What are China's economic interests in Iran?
, one of
Iran's closest allies
and the biggest buyer of its oil, has stayed on the sidelines of its
conflict with Israel
, urging a diplomatic solution.
Following are details of its investments in Iran:
Cooperation Pact:
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
If You Eat Ginger Everyday for 1 Month This is What Happens
Tips and Tricks
Undo
Beijing
has long backed U.S.-sanctioned
Tehran
as part of efforts to deepen its strategic and economic heft in the
Middle East
. In 2021, they signed a 25-year cooperation deal, though full details were never disclosed and analysts say follow-up implementation has been weak.
However, Chinese investment in Iran lags what Beijing puts into other nations in the region.
Live Events
"Chinese state-owned companies have largely stayed away, mostly out of fear of running afoul of U.S. sanctions," said Bill Figueroa, a China-Middle East expert at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands.
The American Enterprise Institute estimates total Chinese investment since 2007 at just under $5 billion, while Chinese commerce ministry data shows its direct investments in Iran by the end of 2023 totalled $3.9 billion.
By contrast, Beijing invested more than $8.1 billion in the United Arab Emirates between 2013-2022, and almost $15 billion in Saudi Arabia between 2007-2024, the think-tank says.
Energy:
China imports around 43 million barrels of oil per month from Iran - accounting for some 90% of Iran's oil exports and roughly 13.6% of China's crude purchases.
Around 65% of total crude and condensate shipped through the Strait of Hormuz off Iran is destined for China, according to shipping data firm Vortexa.
China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC) in 2016 signed a $4.8 billion deal with France's Total to develop the offshore South Pars gas field in the Gulf with an Iranian state firm.
CNPC's stake of 30% was worth around $600 million. However, the state-owned petroleum giant pulled out of the project due to U.S. pressure in 2019.
CNPC also signed a deal in 2009 to develop the North Azadegan oil field, with the first phase valued at about $2 billion. The first cargo of 2 million barrels was shipped to China in 2016.
China's biggest refiner Sinopec signed a $2 billion deal to develop the Yadavaran oil field in 2007. In 2017, Sinopec signed a contract worth about $2.1 billion to upgrade a refinery in Abadan near the Gulf coast. It remains under construction.
In 2024, China's LDK Solar reached a deal with Iran's Ghadir Investment Group for a large-scale photovoltaic power plant with investment of around 1 billion euros ($1.16 billion). It was expected to generate 2 billion kilowatt-hours of solar power annually.
Railways:
In 2018, China National Machinery Industry Corporation signed a 5.3 billion yuan ($738 million) deal to expand and renovate a railway connecting Tehran with the cites of Hamedan and Sanandaj to improve connectivity in west Iran.
Also that year, a subsidiary of China Railway Construction Corporation signed a contract worth 3.5 billion yuan for the 263 km Kermanshah-Khosravi railway project in west Iran, with a construction period of 48 months.
China's Norinco International signed an agreement in 2018 to build the first tramway line in the Iranian city of Qazvin, at about $150 million.
In 2017, China Eximbank and an Iranian state bank signed a $1.5 billion deal to upgrade and electrify a 926 km railway between Tehran and the eastern city of Mashhad as part of Beijing's Belt and Road Initiative. However, the project has stalled over financing negotiations.
Metals:
In 2017, China's Metallurgical Corporation (MCC) invested around $350 million in the Sepid Dasht steel plant and won a design contract for a pelletising project. However, local media reported that the projects were delayed by financing issues.
($1 = 7.1783 Chinese yuan renminbi)
($1 = 0.8623 euros)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
13 minutes ago
- Time of India
From Pather Panchali to Zohran Mamdani: Why brown people eating with their hands gives the West nightmares - decoding the culture war
The Mamdani Controversy: Rice, Rituals, and MAGA Outcry This summer, a viral video showed New York politician Zohran Mamdani eating biryani with his hands during an interview. In response, Texas Congressman Brandon Gill fumed that 'civilised people in America don't eat like this. If you refuse to adopt Western customs, go back to the Third World. ' His wife Danielle D'Souza Gill – an India-born MAGA pundit – piled on, declaring she 'never grew up eating rice with [her] hands' and 'always used a fork,' insisting her Indian Christian relatives did the same. The outburst ignited a social media firestorm. Critics noted the hypocrisy: Americans routinely devour burgers, tacos, fries, and pizza by hand, yet Gill condemned hand-eating as 'uncivilised.' Many pointed out that billions eat with their hands daily, labelling his comments as pure racism. Images of President Trump eating pizza with his bare hands swiftly made the rounds, mocking the idea that hand-eating is somehow barbaric. In the end, people across Asia stood up for the common practice of eating with one's hands, underlining that dining customs run deep in culture and are not to be dictated by Western lawmakers with fragile sensibilities. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like One of the Most Successful Investors of All Time, Warren Buffett, Recommends: 5 Books for Turning... Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Click Here Undo Ray's Pather Panchali and Western Snobbery This isn't the first time Western audiences have bristled at seeing Asians eat authentically. When Satyajit Ray 's Pather Panchali debuted in 1955, some Western critics recoiled at its realism. The story begins with a rural Bengali family eating rice with their hands, and French filmmaker François Truffaut quipped he 'did not want to see a movie of peasants eating with their hands.' The New York Times reviewer similarly sniffed that the film was too loose and listless, despite its understated poetry. Even in India, some officials feared the film was 'exporting poverty,' with former actress-turned-politician Nargis Dutt famously making that charge. Ray's work later became a world classic, but the initial response reflects an old bias: Western gatekeepers found an honest portrayal of humble, hand-to-mouth life unacceptable. Poor brown people eating with their hands was not what the Cannes set wanted with their champagne. Why Eating with Hands Feels Better For millions of Indians, eating with one's hands is not just tradition but pleasure. The act engages all five senses. You feel the warmth of the rice and dal as your fingers mix them together. You mould a perfect bite-sized morsel, adding curry or pickle to balance the flavours. The touch tells you if the roti is still soft, if the rice has cooled enough, if the fish bones have been removed. In Ayurveda, eating with your hands is said to activate energy centres connected to digestion. Even without mysticism, there is practicality. Indian food – with its gravies, rice, rotis, and layered textures – is designed to be mixed and balanced bite by bite. Forks and spoons reduce it to awkward scooping, like trying to paint watercolours with a ballpoint pen. Fingers are the original cutlery, tailored to your own grip, temperature tolerance, and tactile sense. The food becomes an extension of you rather than an object to be speared and lifted. Evolution of Etiquette: From Fingers to Forks In truth, using hands to eat is an ancient, global tradition. In Asia – and many parts of the Middle East and Africa – meals are still commonly eaten with the right hand. Indians traditionally wash their hands thoroughly before dining, then use fingertips to feel the temperature of the food and combine flavours. Rice and curry are picked up between the fingers and thumb and brought to the mouth. The left hand is kept clean and used only for serving or passing dishes. This is not unsanitary by local standards; careful handwashing and using only fingers (not whole hands) is part of the practice. By contrast, formal cutlery arrived in Europe relatively late. Forks spread westward through Byzantium to Italy, and only by the 1500s were forks seen among European elites. Catherine de' Medici famously brought forks to France in 1533, but even then they were a novelty. In Britain, medieval diners ate with fingers and knives until forks became fashionable in the 1700–1800s. Grand dinners with silver knives and forks became the standard only then. Before that, finger-eating was universal. But with the fork's adoption, by the 19th century, finger-eating in polite society was denounced as 'cannibal' behaviour. Western table manners, therefore, are a recent invention, codified after centuries of changing habits. Colonial Attitudes and Modern Double Standards These new Western norms carried moral overtones in the colonial era. British colonialists often disparaged Indian dining customs as primitive. By the mid-1800s, finger-eating was so taboo in polite society that etiquette guides labelled it savage. This historic snobbery resurfaced in the 1950s with Pather Panchali: showing peasants eating rice by hand was literally too unrefined for some Western eyes. Today, the Mamdani case highlights the absurdity of these attitudes. Critics who call hand-eating 'uncivilised' conveniently ignore that Americans and Europeans themselves handle many foods bare-handed. Westerners may scoff, yet most Americans eat pizza, burgers, sandwiches, fries, and chicken wings – with their hands. It is pure hypocrisy. The backlash to Mamdani shows that many people now recognise this: labelling hand-eating as unsanitary or uncivilised is little more than prejudice dressed up in etiquette. The Bottom Line: Etiquette is Cultural In the end, dining manners are deeply cultural and ever-changing. Whether one uses a fork or fingers is a matter of upbringing, not of inherent civilisation. To millions of Asians, using hands is as natural and polite as using cutlery is in the West. Judging one another's table habits misunderstands history. Forks are only a few centuries old, whereas eating by hand dates back to prehistory. Perhaps true civilisation is less about utensils and more about respect – keeping hands clean, sharing food generously, and eating with dignity. In a globalised world, demanding everyone conform to Western-style dining is an anachronism. Rather than policing plates, a more gracious etiquette is recognising that many cultures have perfectly respectable, time-honoured ways of eating – forks or hands included. Because at the end of the day, if you're offended by someone else's fingers touching their rice, it says more about you than it does about them.
Business Standard
15 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Chinese stocks edge up to seven-month high
Chinese stocks were supported amid choppy trades as investors awaited the monthly US nonfarm payroll data. China's Shanghai Composite index added 0.18% to 3,461.15 as the Trump administration lifted recent export license requirements for chip design software sales in China. The overall mood still remains positive for the Chinese equities and the benchmark index has hit seven-month high now, marking a gain of around 3% over last one month.
Time of India
15 minutes ago
- Time of India
‘We had just 30 seconds': Pakistan PM's aide recalls near-nuclear panic after India's BrahMos strike, credits Trump for de-escalation
A top Pakistani politician and close aide to prime minister Shehbaz Sharif has acknowledged that during Operation Sindoor , Pakistan's military had just 30 to 45 seconds to assess whether a BrahMos cruise missile launched by India carried a nuclear warhead. 'When India fired BrahMos at Nur Khan airbase, Pakistan's military had only seconds to determine if it was nuclear. That's a dangerous situation,' Rana Sanaullah, special assistant to Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, said in an interview. The missile struck Nur Khan airbase, a high-value Pakistan Air Force (PAF) facility in Chaklala, Rawalpindi. Sanaullah admitted the incident threw Pakistan into panic mode, raising fears of a full-scale nuclear conflict. A flashpoint moment The BrahMos strike came in the backdrop of a major India-Pakistan conflict following a terrorist attack in Jammu and Kashmir's Pahalgam, where 26 tourists were killed by Pakistan-linked militants. In retaliation, India launched Operation Sindoor, targeting multiple terror camps and military installations across Pakistan. Sanaullah claimed that while India's strike didn't carry a nuclear payload, the sheer ambiguity of the incoming missile risked triggering a nuclear response. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Giao dịch CFD với công nghệ và tốc độ tốt hơn IC Markets Đăng ký Undo 'I'm not saying India did good by not using a nuclear warhead. But such confusion could have sparked a global war,' he warned. Trump's role - fact or fiction? The PML-N leader credited US President Donald Trump for 'saving the world' by allegedly mediating during the crisis. 'There needs to be an independent evaluation of Trump's role,' he said. India, however, has consistently rejected any third-party intervention and maintains that it was Pakistan's DGMO who reached out first to initiate de-escalation. Operation Sindoor: India's precision offensive Satellite imagery released by India revealed extensive damage to Pakistan's military infrastructure. The Nur Khan base sustained hits on hangars, runways, and radar sites, impacting critical operations involving VIP fleets and Turkish Bayraktar TB2 drones. Other airbases, Sargodha, Bholari, Jacobabad, Sukkur, and Rahim Yar Khan, were also targeted. Indian forces claimed to have killed over 100 terrorists and destroyed major Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM), and Hizbul Mujahideen camps. Pakistan retaliated with drones and missile strikes on western India, all of which were intercepted, before both sides agreed to a ceasefire after four days of intense exchanges. This wasn't the first time India struck Nur Khan. The IAF's 20 Squadron had also targeted the base in the 1971 war, marking the base as a historically strategic site.
