The Limits of Diplomacy: China’s Reluctance to Restrain Iran

 

China's diplomatic maneuvers in the Middle East, notably its failure to temper Iranian aggression, underscore a foreign policy driven more by strategic self-interest than by a commitment to global peace and stability.

 

In recent geopolitical dynamics, the role of China has increasingly become a point of contention, particularly in its interactions with Iran. The intricate dance of diplomacy and national interest paints a complex picture, suggesting that China, despite its global standing and capabilities, is unlikely to act as a mediator in restraining Iran.

Earlier this year, the geopolitical tensions in the Middle East intensified when Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen escalated their attacks on commercial shipping in the Red Sea. This strategic maritime route, vital for global commerce, saw a significant threat to international peace and trade stability. In response, the United States, seeking to mitigate the crisis, approached China, a nation believed to possess considerable influence over Iran due to their cordial relations. U.S. officials hoped China would leverage its relationship to temper Iran's regional aggressions, specifically urging Tehran to control the Houthi actions.

However, the efficacy of this diplomatic endeavor was minimal. Despite China's successful facilitation of a diplomatic rapprochement between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and the inclusion of Iran in both the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and the BRICS bloc—a signal of deepening ties—the subsequent actions by Iran and its proxies did not reflect a moderated stance. This was evident when, following an Israeli airstrike on the Iranian consulate in Syria, the U.S. once again turned to China during this critical juncture, seeking to prevent a potential escalation. Despite these overtures, the retaliation by Iranian forces underscored a stark reality: China's influence, either by choice or capacity, was limited or ineffectually applied.

A deeper analysis of China's foreign policy, particularly in relation to Iran, reveals a prioritization of self-interest and economic pragmatism over global diplomatic responsibilities. The 25-year cooperation agreement signed between China and Iran three years ago was initially viewed as a potential game-changer for Iran's international standing and economic stability. This agreement, purportedly worth $400 billion in Chinese investments, was seen as a significant commitment. However, the actual investments, amounting to a mere $19.7 million in 2022, paint a starkly different picture. This discrepancy highlights not only the chasm between promised support and real action but also China's strategic approach to maintain a beneficial trade imbalance, heavily skewed towards importing essential commodities like oil from Iran.

Oil trade, indeed, forms the crux of the Sino-Iranian relationship. China is the largest buyer of Iranian oil, a transaction crucially important for Iran, given the stringent U.S. sanctions it faces. For China, this arrangement ensures a steady supply of affordable oil, a critical need for its burgeoning economy. This dynamic allows China to circumvent international sanctions creatively, often by disguising Iranian oil as originating from other countries like Malaysia, thus benefiting from discounted rates supplied to its smaller, independent refineries.

Furthermore, China's stance during the recent retaliatory actions by Iran against Israel reveals a nuanced approach to Middle Eastern politics. Chinese officials were quick to praise Iran's "restraint" and criticize Israeli actions, reflecting a narrative that aligns more with regional sentiments against U.S. allyship with Israel. This perspective was notably supported by state media, which argued that the responsibility to ease tensions in the Middle East should fall on the U.S. to restrain Israel rather than on China to curb Iran.

Simply put, the widespread expectation that China would serve as a moderating influence on Iran is at odds with the core tenets of its foreign policy, which is firmly anchored in pursuing national interests. Despite the outward display of diplomatic engagement, such as facilitating dialogues or joining multinational groups, the reality of China's actions reflects a deep-seated prioritization of its own strategic and economic agendas. This is vividly illustrated by the stark contrast between the announced billions in investments and the minuscule actual expenditures in Iran, alongside China's strategic oil acquisitions which often bypass international norms.

Furthermore, China's diplomatic rhetoric, which occasionally aligns with calls for regional stability, often masks a policy foundation built on pragmatism and opportunism. The political statements and maneuvers—such as the non-confrontational stance towards Iranian aggression or the tactical handling of oil imports under the guise of other national origins—are aimed more at securing China's interests than at promoting global peace or aligning with U.S. efforts to stabilize the region. Given this backdrop, it is highly improbable that China will adopt a stance that significantly curtails Iran's actions on the international stage, as Beijing continues to focus on strengthening its own position globally, rather than sacrificing its interests for broader global stability.