As of 2026, the international system stands squarely in the midst of the turbulent interregnum famously described by Antonio Gramsci as “the old is dying and the new cannot yet be born.” The theories of international relations that defined the second half of the twentieth century have proven increasingly inadequate in explaining today’s complex power dynamics, undergoing what can be described as an ontological collapse. Western-centered Liberalism has lost its legitimacy due to the destructive consequences of selective interventionism and the instrumentalization of economic sanctions that underlie its claims to universal values. On the other hand, Realism—built on the assumption that states act as rational actors—has in the modern era given way to a landscape shaped less by state interests and more by leaders and domestic political considerations, as exemplified by figures such as Donald Trump. Amid this theoretical wreckage, China’s deep strategic partnership with Iran, grounded in a foreign policy vision rooted in a 4,000-year historical legacy and a distinct understanding of international relations, offers the world a new systemic prescription.[i]
In traditional international relations literature, Liberal Institutionalism was built on the assumption that trade and democratic values would bring about peace. However, the policies of pressure and strategies of economic exclusion applied in the case of Iran have demonstrated that Liberalism’s principle of “interdependence” can, in fact, be weaponized. Rather than responding to the needs of the Global South, the institutions of the liberal order have been transformed into instruments for preserving the status quo. Meanwhile, Realism—grounded in the cold calculation of national interest (raison d’état)—has today given way to what can be described as “leader narcissism,” as observed in the case of the United States. This shift disrupts rational calculations of the balance of power and fuels instability. For instance, the narcissistic tendencies of U.S. President Donald Trump have led to situations in which regional conflicts are not resolved but instead used as stages for his own “heroic narratives.”[ii]
China presents the Global Security Initiative (GSI) and the Global Development Initiative (GDI) as a “systemic prescription” in contrast to the West’s approach shaped by ideological impositions. At the core of this prescription lie the principles of non-interference in internal affairs, absolute respect for sovereignty, and the notion of “development first, security later.” In this context, Beijing aims not to transform Tehran’s political regime but to integrate it into the global supply chain and position it as a regional actor of stability. This approach represents a radical departure from the aggressive, value-exporting posture of Liberalism and the zero-sum logic of Realism. China’s prescription carries the promise of building a “shared future” based on practical solutions and economic prosperity rather than ideological bloc formations.[iii]
The most concrete manifestation of relations between China and Iran—the 2021 “25-Year Comprehensive Cooperation Program”—has, as of 2026, begun to bear fruit. China continues to maintain its position as Iran’s largest trading partner, even under the shadow of American sanctions. According to 2025 data, China’s crude oil imports from Iran have exceeded $30 billion, including unregistered figures. This economic engagement is not merely an exchange of energy; it also entails the modernization of Iran’s infrastructure and the securing of a critical corridor for China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). China’s approach in this process demonstrates that it uses economic power not as a tool of coercion, but as a foundation for shared development. This, in contrast to the narcissistic leadership model observed in the United States, points to an institutional and long-term state rationality.
One of the most striking aspects of China’s approach to Iran is its role of “active neutrality” and mediation in regional conflicts. Following the Saudi Arabia–Iran rapprochement in 2023, China also advocated the principle of “not adding fuel to the fire” during the Israel–U.S.–Iran tensions in 2026. Acting in coordination with regional powers such as Pakistan, Turkey, and Egypt, the “Five-Point Peace Plan” demonstrates Beijing’s intention to fill the hegemonic power vacuum in the region not through force, but through diplomacy. While military interventions and unilateral sanctions by Western powers have deepened regional chaos, China’s model of “regional solutions to regional problems” represents a shift toward collective rationality in international relations.[iv]
Iran’s accession to the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) in 2023 and to BRICS+ in 2024 stands as the clearest evidence that China has effectively placed Iran under a protective framework against policies of isolation. These multilateral platforms provide a new sphere of legitimacy for actors excluded from the liberal world order. Through these institutions, China integrates Iran into global governance structures, thereby promoting a form of multipolarity that is not based on bilateral tensions driven by the whims of narcissistic leaders—as exemplified by Donald Trump—but rather on rules-based (yet decoupled from Western hegemony) cooperation among multiple centers of power. This process of integration demonstrates that China’s “systemic prescription” is not limited to an economic dimension alone, but also offers a comprehensive institutional alternative to the existing international order.[v]
China’s military relations with Iran, contrary to claims in Western media, are not based on regional aggression but on strengthening defensive capabilities and focusing on counter-terrorism. The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) naval exercises conducted at the end of 2025, as well as the BRICS+ joint naval trainings in early 2026, were aimed at ensuring maritime security and freedom of navigation. China’s technology transfer and defense industry support to Iran are intended to preserve regional balance of power. This reflects not a form of irrational realism, but rather a stability-oriented balance policy guided by the consciousness of a “responsible great power.”[vi]
The discipline of International Relations is currently experiencing one of the deepest ontological crises in its history. The legacy theories of the 20th century—liberal institutionalism and realism—have been fractured under the geopolitical realities of 2026. The liberal claim that “international institutions and economic interdependence prevent conflict” has lost validity, as these very institutions have been weaponized through economic sanctions by the Western powers that originally created them.
In this context, the contrast between the leadership of Donald Trump and Xi Jinping represents not merely a rivalry between two states, but a collision between two distinct worldviews and governance philosophies.
The leadership style of U.S. President Donald Trump can be characterized as an era of “Narcissistic Realism” in international relations. His “America First” doctrine has shifted away from traditional state interests toward a structure that reinforces the leader’s personal charisma, short-term gains, and domestic populist image. The decision to withdraw from the Iran Nuclear Deal and the subsequent “maximum pressure” policy were driven less by rational security calculations than by a desire to erase the legacy of the previous administration and construct a personal narrative of “victory.” This narcissistic approach observed in the United States reduces alliance relations to a transactional level, erodes global predictability, and it subordinates international law to the rhetoric of the leader.
The leadership of Chinese President Xi Jinping is built upon “strategic collectivism” and “institutional continuity,” in stark contrast to narcissism-driven models of leadership. Xi’s approach toward Iran is not shaped by an individual’s pursuit of short-term victories, but rather forms a systematic component of China’s vision of a “Community of Shared Future for Mankind.” Under Xi’s leadership, China—unlike narcissistic leaders such as Donald Trump—avoids confrontational rhetoric and pursues a patient, long-term, and win–win-oriented diplomacy. China’s systemic prescription offers a counter-model to Western foreign policy shaped either by ideological impositions (liberalism) or individual self-interest (realism), presenting instead a sovereignty-centered and development-first conception of security as a kind of antidote to both.[vii]
As a regulatory power, China fills the gap in international relations theory through three main pillars: (i) Ideological purification: In contrast to the instability created by Western “democracy promotion,” China prioritizes state stability regardless of regime type. (ii) Peace through development: It demonstrates that security can be achieved not through military alliances, but through economic integration and infrastructure projects such as the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). (iii) Multipolar rationality: Rather than unilateral and impulsive decisions driven by leader narcissism, China promotes a collective form of rationality within multilateral platforms such as BRICS+ and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), codified through a discourse of compatibility and cooperation.
In this new era, where liberalism has collapsed and realism has evolved into failure, Xi’s framework positions China as a “regulatory and neutral power” in an increasingly chaotic world. The strategic partnership with Iran is not merely an energy- or trade-oriented cooperation; rather, it serves as a prototype of a new global architecture—rational, balanced, and development-oriented—constructed in response to the disorder generated by leaders such as Donald Trump. China’s approach, in a period marked by a theoretical breakdown in international relations, emerges as a rare prescription suggesting that a more just and sustainable system for humanity is possible. It may, indeed, represent the hope of a new systemic order.
[i] Coelho, D. R. (2025). A fractured world and the collapse of the liberal order. CEBRI-Journal, 4(14), 145–162.
[ii] Post, J. M. (2015). Narcissism and politics: Dreams of glory. Cambridge University Press.
[iii] “China’s four-point proposal: A path to Middle East stability”, CGTN, https://news.cgtn.com/news/2026-04-15/China-s-four-point-proposal-A-path-to-Middle-East-stability-1MmGCSD4yM8/p.html, (Date Accessed: 21.04.2026).
[iv] “China and the Iran war: creating an environment for peace”, Friends of Socialist China, https://socialistchina.org/2026/04/17/china-and-the-iran-war-creating-an-environment-for-peace/, (Date Accessed: 21.04.2026).
[v] “How China is Securing Its Alliance with Iran’s New Power Structure”, Modern Diplomacy, https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2026/03/01/how-china-is-securing-its-alliance-with-irans-new-power-structure/, (21.04.2026).
[vi] “China and the Iran Crisis”, MANOHAR PARRIKAR INSTITUTE FOR DEFENCE STUDIES AND ANALYSES, https://idsa.in/publisher/comments/china-and-the-iran-crisis, (Date Accessed: 21.04.2026).
[vii] Xi, J. (2014). The governance of China (Vol. 1). Foreign Languages Press.
