
‘As a Security Partner, China Is Not There' for Iran
The country that was perhaps Tehran's most important diplomatic and economic partner wound up playing virtually no role when Iran and Israel came to blows. This, despite the fact that Beijing has actively sought stronger relations with many countries in the Middle East—not just Iran, but also Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates—and despite China's evident stake in promoting stability in a region that supplies more than half of its oil imports.
So why didn't China step up?
Beijing did make some effort to assert its influence. In mid-June, Chinese leader Xi Jinping proposed a four-point plan, calling for a cease-fire and negotiations to contend with Iran's nuclear program, and offering to play a 'constructive role' in restoring peace. But Xi's proposal went nowhere. He couldn't bring the belligerents to the table—especially not Israel.
The two countries have never been particularly close, and Beijing deeply offended the Israeli leadership by taking a pro-Hamas position after the group's October 7, 2023, terror attack on Israeli civilians. But amid Israel's recent military successes, Beijing has tried to soften its approach. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi has opened a dialogue with his Israeli counterparts and in a phone call in October stated that China 'is ready to resume exchanges in all aspects as soon as possible,' according to an official summary of his comments.
But Israel's leaders are likely to remain cautious, given China's relationship with Tehran. In the recent past, Beijing has helped the Iranians circumvent Washington-led sanctions and diplomatic pressure. Alongside Russia and India, China has welcomed Iran into two important forums: the BRICS group of emerging economies and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, an association of countries connected to Central Asia. And China purchases nearly all of Iran's oil exports, providing vital resources to its moribund economy.
Given these links, Chinese leaders might be expected to wield influence over Tehran. They've done so in the past: In 2015, China encouraged Iran's leadership to join the Obama administration's nuclear deal, and in 2023, it brokered a détente between Tehran and its regional rival, Saudi Arabia. But if China and Iran are too close for Israel's comfort, they are still not as close as they appear to be.
Iran certainly has reason to question whether China is fully committed to the relationship. In 2021, China promised to invest $400 billion in Iran over 25 years as part of an enhanced strategic partnership, but progress toward that goal has been slow. Chinese cumulative direct investment in Iran reached only $3.9 billion at the end of 2023. And Chinese companies have been wary of doing business with Iran due to U.S. sanctions—a risk made clear when Meng Wanzhou, now deputy chair of the telecom giant Huawei, was detained in Canada in 2018 at Washington's request on sanctions-related charges. China also takes advantage of Iran's vulnerability by purchasing its oil at steep discounts. As a result, Tehran has tried to balance Chinese influence by maintaining strong ties to India, Beijing's chief rival within the developing world.
The Iranians also undoubtedly know that China can't ultimately protect them from the United States and Israel. Trade with China cannot fully substitute for real relief from Western sanctions. Beijing isn't likely to pressure Washington into lifting them, either. And although China has been steadily upgrading its armed forces, it still can't project military power all the way to the Middle East. Beijing probably wouldn't want to do so anyway: It tends to eschew the sorts of close alliances and mutual-defense arrangements that Washington routinely forges with other governments. 'China is not trying to be the security provider in the Middle East, and honestly, no one has asked China to,' Yun Sun, a senior fellow at the Stimson Center who specializes in Chinese foreign policy, told me.
Beijing's response to the Israel-Iran conflict reflected all of these limitations. Foreign Minister Wang Yi has offered his Iranian counterpart little beyond diplomatic support. 'As a security partner, China is not there' for Iran, Mohammed Baharoon, the director general of the Dubai Public Policy Research Center, told me. 'If we are talking about a security situation, like the war, Russia has a closer relationship with Iran than China.'
For many in the Middle East, China's standoffishness doesn't seem like the worst thing: Beijing isn't doing anything to escalate the Israel-Iran conflict, either. But then, China is also in no position to challenge or provide a counterweight to the United States in the region. The Gulf states have cultivated ever more trade and investment with China—but they still crave close diplomatic and economic relations with Washington above all. President Donald Trump's May visit, during which the Gulf royals lavishly feted him,'is proof that the U.S. is the most important partner for these countries,' Jonathan Fulton, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council who monitors Chinese policy in the Middle East from Abu Dhabi, told me. Within the region, China is not seen as 'leading political, strategic, diplomatic, and economic issues. Right now, there is really only one country that does all of that, and that's the U.S.'
The same is true on a global scale. Xi attempted to mediate between Russia and Ukraine, and to promote his own peace proposal, after Moscow's invasion in 2022. But his all-too-obvious favor for Russia undercut his credibility as a broker. Efforts to intervene in the war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza in 2023 fell flat due to Beijing's overt pro-Palestinian bias. Wang Yi repeatedly called for a cease-fire, but the U.S. engaged in the consistent diplomacy that eventually produced one. In both cases, Xi exploited the crises to further Chinese interests—deepening ties to a desperate and isolated Russian President Vladimir Putin, and scoring propaganda points in the global South by criticizing Washington's support for Israel.
China's actions in these crises are indicative of its true role in global affairs. The so-called axis of authoritarianism—China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea—is not a tightly coordinated cabal. And China's economic heft is not translating into political and military power as quickly as it could be. Chinese leaders just haven't marshaled the diplomatic and military muscle—still less the political will—to usurp America's position as the world's premier power. To get there, Chinese leaders will need not just more resources and experience, but also a new vision for their role in the world.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The IRS lets churches preach politics — and keep the tax break
Under the Trump administration, the Internal Revenue Service just changed a decadeslong ban on places of worship and other tax-exempt groups from advocating for a political candidate. That means church leaders now have the right to endorse political candidates from the pulpit without risking tax-exempt status. What does this mean for separation of church and state? The change in IRS code came after a lawsuit tried to challenge the Johnson Amendment, a longstanding principle of separation of church and state that exists to prevent religious organizations from functioning as de facto political PACs, which are financed through tax-deductible donations. The legal provision was named in 1954 for Lyndon B. Johnson, then a Texas senator years before he became a U.S. president. Previously, the law prohibited charities and churches from engaging in political campaign activity by defining a 501(c)(3) organization as one 'which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.' The case was brought against the IRS and its commissioner, Billy Long, by the National Religious Broadcasters, Intercessors for America, and two Texas churches, challenging the guardrails the Johnson Amendment has on 'their First Amendment rights to the freedom of speech and free exercise of religion, their Fifth Amendment rights to due process of law and equal protection under the law, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.' The IRS made its decision in response to the lawsuit on Monday, stating that 'When a house of worship in good faith speaks to its congregation, through its customary channels of communication on matters of faith in connection with religious services, concerning electoral politics viewed through the lens of religious faith, it neither 'participate(s)' nor 'intervene(s)' in a 'political campaign,' within the ordinary meaning of those words.' It also said that it does 'not run afoul of the Johnson Amendment as properly interpreted.' Responses to the news were mixed, as some saw the shift by the IRS as desecrating the name of religion for political gain, while others viewed it as a fight against oppression that congregations faced when trying to teach biblical teachings to understand modern-day political issues. The National Council of Nonprofits stated in a press release that allowing churches to endorse political candidates 'assaults' the idea that nonprofits should remain nonpartisan. 'This action — long sought by President Trump — is not about religion or free speech, but about radically altering campaign finance laws. The decree could open the floodgates for political operatives to funnel money to their preferred candidates while receiving generous tax breaks at the expense of taxpayers who may not share those views," Diane Yentel, President and CEO of the National Council of Nonprofits, said. 'These institutions are among the last trusted spaces where individuals can come together across political lines to address community needs. Repealing or weakening the Johnson Amendment risks politicizing these spaces, undermining their integrity, effectiveness, and the public's confidence in them.' Some political leaders, including Republican South Carolina Rep. Mark Harris, said on social media that the IRS should never have had the right to 'infringe' on Americans' First Amendment rights. Doug Andersen, a spokesperson for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, told the Deseret News that the church remains firm in its stance of neutrality. 'We're a global organization, along with appropriate individual member engagement,' Andersen said, emphasizing the political neutrality and participation policy for the Church that states it does not 'Endorse, promote or oppose political parties and their platforms or candidates for political office' or 'Allow its Church buildings, membership lists or other resources to be used for political purposes,' etc.
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump considers taking over D.C. government, chides New York
By Andrea Shalal and Jeff Mason WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump said on Tuesday his administration was considering taking over governance of Washington, D.C., and suggested he could take similar action in New York because of his distaste for the leading candidate for mayor there. Trump has made a similar threat regarding Washington before, but has not followed through even as he criticized crime rates and bashed other institutions there. The president, speaking during a cabinet meeting at the White House, said his chief of staff, Susie Wiles, was in close touch with Mayor Muriel Bowser, who favors making the city a U.S. state. "We have tremendous power at the White House to run places when we have to. We could run D.C. I mean, we're ... looking at D.C.," Trump said. "Susie Wiles is working very closely with the mayor." Bowser's office declined to comment. The District of Columbia was established in 1790 with land from neighboring Virginia and Maryland. Congress has control of its budget, but voters elect a mayor and city council, thanks to a law known as the Home Rule Act. For Trump to take over the city, Congress likely would have to pass a law revoking that act, which Trump would have to sign. Becoming the 51st state would give Washington's roughly 700,000 residents voting representation in Congress. Democrats support that plan, while Republicans, who are reluctant to hand Democrats any politically safe seats in the House of Representatives and Senate, oppose it. Trump suggested his administration would run the city better with an appointed leader than the democratically elected government. "We would run it so good, it would be run so proper. We'd get the best person to run it," he said. "The crime would be down to a minimum, would be much less. And you know we're thinking about doing it, to be honest with you." While Trump said his administration had a good relationship with Bowser, he had less complimentary words for Zohran Mamdani, the democratic socialist who won the race to be the Democratic Party's nominee in New York's November mayoral election. Trump described Mamdani as a "disaster." A representative for Mamdani did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment. "We're going to straighten out New York... Maybe we're going to have to straighten it out from Washington," Trump said. "We're going to do something for New York. I can't tell you what yet, but we're going to make New York great again also."

Wall Street Journal
26 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Trump Calls Out the Putin Charade
The biggest news from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's visit to the White House Monday is what Donald Trump said about another part of the world: The U.S. will resume arm shipments to Ukraine in its war for survival against Vladimir Putin. The President is grasping what some of his staffers don't: Arming Kyiv is realism rooted in America's security interests. 'We're going to send some more weapons,' Mr. Trump said to a reporter on Monday. 'We have to. They have to be able to defend themselves. They're getting hit very hard.' The President on Tuesday followed up by unloading on Mr. Putin at a cabinet meeting: 'We get a lot of bulls— thrown at us by Putin,' who is 'very nice all the time, but it turns out to be meaningless.' Yes it does.