China’s neutrality – Nearly four months after the US and Israel attacked Iran, China is portraying its neutrality and diplomacy as proof of both “peace” leadership and resilience through an energy crunch—while some observers inside China debate whether the war was a “Suez moment”
When US and Israeli bombs began falling on Iran at the end of February, China’s leaders were reportedly facing a familiar fear: that another friendly regime could be decapitated, like a similar outcome seen with Venezuela only weeks earlier.
Nearly four months later, that scenario did not play out. The United States and Iran have reached an interim agreement after weeks of peace talks. but the regime in Tehran remains in place. The war. widely seen as a test that exposed the limits of American power. has also become a stage for China to insist its own diplomatic weight is rising.
China’s message has traveled far beyond Beijing. During the conflict. China’s leaders hosted a parade of foreign figures. and United States President Donald Trump repeatedly praised Xi Jinping for staying neutral. At a G7 press conference in France on Wednesday. Trump said. “I want to thank China. President Xi … he stayed neutral. totally neutral. and I appreciate it. ” and pointed to what Xi did not do: Trump said Xi did not use China’s naval might to defy the US blockade on Iranian ports. “They didn’t do that. President Xi helped me. He tried to help, and I think he probably helped get it solved,” Trump added.
China’s Foreign Ministry also welcomed the announcement of the US-Iran deal in comments this week. A spokesperson said Beijing “stands ready” to play an active role in “restoring peace and tranquility” to the Middle East. When asked whether Beijing had a hand in the agreement, the spokesperson, Lin Jian, did not confirm any specific role. But Lin Jian also emphasized China’s “tireless” efforts to end the war. including leader Xi Jinping’s release of a four-point peace proposal in April.
Beijing’s diplomacy during the conflict has been carefully drawn. China condemned the US and Israeli attack on Iran. continued to buy Iranian oil despite US sanctions. and kept communications open with players on both sides. As the fighting dragged on. leaders kept arriving in Beijing. including Trump last month. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi days earlier. and leaders of Pakistan. described as the conflict’s main mediator.
Iran at first pressed for a more formal Chinese role. seeking China’s backing as a guarantor in a peace deal. Beijing, however, showed little interest in such a commitment. On Wednesday. China’s top diplomat Wang Yi spoke with Araghchi over the phone and called for navigation in the Strait of Hormuz to be “properly handled.” Wang said. “The dawn of peace has emerged. The key to the next step is for all parties to truly implement their commitments and eliminate interference from all sides.”.
Whether China used its influence behind the scenes is unclear. and it is not clear whether or to what degree Beijing used diplomatic weight to backchannel toward the latest agreement. Still. a memorandum of understanding was formally signed on Wednesday. and that signature triggers a 60-day period to negotiate the final terms of a deal.
For China, the sequence matters. The point is not only that others went to war while China positioned itself as a responsible power—it’s that China also weathered the economic shock created by the conflict. and did so in a way it believes boosted its credibility. The world’s second-largest economy “weathered the historic energy crunch” triggered by the conflict better than many of its neighbors. in part due to copious strategic oil reserves and its embrace of green tech and electric vehicles.
As the next round of talks begins. attention is shifting toward what the United States gained from a conflict that carried heavy global economic costs. In China, opposition to a US-dominated world order is a common thread in foreign policy thinking. Political commentators have been debating how the war has affected the US’ position globally—whether it amounted to a “Suez moment” for Washington.
That phrase refers to Britain’s loss of control over the Suez Canal in the 1950s. often described as a turning point for Britain’s decline and its eclipse by the United States. In an opinion piece published Tuesday in China’s state-run Global Times. Sun Degang of Fudan University’s Center for Middle Eastern Studies in Shanghai asked. “Is the scene that cast a shadow over the British Empire during the Suez crisis now being replayed for the United States in the Strait of Hormuz?” Sun wrote that since the end of the Cold War. the United States had become the world’s “sole superpower.” This time. however. “US military power did not prove as overwhelmingly powerful as Washington had imagined. ” and the absence of key allies backing its war showed that the “US-led global alliance system has shown increasing signs of division.”.
The question has been debated in the West as well. But inside China. some commentators argue Beijing has benefited from the conflict even if it did not take a direct seat at the negotiating table. Political commentator Hu Xijin wrote on the social media platform Weibo earlier this week: “China has no interest in wearing the ‘victor’s halo’ of a distant Middle Eastern war.” Even so. Hu said the conflict shaped global perceptions of China—highlighting the success of China’s “strategic planning” to weather energy shocks and the appeal of its peaceful “development path.” Hu also wrote that the war has “significantly diminished” the US’ deterrent power when it comes to Taiwan. pointing to limits in US munitions stockpiles and an inability to build a Western coalition even against an isolated enemy like Iran.
China claims Taiwan as its own and has not ruled out using force to take control of the democratic island. Hu wrote: “What leverage does the US have to convince its allies in Europe to go head-to-head with China for American interests?”
How Beijing might respond to what it sees as a diminished US is still open. China has long framed itself as the champion of a “multipolar world. ” and officials are likely to use the conflict to push for another shift it wants—ending what it views as a security environment dominated by the US and its alliances.
During the war, though, Beijing appeared to favor navigation over confrontation. It backed longtime partner Iran rhetorically. criticized the US for sparking the conflict in measured terms. and held multiple calls and meetings with Gulf states that came under Iran’s attack. China is widely seen to have pushed Tehran toward talks with Washington earlier this spring. even as Chinese companies—according to the US government—supported Tehran’s weapons procurement. Beijing broadly denies providing weapons to countries in conflict.
Xi’s ability to host Trump for a friendly meeting last month, despite those assessments and while China remains the largest buyer of Iranian oil, is being read by observers as a sign of Beijing’s clout—and of a balancing act engineered to keep China in control of the narrative.
At the same time. some inside China caution that even if the US faces a “Suez moment. ” China would not automatically step into the same role as the world’s dominant power. Sun Chenghao. a fellow at Tsinghua University’s Center for International Security and Strategy in Beijing. told CNN that “The US remains the most powerful external actor in the Middle East. What has changed is that its dominance now requires far greater political. military. economic and reputational costs.” He said the conflict may make China’s worldview—emphasizing sovereignty. non-interference. political settlement and development-oriented security—more attractive to many countries.
“But credibility is built not only through criticism of US actions; it also depends on whether China can provide practical diplomatic solutions, protect energy stability, and help create conditions for de-escalation,” Sun Chenghao said.
For now. China’s claim is simple: it survived the worst of the crisis without turning the Strait of Hormuz into a battlefield. helped keep communication channels open. and emerged with enough diplomatic momentum to call itself a peace broker while the next phase of negotiations runs its 60-day clock.
China Xi Jinping Donald Trump Iran war US-Iran interim agreement Lin Jian Wang Yi Abbas Araghchi Strait of Hormuz energy crunch strategic oil reserves green tech electric vehicles Suez moment Global Times Hu Xijin Taiwan