil and a peace-mediating role without risking a confrontation that could anger either side. In effect, China’s silence and “balanced” rhetoric during the Israel‑Iran crisis reveal its broader strategy: protect economic interests and global standing without fighting. Volatility in the Middle East upsets China’s business and energy security, so Beijing calls for de‑escalation but shows “no appetite” for hard power there. This caution is consistent with Xi’s “innate caution in foreign policy,” focused on domestic stability and trade, and with China’s small overseas military footprint (one base in Djibouti). In short, China is happy to be part of multilateral talks but prefers not to intervene directly.
Indeed, Chinese officials themselves framed the situation in terms of stability and fairness. Within days of the airstrikes, Xi told a summit of Central Asian leaders that “all parties should work to de-escalate the conflict as soon as possible” and promised China would play a “constructive role” in restoring Middle East peace. In Beijing, the foreign ministry spokesman explicitly condemned the U.S. strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities as a “serious violation of the UN Charter,” and urged Israel to “immediately cease fire” to prevent the war from spreading. At the UN, China’s ambassador, Fu Cong, warned that Iran was “hurt, but the United States’ credibility was also damaged.” He denounced any temptation to “add fuel to the fire.” Editors in Chinese state media similarly scolded Washington for provoking more hatred. But behind these words lay the facts of realpolitik: China openly sided with Iran in rhetoric yet remained careful not to jeopardize ties with Gulf states or the West. It weighed its response to the Strait of Hormuz crisis: when Iran’s parliament threatened a blockade, China publicly opposed that move to protect global trade routes. And it quietly reminded the world that if an oil chokepoint were cut off, China would be severely hurt. In tweets and briefings, U.S. leaders even noted how much Iran’s oil matters to China (approximately 1.2 million barrels a day), another way of saying Beijing won’t risk losing that lifeline.
The underwhelming Chinese response has not gone unnoticed in Tehran. Iran’s supporters in the Middle East and beyond are questioning China’s usefulness. One think‑tank analysis noted that even Iran, dependent on Chinese oil, “may begin to question the value of the partnership” if Beijing only offers platitudes during crises. The ceasefire that ended 12 days of strikes was, ironically, brokered by the U.S. (with Israeli acquiescence) rather than by any Chinese initiative. President Trump quickly took credit for a truce between Israel and Iran after demonstrating U.S. force, declaring on social media that China “can now continue to purchase Oil from Iran,” a tacit nod to Beijing’s reliance on Middle East oil. That tweet also hinted at a quid pro quo: the U.S. would allow Chinese oil flows only if China’s energy purchases shifted toward U.S. oil, an attempt to leverage Chinese dependence on Iranian oil for U.S. strategic gain. Even if that policy point proved short-lived, it shows how America viewed China’s role: as an onlooker to be cajoled with messages, not as an active power broker.
This Sino-Iran episode also has implications for Taiwan and U.S. strategy in Asia. With American forces tied to the Middle East, Taiwan’s leaders are understandably anxious. The U.S. Navy has redeployed carriers and squadrons westward, with the USS Nimitz diverting from a planned South China Sea port call to bolster forces in the Gulf. The SCMP reports that this is the fourth such redeployment in a year. Taiwanese officials warn that prolonged Middle East engagement “could leave [U.S.] forces stretched too thin” if China ever moved on Taiwan. Some Taipei experts openly question how many resources America could spare if it had simultaneous wars in two theaters. In Beijing, analysts see opportunity: a distracted U.S. might reduce pressure on China’s periphery, as one scholar put it, potentially hastening “the decline of US global hegemony” by dragging America into quagmires.
Yet the picture is mixed. Others argue that the same vigorous U.S. military response in the Middle East sends a signal to Beijing that Washington remains willing to use force where it feels necessary, perhaps even in defense of Taiwan. As one defense expert noted, President Trump’s willingness to strike Iranian targets “might make Beijing think the US is more likely to respond militarily to a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan.” Indeed, analysts quoted by the Times of India argue that China’s grand claim to be a global power is undermined if it cannot act decisively even with close partners like Iran. Meanwhile, U.S. officials insist publicly that the Indo-Pacific remains Washington’s primary focus. The SCMP observes that, despite these Middle East “deployment distractions,” U.S. policy “will remain focused on containing China in the Indo-Pacific.” In essence, policymakers are caught between demonstrating global resolve and avoiding overextension. Every analyst agrees that the world sees the U.S. as bearing the lion’s share of hard-power responsibility: one commentator grimly noted that “when missiles fly, [China’s] much-touted strategic partnership with Iran shrinks to statements,” leaving America to shoulder the risks.
For U.S. decision-makers decision-makers, this episode offers several key lessons. First, it underscores that China’s economic ties do not automatically translate into strategic leverage. Beijing will likely continue to buy oil from Tehran and speak of peace, but it is unlikely to shield Iran from pressure or to challenge U.S. or Israeli military moves. The White House has begun to press China in other ways: U.S. officials publicly urged Beijing to use whatever influence it has on Tehran to prevent a Hormuz blockade, noting that China would suffer gravely if that chokepoint were closed. They have also signaled that China must choose sides if it wishes, hoping to split the U.S.-Iran stalemate by dangling trade and sanctions relief. Washington’s broader strategy seems to be to engage China in diplomacy (press for restraint) while being prepared to act unilaterally on security.
Second, the situation highlights the need to rebalance American commitments. The conflict reaffirmed U.S. military dominance; the President could declare a “historic victory” in Iran and broker ceasefire talks where China did not, but at some cost of focus. As one defense scholar warns, every Middle East crisis that “consumes American attention and resources hands Beijing strategic advantages.” The “trap” of endless Middle East wars is that they allow rivals to make gains elsewhere. Many analysts, therefore, counsel an “Asia-first” policy: resolve or de-escalate Middle Eastern conflicts quickly and keep U.S. forces available for the Pacific pivot. At the same time, the U.S. should communicate clearly to Taiwan and its allies that any aggression will be met with force, regardless of other engagements.
In short, the Israel-Iran crisis has reinforced the existing calculus of American leaders. China’s “balanced approach” in the Middle East has mainly proven performative. China demonstrated that it will not directly challenge U.S. operations, but neither will it advance Iran’s cause beyond rhetoric. For Tehran, this may prompt a reassessment of how much it can rely on Beijing. For Washington, the episode suggests that China will exploit American entanglements rather than commit its power. U.S. policymakers should, therefore, maintain pressure: continue to ask China to help if it genuinely cares about regional stability while also strengthening American alliances in Asia. At the same time, this crisis offers a reaffirmation of U.S. global leadership, the “hard power” tooth, which Beijing’s inaction could not match. How the U.S. manages the fallout, maintains support for allies, ensures energy stability, and avoids strategic overreach will shape not only the Middle East’s future but also China’s calculation of America and Taiwan. Ultimately, this confrontation reveals that China’s grand multipolar rhetoric cannot conceal the fact that it prioritizes profits over geopolitics and that it expects the U.S. to clean up where China fears to tread.
Add comment
Comments