8 Things to Know About China’s Response to Israel-Iran Conflict
Israel’s military campaign against Iran has exposed the chasm between China’s great power rhetoric and its ability to meaningfully shape events in the Middle East. To be sure, Beijing backs Tehran as its biggest buyer of sanctioned crude oil, and both describe their relationship as a “comprehensive strategic partnership.” Yet Beijing has so far confined its response to condemnatory statements and multilateral appeals that blame Israel while ignoring Iran’s nuclear non-proliferation breaches and frequent threats to annihilate the Jewish state. Meanwhile, Beijing has offered Tehran neither arms nor material aid, underscoring how little leverage it wields once regional conflicts move from slogans to hard power.
- Beijing blames Jerusalem.
China has long fueled Iran’s arsenal — funding its missile program and supplying weapons and targeting data to Iran’s Houthi proxies — yet its public line pins the current crisis squarely on Israel. A day after Israel’s first strikes, Fu Cong, Chinese ambassador to the United Nations, claimed Israel’s actions “violate Iran’s sovereignty, security, and territorial integrity” while urging Jerusalem “to immediately cease all military adventurism and avoid further escalating tensions.” China Daily, the English-language outlet published by the Propaganda Department of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), echoed Beijing’s condemnation, stating that the conflict stemmed from Israel’s refusal to “rein in its war machine” following Hamas’s massacre on October 7, 2023.
- China calls on others to resolve the crisis.
While blaming Israel, China has repeatedly called for the United States to resolve the crisis, demonstrating Beijing’s own perceived inability to shape the ongoing conflict. During a call with his Iranian counterpart on June 14, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi called on “countries that have influence over Israel” to restore peace. China’s Foreign Ministry repeated this line three days later during a press conference, appealing to “countries with special influence on Israel” to “take up their due responsibilities” and facilitate de-escalation.
- China brands Iran’s nuclear program “peaceful,” ignoring documented evidence.
Since the crisis began, Chinese officials have portrayed Iran’s nuclear sites as “peaceful,” disregarding International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) findings that Tehran remains in breach of its non-proliferation obligations. At the United Nations, Ambassador Fu Cong said China opposes “armed attacks on peaceful nuclear facilities” and insisted that Iran’s Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty rights “be respected.” The next day, China’s IAEA envoy, Li Song, repeated the line while simultaneously reiterating Beijing’s support for a nuclear weapons-free Middle East — even though the IAEA recently faulted Iran’s “general lack of co-operation” and noted it now holds enough 60 percent enriched uranium, near weapons grade, to build up to nine nuclear bombs.
- China seeks to delegitimatize Israel’s action against Iran.
By portraying Iran’s nuclear program as purely peaceful, Tehran seeks to delegitimize Jerusalem’s preemptive intervention. China has amplified this misleading narrative through its multilateral vehicles. The Beijing-backed Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), for example, swiftly condemned Israel’s “aggressive action against civilian targets” as a “gross violation of international law,” giving Beijing’s misrepresentation of events a veneer of international consensus.
- China amplifies escalation fears to market its peace broker brand.
Since the first Israeli strikes, Chinese officials have warned of looming regional war — framing Washington’s security architecture as the spark and Beijing’s diplomacy as the cure. On June 13, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman said China “opposes moves that escalate tensions and enlarge conflicts” and warned that the region’s “abrupt heating up … serves no one’s interests.” The next day, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi told his Iranian counterpart that Israel’s attack “set a dangerous precedent with potentially catastrophic consequences,” a line the Chinese Embassy in Tehran echoed, citing a “rising risk of the situation spiraling out of control.” So far, neither Jerusalem nor Tehran has accepted Beijing’s offer to play an “active” role in brokering a ceasefire — further highlighting the limits of China’s influence when shots are fired.
Chinese leader Xi Jinping limited himself to urging “all related parties to work toward de-escalation,” offering no concrete steps. The gap between China’s dire warnings and its inaction highlights the hollowness of its self-proclaimed peace broker role; Beijing invites regional capitals to look to it for mediation even as China sidesteps any real responsibility for ending the fighting.
- China refuses to curb its financial support of Iran.
Beijing’s alarmism serves two purposes: it shifts blame to Israel and the United States while presenting China’s own approach as a route to peace and stability. Yet the rhetoric masks Beijing’s refusal to use its readily available leverage — such as curbing purchases of sanctioned Iranian crude oil or suspending joint projects — that could effectively restrain Tehran. Such action would require economic sacrifice on the part of China, which purchases 90 percent of Tehran’s crude and thus finances nearly 20 percent of Iran’s gross domestic product.
- Beijing offers little more than paper-thin diplomatic promises.
Unable — or unwilling — to back Tehran with hard power, China has defaulted to anodyne statements that carry no diplomatic weight. Within hours of Israel’s first strikes, China’s Foreign Ministry urged “maintaining dialogue and negotiation with relevant parties” and vowed to seek “a solution that accommodates the legitimate concerns of all parties through consultation.” Beijing issued similar pledges after Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine and during the Gaza war; none produced tangible results.
China’s outreach to Jerusalem has followed the same script. In a call with Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar, Wang Yi pressed Israel to “return to the track of resolving issues through diplomatic means,” calling that path “the general consensus of the international community.” He urged both sides to “seek peaceful coexistence” but offered no framework, timeline, or enforcement mechanism to achieve that goal. Regional capitals have seen this movie before; few expect Beijing’s paper-thin diplomacy to shape battlefield realities, and none view China as having the trust, intelligence channels, or coercive sticks to influence Israeli or Iranian war planning.
- China uses multilateral mouthpieces to support Iran and push its security vision.
Beijing has channeled much of its messaging about the conflict through multilateral platforms, using them to promote Xi’s Global Security Initiative — a self-styled alternative to the U.S.-led order — built on sovereignty, non-interference, and nebulous references to “indivisible security.” On June 14, China’s IAEA envoy Li Song denounced “unilateral sanctions” on Iran — an implicit swipe at Washington’s maximum-pressure campaign — while the Chinese Foreign Ministry said the crisis can be resolved only by upholding China’s “vision of common security.” The same themes — sovereignty, opposition to sanctions, collective security — ran through Fu Cong’s remarks at the UN Security Council, Wang Yi’s call with his Iranian counterpart, and the SCO communiqué condemning Israel’s strikes. Further, Xi chose the sidelines of the China-Central Asia Summit in Kazakhstan to criticize Israel.
Beijing’s preference for collective-sounding, consequence-free platforms and its promotion of its Global Security Initiative as the alternative to U.S. order underscore how China is using today’s conflict to burnish its own security model and attempt to diminish America’s role as the Middle East’s chief power broker.