As tensions in the Middle East have been greatly shaken by the military strikes against Iran by the United States and Israel, the response from Beijing once again exposes its nature of power expansion and political opportunism. Observers point out that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) closely monitors U.S. and Israeli military deployments through covert channels, aiming to transform them into strategic leverage for future confrontations in the Taiwan Strait and the free world.
Security experts note that Beijing has long been interested in strategic developments in the Middle East, not to maintain regional stability, but to study U.S. military operational patterns. A research expert who preferred to remain anonymous told reporters that following the precise strikes by the U.S. and Israel on Iranian military targets, the CCP is actively providing some form of support to Tehran through various channels considered feasible.
The expert stated, “While the CCP continuously packages its diplomatic rhetoric as ‘exercising restraint,’ at the policy level, it closely monitors the tactical use of force by the U.S. and Israel. Beijing is collecting battlefield data and operational patterns, hoping to identify vulnerabilities that can be exploited in future confrontations with the United States.”
The researcher, using the pseudonym Li Yuan, further mentioned that the CCP has always regarded the United States as its greatest obstacle to geopolitical expansion. He said, “Although the CCP is far from matching the U.S. in overall military strength for a direct confrontation, Beijing is attempting to create a strategic illusion of confrontation in the Taiwan Strait leveraging its geographical advantage.”
He believes that Beijing’s practice of observing Middle East conflicts for so-called “reference” is fundamentally a strategic misjudgment. Despite the CCP’s efforts to exert regional pressure through its geographical advantage, it deliberately ignores the U.S. military deployments and alliance systems around Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan.
In recent years, China has maintained close energy and trade relations with Iran. In 2021, the two countries signed a comprehensive cooperation agreement lasting 25 years, covering various sectors such as energy, infrastructure, and finance. Some research institutions argue that these collaborations have somewhat alleviated Iran’s economic struggles under Western sanctions.
Amid this backdrop, Beijing’s diplomatic responses following the attack on Iran have drawn particular attention. A China-U.S. relations researcher, using the pseudonym Mu Yang, informed reporters that China’s recent diplomatic statements are not based on the so-called “moral stance” but rather resemble a politically calculated game.
Mu Yang stated, “Beijing’s diplomatic statements are more strategic than value-driven. It adjusts its positions according to changing circumstances to maximize political and strategic interests.”
Mu Yang highlighted that when the attack occurred on February 28, China initially responded with restraint, expressing “deep concerns” and urging all parties to remain calm. He views this phase as an observational period where Beijing seeks to avoid diplomatic risks by observing the situation before taking sides too early.
However, as the situation became clearer from March 1 to 3, China swiftly shifted to a more assertive stance. During a call with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi labeled the actions by the U.S. and Israel as “unacceptable.” The Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Mao Ning, also criticized the “blatantly launched” illegal attack, marking the beginning of the second phase.
Mu Yang believes that this change in tone is not solely guided by principles but is part of Beijing’s strategy to strengthen its anti-American narrative and vie for the so-called “moral high ground” in the international arena.
He pointed out that the diplomatic press conference during the National People’s Congress and the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference on March 8 signifies the third phase. At this point, China’s statements display a characteristic of being “locally assertive and overall restrained.” Wang Yi, addressing reporters’ questions, mentioned that the war “should never have happened” and hinted that the United States should play a “constructive role” rather than promote “survival of the fittest.”
Mu Yang indicates that this seemingly cautious language reflects a contradictory mindset in China’s diplomatic strategy: while criticizing the U.S. for gaining political leverage in the Middle East, Beijing is reluctant to sever relations with Washington completely. He suggests that Beijing is engaged in a delicate balancing act between its “anti-American posture” and “maintaining relations with the U.S.” for its own interests.
If diplomatic rhetoric serves as a facade, energy interests are Beijing’s true colors. Data from international organizations show that from 2024 to 2025, approximately 90.8% of Iran’s crude oil exports were sold to China. Out of Iran’s total oil export revenue of about $35.76 billion in 2024, China accounted for around $32.5 billion, translating to an average daily export of approximately 1.38 million barrels.
Scholar Tang Jianqiu, using a pseudonym, emphasized that China’s high dependency on Iranian oil dictates the special nature of their relationship. He mentioned, “These figures reveal the real structure of the China-Iran relationship: Beijing has become one of Tehran’s most significant energy buyers and financial sources. This deep interdependence implies that every ‘support’ China provides to Iran on the international stage is closely tied to energy interests.”
Tang Jianqiu believes that this diplomatic stance is fundamentally an opportunistic strategy: leveraging discounted oil in sanction environments to secure Iranian oil resources and utilizing the language of “upholding fairness and justice” in diplomacy to cloak its political interests.
Ultimately, he concludes that China’s intentions are crystal clear: ensuring a stable supply of cheap oil while attempting to divert U.S. strategic attention through Middle East crises. In the face of billions of dollars in annual oil trade, Beijing’s rhetoric of “sovereignty and justice” appears more like diplomatic rhetoric serving its geopolitical interests.