The conflict between the US, Israel, and Iran stands out as a crisis that deeply affects global geopolitical balances. While this conflict shakes the traditional power dynamics of the Middle East, it is also reshaping the strategies of major powers toward the region. China has made a diplomatic move by offering to take on an active mediation role in this process. However, Beijing’s general stance can be characterized by an approach that avoids direct intervention and prioritizes its economic interests.[1]
China’s responses are consistent with its historically adopted principle of non-interference and offer opportunities to reinforce its claim to global leadership. China’s approach reflects its role as a balancing element among regional actors, combining economic dependency, diplomatic pragmatism, and long-term power balancing. China’s Middle East policy has undergone an economically focused evolution in the post-Cold War era. Having strengthened its commercial ties with Iran in the 1990s to diversify its energy dependency, Beijing transformed the region into a strategic corridor under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) after 2013. In this context, Iran has become important to China both as an oil supplier and as a counterbalance to the US. However, China has preferred to maintain diplomatic flexibility by avoiding military alliances.
In the current crisis, China’s mediation offer continues this historical trajectory, as Beijing views the conflict as a threat to economic stability. This approach aligns with China’s efforts to strengthen its image as a “responsible great power” on the global stage, yet it excludes direct intervention due to its limited military capacity.[2] Here is the English translation:
While maintaining its economic ties with Iran, China has adopted a balanced stance so as not to damage its relations with the US and Israel. This reflects China’s “win-win” philosophy in its foreign policy; however, should the crisis prolong, it is likely to reassess its strategic options. From a historical perspective, China has been observed to assume an observer role in similar crises (for example, in the Iran nuclear deal negotiations of the 2010s).
The origins of China’s Middle East policies can be traced along a trajectory stretching from the ideological solidarity of the Mao era to today’s pragmatism. Having connected with Third World countries through the Bandung Conference in the 1950s, China adopted a more balanced approach in the Middle East when it drew closer to the US in the 1970s. Relations with Iran remained limited during this period; however, China’s arms sales to both sides during the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s revealed its pragmatic stance. By the 1990s, the need for economic growth led China toward energy resources, and in this context, Iran came to the forefront due to its cheap oil and strategic location. This evolution is a process that shifted China’s foreign policy from ideology to economics, and has also been determining in the current crisis.
In the 2000s, China’s relations with Iran deepened. The strategic partnership agreement signed in 2001 increased energy trade, and China began purchasing the bulk of Iran’s oil exports. This period reached its peak with China’s announcement of the BRI in 2013, and Iran became China’s key partner in the Middle East. However, this relationship did not evolve into a military alliance; China displayed a balanced stance by supporting sanctions against Iran in the UN Security Council. This approach can be seen as a strategy for preserving China’s position in the global system: economic interests at the forefront, while minimizing the risk of conflict with the US.
In the 2010s, the Iran nuclear deal process brought China’s diplomatic role to the fore. Beijing contributed as a mediator in the deal’s negotiations, but adopted a critical stance when the Trump administration withdrew in 2018. During this period, China’s investments toward Iran increased, and the comprehensive 25-year cooperation agreement signed in 2021 promised $400 billion in investment. However, actual investments remained limited, and the relationship was largely commercial. From a critical perspective, although this agreement enhanced China’s strategic depth, its lack of military commitment reflects Beijing’s tendency toward risk aversion.
In the current US-Israel-Iran War, China’s responses are consistent with historical patterns. At the outset of the war, China condemned the actions of the US and Israel as “unacceptable,” but rejected military intervention. Foreign Minister Wang Yi held telephone conversations with various countries, calling for a reduction in tensions. This move continues China’s mediation tradition, yet is assessed by experts as having limited impact potential.[3]
The reasons for China’s distant stance are multi-layered. First and foremost, economic calculations are at the forefront: the war threatens the Strait of Hormuz, putting China’s energy supply chain at risk. Although China can secure alternative supplies from Russia, it calculates that long-term instability will affect its investments in the Global South. Second, strategic positioning: China defines its relationship with Iran as “transactional” and makes no mutual defense commitments. This allows Beijing to gain flexibility within the global system. Third, diplomatic pragmatism: acknowledging US military superiority, China avoids confrontation and instead proposes a new order through initiatives such as the “Global Security Initiative.” This stance reinforces China’s status as a great power.
In the historical chronology, China’s strategies have evolved, with an ideological focus in the early period, an economic focus in the middle period, and a geopolitical focus today. In the current crisis, China’s mediation offer can be considered an extension of the 2023 Saudi-Iran agreement, though it has remained limited due to the intensity of the war. China’s coordination with Russia is another dimension of the crisis. Both countries have made joint calls in the UN Security Council, but have refrained from military intervention. This tests their “no-limits partnership,” but does not include mutual defense.
China’s responses in the US-Israel-Iran War form a foundation that will shape its future strategies. In the short term, Beijing’s mediation efforts will continue. However, should the war prolong, economic diversification and diplomatic engagements will come to the fore.
China’s strategies can be examined across three scenarios: First, if the war ends quickly, China could restructure its relations with Iran and increase BRI investments, thereby consolidating its regional influence. In the second scenario, a prolonged conflict could exhaust US resources, giving China an advantage in the Asia-Pacific region and prompting it to accelerate its military modernization. Third, in the event of a regime change in Iran, China could pragmatically reach agreements with the new administration, maintaining its energy security while continuing its anti-US rhetoric. In conclusion, China’s future strategies will focus on increasing its influence in the Global South. The war will provide Beijing with an opportunity to highlight US “hypocrisy.”
[1] “China offers to mediate in US-Israel-Iran war”, NPR, https://www.npr.org/2026/03/05/nx-s1-5732804/china-offers-to-mediate-in-us-israel-iran-war, (Date Accessed: 07.03.2026).
[2] “‘What is the game plan?’: The Iran war is unsettling China and its ambitions”, BBC, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c2044vzrdpzo, (Date Accessed: 07.03.2026).
[3] “What the Israel-Iran War and Ceasefire Mean for China’s Relations With the U.S. and World”, TIME, https://time.com/7298254/china-us-diplomacy-military-intervention-taiwan-israel-iran-war-ceasefire/, (Date Accessed: 07.03.2026).
