There are no winners in the war on Iran. But if there were one, it would surely be China.
Contrary to NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte’s fawning remarks, “the whole world” is neither “safer” nor better for President Donald Trump’s decision to launch an illegal war on Iran. As the U.S. knows, Iran was not in pursuit of a nuclear bomb. Nor were its ballistic missiles intended for, or ever used for, offensive first strikes.
The foundation of international trust has cracked, and partnerships have been broken. The world can no longer trust the United States. The bond between Europe and the U.S. has been frayed. And the hard-won emerging trust between Iran and its Gulf neighbors, which had held the hope of a safer region, has been badly wounded.
There are only losers in this war: the Gulf states, Ukraine, America, and, of course, the Iranian people. An important long-term geopolitical loss suffered by the U.S. is the accelerated erosion of its hegemony and the continued transfer of trust to China.
Recently, Beijing has emerged as a more powerful broker of peace than had been understood. Because of its close relationship with Iran, China was able to help bring it to the table for peace talks in Islamabad; because of its special relationship with Pakistan, it was able to help set the table.
Prior to the first round of Islamabad talks, Pakistan’s Foreign Minister, Ishaq Dar, went to Beijing. According to the Chinese foreign ministry, the purpose of his trip was to “strengthen” Chinese–Pakistani cooperation in making “new efforts toward advocating for peace” in the region.
The Chinese foreign ministry has said China “worked actively to help bring about an end to the conflict,” and the White House confirms that “there were conversations that took place between top levels of our government and China’s government.”
I am told by Michael Swaine, Senior Research Fellow in the East Asia Program of the Quincy Institute, that there are “numerous reports that the Chinese have had frequent talks with Iran and other regional players and had urged Iran to enter a ceasefire. How much influence China has over Iran, though, is unclear.” Swaine says that China wants to be seen “as supportive of peace and lawful behavior” while, at the same time, “not getting directly dragged into the imbroglio.”
Though China is not a direct participant in negotiations, it has significant influence over the process of diplomacy. Whether and to what extent China is indirectly involved in the war itself remains unclear.
U.S. intelligence claims to have obtained information that China may have sent shoulder-fired missiles to Iran and may have been considering sending advanced radar systems. The intelligence is not definitive, and China says they have “never provided weapons to any party in the conflict” and has called the reports “fabricated.” In a strangely qualified statement, Trump said he asked Chinese President Xi Jinping not to send weapons to Iran, and Xi assured him that they are “essentially… not doing that.”
Always studious about not getting involved in foreign wars, China has not fully exercised its available military leverage and has likely not sent weapons. But it has supported Iran diplomatically. The foreign ministry called the U.S. closure of the Strait of Hormuz “a dangerous and irresponsible move.” And when the United Nations Security Council took up a resolution on coordinating an effort to reopen the Strait, China (and Russia) vetoed it.
When the U.S. went ahead with a total blockade of Iranian ports, China stood firm in support of Iran. “Iran controls the Strait of Hormuz,” Chinese Defense Minister Dong Jun said. “We have trade and energy agreements with Iran. We will respect and honor them and expect others not to meddle in our affairs.”
The American insistence that civilian enrichment is not a sovereign right of Iran but a conditional right to be granted by the U.S. undermines the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and constitutes a usurpation of the authority of the International Atomic Energy Agency. By waging a war of aggression against Iran, the U.S. has usurped the powers of the UN Security Council. These are not the actions of a benevolent hegemon upholding the international order but of a predatory hegemon.
These developments have made an already trepidatious Global South even more apprehensive of American power—and have made China’s restraint and diplomacy look even more dependable.
The Global South is consistently wary of what appears to be American primacy and neocolonialism. They are increasingly worried about the replacement of international law by American might. The U.S. war on Iran, which has created an oil supply shock, is a source of extreme anxiety for the Global South, the region most affected by the rising cost of oil.
China has been a voice of support for the Global South and its preferred vision of multipolarity and international law. “Maintaining the authority of international rule of law means not only using it when it suits us and abandoning it when it doesn’t,” Xi has said. “We cannot allow the world to revert to the law of the jungle.”
U.S. belligerence has pushed Beijing and Moscow even closer together, and Xi has called on Russia to join China in promoting a more “just and equitable international order” in the face of a “changing and turbulent” international situation.” The current unbalanced international order has made the China–Russia partnership even more “precious,” Xi said. He added that China and Russia need an even stronger partnership to safeguard the interests of the Global South. The partners need to “firmly uphold and practice multilateralism, work together to revitalize the authority and vitality of the United Nations [and] promote the development of the international order in a more just and reasonable direction.”
The U.S. erosion and selective application of international law is driving the Global South and Russia away from America and toward China, which presents itself as a reliable partner and defender of international law. “The United States,” Swaine says, “is helping China make that case through its reckless, unstrategic, and illegal actions.” This will be one of the great long-term costs of Trump’s war on Iran.
Read the full article here
