Since the US-Israel war with Iran began, commentators have sought to understand the underlying causes. A prominent explanation posits that this conflict is merely a latest front in the ongoing rivalry between the United States and China.
Miles Yu, a former China policy adviser in Donald Trump’s first administration, detailed in the Washington Post that Beijing has been working to establish Iran as a central component of its Middle East strategy for over a decade. He highlighted the substantial investment by the Chinese Communist Party in Iran.
Although, framing the war in Iran as primarily about China is an oversimplification. The complexities of the current geopolitical landscape make attributing events to a single, overarching strategic plan difficult. Sometimes, the lack of a clear plan *is* the defining characteristic.
The assertion that Iran serves as a ‘forward base’ for China rests on three key claims: economic ties, strategic location, and military relationships. While China and Iran signed a 25-year, $400 billion strategic and economic partnership in 2021, actual investment has been limited. An authoritative tracker indicates Beijing has invested only $25 billion in Iran over the past two decades, representing just one percent of its total foreign investment.
Iran doesn’t even rank among China’s top ten investment destinations in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, trailing behind Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates, Iraq, and Egypt. Britain holds four times more Chinese economic interests than Iran.
China’s economic engagement with Iran is largely transactional, driven by Iran’s require to sell sanctioned oil at a discount. According to the US Energy Information Administration, sanctioned oil from Russia, Iran, and Venezuela accounted for one-third of China’s crude oil imports. Professor Kerry Brown, director of the China Lau Institute at King’s College London, suggests Iran’s need to sell oil creates a ‘fragile basis for a relationship’.
Regarding Iran’s strategic location, while the main Silk Road railroad passes through Iran, it also traverses numerous other countries. China’s maritime Silk Road doesn’t directly connect with Iran. The potential for Iran to serve as an alternative trade corridor is complicated by the risk of disruption and the need to navigate the Persian Gulf alongside other nations.
The claim that Iran’s regional destabilizing activities benefit China by diverting US attention is also questionable. Iran has been a threat to Israel and US allies for decades, predating significant Chinese involvement. The US’s strategic priorities, and any shifts in those priorities, are determined by Washington, not Beijing.
While China has sold materiel to Iran, including potentially advanced anti-ship missiles, a deal for these weapons was reportedly “close” to completion but not finalized as of February 2026, with negotiations ongoing for two years. Joint naval exercises between China, Russia, and Iran have occurred, but Chinese and Russian warships reportedly left the Gulf at the start of the recent conflict.
Despite the absence of overt support from China, some continue to insist the war is about China, arguing that the lack of an alliance proves its existence. This line of reasoning is flawed. The core issue is that the Islamic Republic poses a threat in its own right, driven by its own ideology and actions.
The Islamic Republic’s “axis of resistance” – its support for groups in Gaza, Lebanon, the West Bank, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen – is a genuine threat. Recent reports of Islamic Republic terrorist activity within Britain underscore this danger. Attributing these actions to a broader Chinese plan distracts from the immediate and specific threat posed by the Islamic Republic itself.
Imposing fictional narratives of Chinese expansionism onto global events obscures the real challenges facing Western countries, including their own internal weaknesses, the threat of Islamism, Russia’s expansionism, and the destabilizing effects of attempting to maintain sole global power.
A clear-eyed assessment of the situation requires discarding China-centric interpretations and focusing on the genuine and immediate threats to international stability and national security.
