Here, China situates the episode within its Global Security Initiative, which advocates "indivisible security" and opposition to unilateral sanctions and strikes. The argument is that security cannot be achieved by maximizing one actor's dominance at the expense of systemic equilibrium.

This reflects China's structural diplomacy in the new era, a strategic vision of how global security should function amid uncertainty and the risk of a return to the "law of the jungle." It calls on all parties to uphold international law, strengthen multilateral mechanisms and resolve conflicts through political means, contributing to the building of a community with a shared future for humanity.

When Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi described the killing as "unacceptable" and a violation of sovereignty, he was not merely defending Tehran. He was defending the post-1945 prohibition on the use of force embedded in the U.N. Charter. Article 2(4) explicitly forbids force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. The strikes were not authorized by the U.N. Security Council. Nor did they meet the Caroline test of imminent self-defense under customary international law. China's position is therefore jurisprudential, not ideological.

Moreover, China's call for urgent diplomatic resolution and restraint resonates with the broader effort to ensure global prosperity for all, as continuing escalation along vital supply chain routes threatens to trigger a global recession, disproportionately affecting the majority of countries worldwide.

Negotiations between Washington and Tehran in Geneva had reportedly shown incremental progress. Military action during dialogue does more than halt talks. It degrades the credibility of diplomacy as an institution. If negotiations can be interrupted by force or used as operational cover and tactical feint to mask a “decapitation strike,” why would any state limit enrichment, reduce arsenals or expose facilities to inspection?

Data from the International Atomic Energy Agency has repeatedly indicated that while Iran expanded its uranium enrichment capacity, there has been no verified decision to weaponize the program. U.S. intelligence assessments in recent years have similarly noted that Iran has not made a decision to build nuclear weapons. If military force becomes acceptable despite ongoing negotiations in Oman, Geneva and those scheduled for Vienna, the signal to other states would be stark: diplomacy is unreliable and even risky, and deterrence requires acceleration.

China has long supported a political settlement of the Iran nuclear issue and welcomed progress in recent U.S.-Iran talks that also addressed Israel's security concerns, but Beijing says that this diplomatic process has been undermined by the disruption caused by military strikes.

History provides sobering metrics. According to the Costs of War project at Brown University, post-2001 Middle East conflicts have cost over $8 trillion and resulted in hundreds of thousands of direct civilian deaths. Regime-change operations in Iraq and Libya produced prolonged instability, not durable governance. The gains from the oil reserves in the two countries as expected by some in the U.S. failed to materialize. The lesson may be learned again in the case of Iran.

Iran's political system, unlike personalist regimes, is institutionalized. For instance, despite repeated calls from U.S. officials for Iranians to challenge their leadership, the U.S.-Israeli strikes, widely seen as aimed at regime change, have failed to achieve their objectives and have instead further united the Iranian people against the U.S.-Israeli attack.

This photo taken on June 13, 2025 shows buildings damaged during Israeli strikes in Tehran, Iran. [Photo/Xinhua]

In theoretical terms, escalation dominance with coercive and imposed post-conflict governance planning produces repeated retaliation cycles. The security dilemma intensifies. The risk of horizontal spillover rises sharply, whether to Gulf states, nonstate actors or maritime chokepoints.

The Strait of Hormuz handles roughly 20% of global oil flows. A disruption of even 10% to 15% historically correlates with oil price spikes exceeding 30% in short order. As of March 2, Brent crude is up 9% amid supply concerns. Analysts warn that in the event of a prolonged disruption, prices could exceed $100 per barrel as up to one-fifth of global crude supply faces logistical constraints.

For advanced economies, such volatility is disruptive. For developing economies, it is destabilizing. The IMF estimates that a sustained $10 increase in oil prices can shave 0.2 to 0.4 percentage points off global GDP growth. For energy-importing nations in South and Southeast Asia, East Asia and Africa, inflationary pass-through is immediate, amplifying food insecurity and sovereign debt stress.

Beijing's framing of energy security as common security reflects this systems-level risk modeling. Escalation in the Persian Gulf externalizes costs onto nations with no role in the conflict. That is why Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning has urged safeguarding navigation and uninterrupted supply.

Some Western narratives propagate the idea that Beijing is exploiting Western missteps for geopolitical gain. In reality, China does not pursue opportunistic advantage amid the conflict. Instead, it champions global and regional stability, emphasizing the vital role of multipolarity in sustaining an international order based on international law and the purposes and principles of the UN Charter.

As Wang Yi has cautioned, the alternative is a regression toward the "law of the jungle," where unilateral force dominates, sovereignty is ignored and global security faces serious disruption. If so-called "preemptive or preventive strikes" become normalized, middle powers will hedge through armament. Nuclear latency will shorten globally. Alliance entanglements will deepen.

Data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute shows global military expenditure reached a record $2.7 trillion in 2024. The trajectory is already upward. The Middle East accounts for one of the highest per capita defense burdens worldwide. Further escalation compounds an accelerating arms dynamic. China's stance, therefore, is anchored in a simple systems proposition: in a nuclearized, economically interdependent world, escalation produces nonlinear risk.

Beijing consistently states it does not take sides in regional conflicts. Yet neutrality does not imply silence. By condemning the killing of a sovereign leader and opposing unauthorized strikes, China reinforces two norms: noninterference and peaceful settlement. This aligns with its long-standing principle of mutual respect and territorial integrity, principles repeatedly invoked in its diplomacy across Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia.

Moreover, China's economic exposure to the Middle East, including energy imports, Belt and Road infrastructure and maritime trade, gives it direct stakes in stability. According to China Customs data, bilateral trade between China and Middle Eastern states exceeded $500 billion in recent years. Conflict disrupts not only energy but supply chains, logistics insurance premiums, and financial markets.

In this context, China's insistence on restraint is more rational than rhetorical. A multipolar world is not inherently peaceful, but it requires stronger norms to function. Sovereignty, multilateral authorization and diplomatic primacy are those norms. Responsible powers dampen volatility; they do not amplify it.

In an interconnected global economy, peace in the Middle East is not a regional favor. It is a structural necessity. China's timely call for de-escalation is therefore not simply a diplomatic gesture. It is a warning: without adherence to international law and multilateral governance, the world edges closer to systemic fracture. And once fracture begins, no nation remains insulated. The international community should, therefore, reject any act that violates international law, refrain from applying double standards, and work with China to de-escalate the situation in the Middle East and jointly safeguard the basic norms of international relations.

Ibrahim Khalil Ahasan, a Dhaka, Bangladesh-based journalist.

The attack has triggered significant Iranian retaliation across the region, from Israel to U.S. military bases in Gulf countries, heightening the risk of a wider confrontation. Particularly alarming are reports of civilian casualties, including damage to medical facilities and harm to schoolchildren in Iran, raising grave humanitarian concerns under international law.

The economic repercussions could be equally severe: nearly 20% of global oil supplies pass through the Strait of Hormuz, and any disruption would intensify global energy volatility. Escalation in the Red Sea corridor further threatens supply chains linking Asia and Europe. With the World Bank reporting that disruptions linked to the Red Sea crisis had, by late 2024, driven some global freight indices more than 140% above pre-crisis levels, renewed disruptions in these two strategic shipping corridors are further pushing up transport costs and heightening risks to food, fuel and fertilizer security. Such pressures could aggravate global inflation at a time when the world economy is already strained by geopolitical fragmentation and the lingering aftershocks of Donald Trump's tariff-driven trade tensions.

Against this backdrop, China's timely response, including clear condemnation of the U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran, urgent calls for an immediate ceasefire, a prompt return to dialogue and negotiations, and a firm reaffirmation of the principle of noninterference, has been described by many global security and strategic affairs analysts as predictable and pragmatic diplomacy. From the first day of the outbreak of hostilities, China's engagement has been specific, timely and constructive.

Statements from the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson and continued diplomatic outreach by Foreign Minister Wang Yi reflect sustained communication with multiple stakeholders, ranging from major countries to directly concerned parties. Beijing's core positions are clear: an immediate cessation of military operations and a comprehensive ceasefire; a return to dialogue under U.N. auspices; reaffirmation that regime change by force is illegitimate; protection of maritime security and stable energy flows; and safeguarding all countries' sovereignty, security and territorial integrity in accordance with international law.

These are not abstract slogans; they represent systemic safeguards aimed at preserving international stability. By reinforcing multilateral coordination, supporting U.N.-centered mediation and promoting inclusive dialogue, China presents its approach as one rooted in responsibility, balance and long-term global security. It is, however, far more than that, as China stands in alignment with broad segments of the international community that have expressed support for a peaceful, international law-based approach prioritizing de-escalation, respect for sovereignty and the resolution of disputes through dialogue rather than force.

China's diplomatic activism, exemplified by Wang Yi's phone calls with his counterparts in countries like Iran, Russia, Israel, Oman and France, along with emergency consultations at the U.N. Security Council, underscores Beijing's efforts to preserve institutional channels for dialogue and to promote de-escalation amid growing regional tensions. These communications stress the urgency of halting military operations, advancing political-diplomatic solutions and preventing broader spillover, demonstrating China's commitment to diplomacy and its support for a multilateral global order based on international law and the purposes and principles of the UN Charter.

The coordination between Beijing and Moscow at the Security Council underscores a broader claim: that crisis management must return to multilateral platforms rather than ad hoc coalitions. And this coordination indicates that Beijing is deploying major-country diplomacy to help defuse the crisis.

An Iranian flag is pictured at the United Nations headquarters in New York, Jan. 8, 2020. [Photo by Li Muzi/Xinhua]

At the same time, its parallel communication with concerned parties, including Iran, Israel and member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council, underscores a constructive and peace-oriented approach. This path emphasizes de-escalation through negotiation, dialogue and consultation, while opposing the use of force, preventing civilian casualties, safeguarding global supply chains and averting a return to the "law of the jungle" in international relations.

Here, China situates the episode within its Global Security Initiative, which advocates "indivisible security" and opposition to unilateral sanctions and strikes. The argument is that security cannot be achieved by maximizing one actor's dominance at the expense of systemic equilibrium.

This reflects China's structural diplomacy in the new era, a strategic vision of how global security should function amid uncertainty and the risk of a return to the "law of the jungle." It calls on all parties to uphold international law, strengthen multilateral mechanisms and resolve conflicts through political means, contributing to the building of a community with a shared future for humanity.

When Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi described the killing as "unacceptable" and a violation of sovereignty, he was not merely defending Tehran. He was defending the post-1945 prohibition on the use of force embedded in the U.N. Charter. Article 2(4) explicitly forbids force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. The strikes were not authorized by the U.N. Security Council. Nor did they meet the Caroline test of imminent self-defense under customary international law. China's position is therefore jurisprudential, not ideological.

Moreover, China's call for urgent diplomatic resolution and restraint resonates with the broader effort to ensure global prosperity for all, as continuing escalation along vital supply chain routes threatens to trigger a global recession, disproportionately affecting the majority of countries worldwide.

Negotiations between Washington and Tehran in Geneva had reportedly shown incremental progress. Military action during dialogue does more than halt talks. It degrades the credibility of diplomacy as an institution. If negotiations can be interrupted by force or used as operational cover and tactical feint to mask a “decapitation strike,” why would any state limit enrichment, reduce arsenals or expose facilities to inspection?

Data from the International Atomic Energy Agency has repeatedly indicated that while Iran expanded its uranium enrichment capacity, there has been no verified decision to weaponize the program. U.S. intelligence assessments in recent years have similarly noted that Iran has not made a decision to build nuclear weapons. If military force becomes acceptable despite ongoing negotiations in Oman, Geneva and those scheduled for Vienna, the signal to other states would be stark: diplomacy is unreliable and even risky, and deterrence requires acceleration.

China has long supported a political settlement of the Iran nuclear issue and welcomed progress in recent U.S.-Iran talks that also addressed Israel's security concerns, but Beijing says that this diplomatic process has been undermined by the disruption caused by military strikes.

History provides sobering metrics. According to the Costs of War project at Brown University, post-2001 Middle East conflicts have cost over $8 trillion and resulted in hundreds of thousands of direct civilian deaths. Regime-change operations in Iraq and Libya produced prolonged instability, not durable governance. The gains from the oil reserves in the two countries as expected by some in the U.S. failed to materialize. The lesson may be learned again in the case of Iran.

Iran's political system, unlike personalist regimes, is institutionalized. For instance, despite repeated calls from U.S. officials for Iranians to challenge their leadership, the U.S.-Israeli strikes, widely seen as aimed at regime change, have failed to achieve their objectives and have instead further united the Iranian people against the U.S.-Israeli attack.

This photo taken on June 13, 2025 shows buildings damaged during Israeli strikes in Tehran, Iran. [Photo/Xinhua]

In theoretical terms, escalation dominance with coercive and imposed post-conflict governance planning produces repeated retaliation cycles. The security dilemma intensifies. The risk of horizontal spillover rises sharply, whether to Gulf states, nonstate actors or maritime chokepoints.

The Strait of Hormuz handles roughly 20% of global oil flows. A disruption of even 10% to 15% historically correlates with oil price spikes exceeding 30% in short order. As of March 2, Brent crude is up 9% amid supply concerns. Analysts warn that in the event of a prolonged disruption, prices could exceed $100 per barrel as up to one-fifth of global crude supply faces logistical constraints.

For advanced economies, such volatility is disruptive. For developing economies, it is destabilizing. The IMF estimates that a sustained $10 increase in oil prices can shave 0.2 to 0.4 percentage points off global GDP growth. For energy-importing nations in South and Southeast Asia, East Asia and Africa, inflationary pass-through is immediate, amplifying food insecurity and sovereign debt stress.

Beijing's framing of energy security as common security reflects this systems-level risk modeling. Escalation in the Persian Gulf externalizes costs onto nations with no role in the conflict. That is why Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning has urged safeguarding navigation and uninterrupted supply.

Some Western narratives propagate the idea that Beijing is exploiting Western missteps for geopolitical gain. In reality, China does not pursue opportunistic advantage amid the conflict. Instead, it champions global and regional stability, emphasizing the vital role of multipolarity in sustaining an international order based on international law and the purposes and principles of the UN Charter.

As Wang Yi has cautioned, the alternative is a regression toward the "law of the jungle," where unilateral force dominates, sovereignty is ignored and global security faces serious disruption. If so-called "preemptive or preventive strikes" become normalized, middle powers will hedge through armament. Nuclear latency will shorten globally. Alliance entanglements will deepen.

Data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute shows global military expenditure reached a record $2.7 trillion in 2024. The trajectory is already upward. The Middle East accounts for one of the highest per capita defense burdens worldwide. Further escalation compounds an accelerating arms dynamic. China's stance, therefore, is anchored in a simple systems proposition: in a nuclearized, economically interdependent world, escalation produces nonlinear risk.

Beijing consistently states it does not take sides in regional conflicts. Yet neutrality does not imply silence. By condemning the killing of a sovereign leader and opposing unauthorized strikes, China reinforces two norms: noninterference and peaceful settlement. This aligns with its long-standing principle of mutual respect and territorial integrity, principles repeatedly invoked in its diplomacy across Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia.

Moreover, China's economic exposure to the Middle East, including energy imports, Belt and Road infrastructure and maritime trade, gives it direct stakes in stability. According to China Customs data, bilateral trade between China and Middle Eastern states exceeded $500 billion in recent years. Conflict disrupts not only energy but supply chains, logistics insurance premiums, and financial markets.

In this context, China's insistence on restraint is more rational than rhetorical. A multipolar world is not inherently peaceful, but it requires stronger norms to function. Sovereignty, multilateral authorization and diplomatic primacy are those norms. Responsible powers dampen volatility; they do not amplify it.

In an interconnected global economy, peace in the Middle East is not a regional favor. It is a structural necessity. China's timely call for de-escalation is therefore not simply a diplomatic gesture. It is a warning: without adherence to international law and multilateral governance, the world edges closer to systemic fracture. And once fracture begins, no nation remains insulated. The international community should, therefore, reject any act that violates international law, refrain from applying double standards, and work with China to de-escalate the situation in the Middle East and jointly safeguard the basic norms of international relations.

Ibrahim Khalil Ahasan, a Dhaka, Bangladesh-based journalist.

Here, China situates the episode within its Global Security Initiative, which advocates "indivisible security" and opposition to unilateral sanctions and strikes. The argument is that security cannot be achieved by maximizing one actor's dominance at the expense of systemic equilibrium.

This reflects China's structural diplomacy in the new era, a strategic vision of how global security should function amid uncertainty and the risk of a return to the "law of the jungle." It calls on all parties to uphold international law, strengthen multilateral mechanisms and resolve conflicts through political means, contributing to the building of a community with a shared future for humanity.

When Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi described the killing as "unacceptable" and a violation of sovereignty, he was not merely defending Tehran. He was defending the post-1945 prohibition on the use of force embedded in the U.N. Charter. Article 2(4) explicitly forbids force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. The strikes were not authorized by the U.N. Security Council. Nor did they meet the Caroline test of imminent self-defense under customary international law. China's position is therefore jurisprudential, not ideological.

Moreover, China's call for urgent diplomatic resolution and restraint resonates with the broader effort to ensure global prosperity for all, as continuing escalation along vital supply chain routes threatens to trigger a global recession, disproportionately affecting the majority of countries worldwide.

Negotiations between Washington and Tehran in Geneva had reportedly shown incremental progress. Military action during dialogue does more than halt talks. It degrades the credibility of diplomacy as an institution. If negotiations can be interrupted by force or used as operational cover and tactical feint to mask a “decapitation strike,” why would any state limit enrichment, reduce arsenals or expose facilities to inspection?

Data from the International Atomic Energy Agency has repeatedly indicated that while Iran expanded its uranium enrichment capacity, there has been no verified decision to weaponize the program. U.S. intelligence assessments in recent years have similarly noted that Iran has not made a decision to build nuclear weapons. If military force becomes acceptable despite ongoing negotiations in Oman, Geneva and those scheduled for Vienna, the signal to other states would be stark: diplomacy is unreliable and even risky, and deterrence requires acceleration.

China has long supported a political settlement of the Iran nuclear issue and welcomed progress in recent U.S.-Iran talks that also addressed Israel's security concerns, but Beijing says that this diplomatic process has been undermined by the disruption caused by military strikes.

History provides sobering metrics. According to the Costs of War project at Brown University, post-2001 Middle East conflicts have cost over $8 trillion and resulted in hundreds of thousands of direct civilian deaths. Regime-change operations in Iraq and Libya produced prolonged instability, not durable governance. The gains from the oil reserves in the two countries as expected by some in the U.S. failed to materialize. The lesson may be learned again in the case of Iran.

Iran's political system, unlike personalist regimes, is institutionalized. For instance, despite repeated calls from U.S. officials for Iranians to challenge their leadership, the U.S.-Israeli strikes, widely seen as aimed at regime change, have failed to achieve their objectives and have instead further united the Iranian people against the U.S.-Israeli attack.

This photo taken on June 13, 2025 shows buildings damaged during Israeli strikes in Tehran, Iran. [Photo/Xinhua]

In theoretical terms, escalation dominance with coercive and imposed post-conflict governance planning produces repeated retaliation cycles. The security dilemma intensifies. The risk of horizontal spillover rises sharply, whether to Gulf states, nonstate actors or maritime chokepoints.

The Strait of Hormuz handles roughly 20% of global oil flows. A disruption of even 10% to 15% historically correlates with oil price spikes exceeding 30% in short order. As of March 2, Brent crude is up 9% amid supply concerns. Analysts warn that in the event of a prolonged disruption, prices could exceed $100 per barrel as up to one-fifth of global crude supply faces logistical constraints.

For advanced economies, such volatility is disruptive. For developing economies, it is destabilizing. The IMF estimates that a sustained $10 increase in oil prices can shave 0.2 to 0.4 percentage points off global GDP growth. For energy-importing nations in South and Southeast Asia, East Asia and Africa, inflationary pass-through is immediate, amplifying food insecurity and sovereign debt stress.

Beijing's framing of energy security as common security reflects this systems-level risk modeling. Escalation in the Persian Gulf externalizes costs onto nations with no role in the conflict. That is why Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning has urged safeguarding navigation and uninterrupted supply.

Some Western narratives propagate the idea that Beijing is exploiting Western missteps for geopolitical gain. In reality, China does not pursue opportunistic advantage amid the conflict. Instead, it champions global and regional stability, emphasizing the vital role of multipolarity in sustaining an international order based on international law and the purposes and principles of the UN Charter.

As Wang Yi has cautioned, the alternative is a regression toward the "law of the jungle," where unilateral force dominates, sovereignty is ignored and global security faces serious disruption. If so-called "preemptive or preventive strikes" become normalized, middle powers will hedge through armament. Nuclear latency will shorten globally. Alliance entanglements will deepen.

Data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute shows global military expenditure reached a record $2.7 trillion in 2024. The trajectory is already upward. The Middle East accounts for one of the highest per capita defense burdens worldwide. Further escalation compounds an accelerating arms dynamic. China's stance, therefore, is anchored in a simple systems proposition: in a nuclearized, economically interdependent world, escalation produces nonlinear risk.

Beijing consistently states it does not take sides in regional conflicts. Yet neutrality does not imply silence. By condemning the killing of a sovereign leader and opposing unauthorized strikes, China reinforces two norms: noninterference and peaceful settlement. This aligns with its long-standing principle of mutual respect and territorial integrity, principles repeatedly invoked in its diplomacy across Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia.

Moreover, China's economic exposure to the Middle East, including energy imports, Belt and Road infrastructure and maritime trade, gives it direct stakes in stability. According to China Customs data, bilateral trade between China and Middle Eastern states exceeded $500 billion in recent years. Conflict disrupts not only energy but supply chains, logistics insurance premiums, and financial markets.

In this context, China's insistence on restraint is more rational than rhetorical. A multipolar world is not inherently peaceful, but it requires stronger norms to function. Sovereignty, multilateral authorization and diplomatic primacy are those norms. Responsible powers dampen volatility; they do not amplify it.

In an interconnected global economy, peace in the Middle East is not a regional favor. It is a structural necessity. China's timely call for de-escalation is therefore not simply a diplomatic gesture. It is a warning: without adherence to international law and multilateral governance, the world edges closer to systemic fracture. And once fracture begins, no nation remains insulated. The international community should, therefore, reject any act that violates international law, refrain from applying double standards, and work with China to de-escalate the situation in the Middle East and jointly safeguard the basic norms of international relations.

Ibrahim Khalil Ahasan, a Dhaka, Bangladesh-based journalist.

The attack has triggered significant Iranian retaliation across the region, from Israel to U.S. military bases in Gulf countries, heightening the risk of a wider confrontation. Particularly alarming are reports of civilian casualties, including damage to medical facilities and harm to schoolchildren in Iran, raising grave humanitarian concerns under international law.

The economic repercussions could be equally severe: nearly 20% of global oil supplies pass through the Strait of Hormuz, and any disruption would intensify global energy volatility. Escalation in the Red Sea corridor further threatens supply chains linking Asia and Europe. With the World Bank reporting that disruptions linked to the Red Sea crisis had, by late 2024, driven some global freight indices more than 140% above pre-crisis levels, renewed disruptions in these two strategic shipping corridors are further pushing up transport costs and heightening risks to food, fuel and fertilizer security. Such pressures could aggravate global inflation at a time when the world economy is already strained by geopolitical fragmentation and the lingering aftershocks of Donald Trump's tariff-driven trade tensions.

Against this backdrop, China's timely response, including clear condemnation of the U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran, urgent calls for an immediate ceasefire, a prompt return to dialogue and negotiations, and a firm reaffirmation of the principle of noninterference, has been described by many global security and strategic affairs analysts as predictable and pragmatic diplomacy. From the first day of the outbreak of hostilities, China's engagement has been specific, timely and constructive.

Statements from the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson and continued diplomatic outreach by Foreign Minister Wang Yi reflect sustained communication with multiple stakeholders, ranging from major countries to directly concerned parties. Beijing's core positions are clear: an immediate cessation of military operations and a comprehensive ceasefire; a return to dialogue under U.N. auspices; reaffirmation that regime change by force is illegitimate; protection of maritime security and stable energy flows; and safeguarding all countries' sovereignty, security and territorial integrity in accordance with international law.

These are not abstract slogans; they represent systemic safeguards aimed at preserving international stability. By reinforcing multilateral coordination, supporting U.N.-centered mediation and promoting inclusive dialogue, China presents its approach as one rooted in responsibility, balance and long-term global security. It is, however, far more than that, as China stands in alignment with broad segments of the international community that have expressed support for a peaceful, international law-based approach prioritizing de-escalation, respect for sovereignty and the resolution of disputes through dialogue rather than force.

China's diplomatic activism, exemplified by Wang Yi's phone calls with his counterparts in countries like Iran, Russia, Israel, Oman and France, along with emergency consultations at the U.N. Security Council, underscores Beijing's efforts to preserve institutional channels for dialogue and to promote de-escalation amid growing regional tensions. These communications stress the urgency of halting military operations, advancing political-diplomatic solutions and preventing broader spillover, demonstrating China's commitment to diplomacy and its support for a multilateral global order based on international law and the purposes and principles of the UN Charter.

The coordination between Beijing and Moscow at the Security Council underscores a broader claim: that crisis management must return to multilateral platforms rather than ad hoc coalitions. And this coordination indicates that Beijing is deploying major-country diplomacy to help defuse the crisis.

An Iranian flag is pictured at the United Nations headquarters in New York, Jan. 8, 2020. [Photo by Li Muzi/Xinhua]

At the same time, its parallel communication with concerned parties, including Iran, Israel and member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council, underscores a constructive and peace-oriented approach. This path emphasizes de-escalation through negotiation, dialogue and consultation, while opposing the use of force, preventing civilian casualties, safeguarding global supply chains and averting a return to the "law of the jungle" in international relations.

Here, China situates the episode within its Global Security Initiative, which advocates "indivisible security" and opposition to unilateral sanctions and strikes. The argument is that security cannot be achieved by maximizing one actor's dominance at the expense of systemic equilibrium.

This reflects China's structural diplomacy in the new era, a strategic vision of how global security should function amid uncertainty and the risk of a return to the "law of the jungle." It calls on all parties to uphold international law, strengthen multilateral mechanisms and resolve conflicts through political means, contributing to the building of a community with a shared future for humanity.

When Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi described the killing as "unacceptable" and a violation of sovereignty, he was not merely defending Tehran. He was defending the post-1945 prohibition on the use of force embedded in the U.N. Charter. Article 2(4) explicitly forbids force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. The strikes were not authorized by the U.N. Security Council. Nor did they meet the Caroline test of imminent self-defense under customary international law. China's position is therefore jurisprudential, not ideological.

Moreover, China's call for urgent diplomatic resolution and restraint resonates with the broader effort to ensure global prosperity for all, as continuing escalation along vital supply chain routes threatens to trigger a global recession, disproportionately affecting the majority of countries worldwide.

Negotiations between Washington and Tehran in Geneva had reportedly shown incremental progress. Military action during dialogue does more than halt talks. It degrades the credibility of diplomacy as an institution. If negotiations can be interrupted by force or used as operational cover and tactical feint to mask a “decapitation strike,” why would any state limit enrichment, reduce arsenals or expose facilities to inspection?

Data from the International Atomic Energy Agency has repeatedly indicated that while Iran expanded its uranium enrichment capacity, there has been no verified decision to weaponize the program. U.S. intelligence assessments in recent years have similarly noted that Iran has not made a decision to build nuclear weapons. If military force becomes acceptable despite ongoing negotiations in Oman, Geneva and those scheduled for Vienna, the signal to other states would be stark: diplomacy is unreliable and even risky, and deterrence requires acceleration.

China has long supported a political settlement of the Iran nuclear issue and welcomed progress in recent U.S.-Iran talks that also addressed Israel's security concerns, but Beijing says that this diplomatic process has been undermined by the disruption caused by military strikes.

History provides sobering metrics. According to the Costs of War project at Brown University, post-2001 Middle East conflicts have cost over $8 trillion and resulted in hundreds of thousands of direct civilian deaths. Regime-change operations in Iraq and Libya produced prolonged instability, not durable governance. The gains from the oil reserves in the two countries as expected by some in the U.S. failed to materialize. The lesson may be learned again in the case of Iran.

Iran's political system, unlike personalist regimes, is institutionalized. For instance, despite repeated calls from U.S. officials for Iranians to challenge their leadership, the U.S.-Israeli strikes, widely seen as aimed at regime change, have failed to achieve their objectives and have instead further united the Iranian people against the U.S.-Israeli attack.

This photo taken on June 13, 2025 shows buildings damaged during Israeli strikes in Tehran, Iran. [Photo/Xinhua]

In theoretical terms, escalation dominance with coercive and imposed post-conflict governance planning produces repeated retaliation cycles. The security dilemma intensifies. The risk of horizontal spillover rises sharply, whether to Gulf states, nonstate actors or maritime chokepoints.

The Strait of Hormuz handles roughly 20% of global oil flows. A disruption of even 10% to 15% historically correlates with oil price spikes exceeding 30% in short order. As of March 2, Brent crude is up 9% amid supply concerns. Analysts warn that in the event of a prolonged disruption, prices could exceed $100 per barrel as up to one-fifth of global crude supply faces logistical constraints.

For advanced economies, such volatility is disruptive. For developing economies, it is destabilizing. The IMF estimates that a sustained $10 increase in oil prices can shave 0.2 to 0.4 percentage points off global GDP growth. For energy-importing nations in South and Southeast Asia, East Asia and Africa, inflationary pass-through is immediate, amplifying food insecurity and sovereign debt stress.

Beijing's framing of energy security as common security reflects this systems-level risk modeling. Escalation in the Persian Gulf externalizes costs onto nations with no role in the conflict. That is why Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning has urged safeguarding navigation and uninterrupted supply.

Some Western narratives propagate the idea that Beijing is exploiting Western missteps for geopolitical gain. In reality, China does not pursue opportunistic advantage amid the conflict. Instead, it champions global and regional stability, emphasizing the vital role of multipolarity in sustaining an international order based on international law and the purposes and principles of the UN Charter.

As Wang Yi has cautioned, the alternative is a regression toward the "law of the jungle," where unilateral force dominates, sovereignty is ignored and global security faces serious disruption. If so-called "preemptive or preventive strikes" become normalized, middle powers will hedge through armament. Nuclear latency will shorten globally. Alliance entanglements will deepen.

Data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute shows global military expenditure reached a record $2.7 trillion in 2024. The trajectory is already upward. The Middle East accounts for one of the highest per capita defense burdens worldwide. Further escalation compounds an accelerating arms dynamic. China's stance, therefore, is anchored in a simple systems proposition: in a nuclearized, economically interdependent world, escalation produces nonlinear risk.

Beijing consistently states it does not take sides in regional conflicts. Yet neutrality does not imply silence. By condemning the killing of a sovereign leader and opposing unauthorized strikes, China reinforces two norms: noninterference and peaceful settlement. This aligns with its long-standing principle of mutual respect and territorial integrity, principles repeatedly invoked in its diplomacy across Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia.

Moreover, China's economic exposure to the Middle East, including energy imports, Belt and Road infrastructure and maritime trade, gives it direct stakes in stability. According to China Customs data, bilateral trade between China and Middle Eastern states exceeded $500 billion in recent years. Conflict disrupts not only energy but supply chains, logistics insurance premiums, and financial markets.

In this context, China's insistence on restraint is more rational than rhetorical. A multipolar world is not inherently peaceful, but it requires stronger norms to function. Sovereignty, multilateral authorization and diplomatic primacy are those norms. Responsible powers dampen volatility; they do not amplify it.

In an interconnected global economy, peace in the Middle East is not a regional favor. It is a structural necessity. China's timely call for de-escalation is therefore not simply a diplomatic gesture. It is a warning: without adherence to international law and multilateral governance, the world edges closer to systemic fracture. And once fracture begins, no nation remains insulated. The international community should, therefore, reject any act that violates international law, refrain from applying double standards, and work with China to de-escalate the situation in the Middle East and jointly safeguard the basic norms of international relations.

Ibrahim Khalil Ahasan, a Dhaka, Bangladesh-based journalist.

Here, China situates the episode within its Global Security Initiative, which advocates "indivisible security" and opposition to unilateral sanctions and strikes. The argument is that security cannot be achieved by maximizing one actor's dominance at the expense of systemic equilibrium.

This reflects China's structural diplomacy in the new era, a strategic vision of how global security should function amid uncertainty and the risk of a return to the "law of the jungle." It calls on all parties to uphold international law, strengthen multilateral mechanisms and resolve conflicts through political means, contributing to the building of a community with a shared future for humanity.

When Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi described the killing as "unacceptable" and a violation of sovereignty, he was not merely defending Tehran. He was defending the post-1945 prohibition on the use of force embedded in the U.N. Charter. Article 2(4) explicitly forbids force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. The strikes were not authorized by the U.N. Security Council. Nor did they meet the Caroline test of imminent self-defense under customary international law. China's position is therefore jurisprudential, not ideological.

Moreover, China's call for urgent diplomatic resolution and restraint resonates with the broader effort to ensure global prosperity for all, as continuing escalation along vital supply chain routes threatens to trigger a global recession, disproportionately affecting the majority of countries worldwide.

Negotiations between Washington and Tehran in Geneva had reportedly shown incremental progress. Military action during dialogue does more than halt talks. It degrades the credibility of diplomacy as an institution. If negotiations can be interrupted by force or used as operational cover and tactical feint to mask a “decapitation strike,” why would any state limit enrichment, reduce arsenals or expose facilities to inspection?

Data from the International Atomic Energy Agency has repeatedly indicated that while Iran expanded its uranium enrichment capacity, there has been no verified decision to weaponize the program. U.S. intelligence assessments in recent years have similarly noted that Iran has not made a decision to build nuclear weapons. If military force becomes acceptable despite ongoing negotiations in Oman, Geneva and those scheduled for Vienna, the signal to other states would be stark: diplomacy is unreliable and even risky, and deterrence requires acceleration.

China has long supported a political settlement of the Iran nuclear issue and welcomed progress in recent U.S.-Iran talks that also addressed Israel's security concerns, but Beijing says that this diplomatic process has been undermined by the disruption caused by military strikes.

History provides sobering metrics. According to the Costs of War project at Brown University, post-2001 Middle East conflicts have cost over $8 trillion and resulted in hundreds of thousands of direct civilian deaths. Regime-change operations in Iraq and Libya produced prolonged instability, not durable governance. The gains from the oil reserves in the two countries as expected by some in the U.S. failed to materialize. The lesson may be learned again in the case of Iran.

Iran's political system, unlike personalist regimes, is institutionalized. For instance, despite repeated calls from U.S. officials for Iranians to challenge their leadership, the U.S.-Israeli strikes, widely seen as aimed at regime change, have failed to achieve their objectives and have instead further united the Iranian people against the U.S.-Israeli attack.

This photo taken on June 13, 2025 shows buildings damaged during Israeli strikes in Tehran, Iran. [Photo/Xinhua]

In theoretical terms, escalation dominance with coercive and imposed post-conflict governance planning produces repeated retaliation cycles. The security dilemma intensifies. The risk of horizontal spillover rises sharply, whether to Gulf states, nonstate actors or maritime chokepoints.

The Strait of Hormuz handles roughly 20% of global oil flows. A disruption of even 10% to 15% historically correlates with oil price spikes exceeding 30% in short order. As of March 2, Brent crude is up 9% amid supply concerns. Analysts warn that in the event of a prolonged disruption, prices could exceed $100 per barrel as up to one-fifth of global crude supply faces logistical constraints.

For advanced economies, such volatility is disruptive. For developing economies, it is destabilizing. The IMF estimates that a sustained $10 increase in oil prices can shave 0.2 to 0.4 percentage points off global GDP growth. For energy-importing nations in South and Southeast Asia, East Asia and Africa, inflationary pass-through is immediate, amplifying food insecurity and sovereign debt stress.

Beijing's framing of energy security as common security reflects this systems-level risk modeling. Escalation in the Persian Gulf externalizes costs onto nations with no role in the conflict. That is why Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning has urged safeguarding navigation and uninterrupted supply.

Some Western narratives propagate the idea that Beijing is exploiting Western missteps for geopolitical gain. In reality, China does not pursue opportunistic advantage amid the conflict. Instead, it champions global and regional stability, emphasizing the vital role of multipolarity in sustaining an international order based on international law and the purposes and principles of the UN Charter.

As Wang Yi has cautioned, the alternative is a regression toward the "law of the jungle," where unilateral force dominates, sovereignty is ignored and global security faces serious disruption. If so-called "preemptive or preventive strikes" become normalized, middle powers will hedge through armament. Nuclear latency will shorten globally. Alliance entanglements will deepen.

Data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute shows global military expenditure reached a record $2.7 trillion in 2024. The trajectory is already upward. The Middle East accounts for one of the highest per capita defense burdens worldwide. Further escalation compounds an accelerating arms dynamic. China's stance, therefore, is anchored in a simple systems proposition: in a nuclearized, economically interdependent world, escalation produces nonlinear risk.

Beijing consistently states it does not take sides in regional conflicts. Yet neutrality does not imply silence. By condemning the killing of a sovereign leader and opposing unauthorized strikes, China reinforces two norms: noninterference and peaceful settlement. This aligns with its long-standing principle of mutual respect and territorial integrity, principles repeatedly invoked in its diplomacy across Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia.

Moreover, China's economic exposure to the Middle East, including energy imports, Belt and Road infrastructure and maritime trade, gives it direct stakes in stability. According to China Customs data, bilateral trade between China and Middle Eastern states exceeded $500 billion in recent years. Conflict disrupts not only energy but supply chains, logistics insurance premiums, and financial markets.

In this context, China's insistence on restraint is more rational than rhetorical. A multipolar world is not inherently peaceful, but it requires stronger norms to function. Sovereignty, multilateral authorization and diplomatic primacy are those norms. Responsible powers dampen volatility; they do not amplify it.

In an interconnected global economy, peace in the Middle East is not a regional favor. It is a structural necessity. China's timely call for de-escalation is therefore not simply a diplomatic gesture. It is a warning: without adherence to international law and multilateral governance, the world edges closer to systemic fracture. And once fracture begins, no nation remains insulated. The international community should, therefore, reject any act that violates international law, refrain from applying double standards, and work with China to de-escalate the situation in the Middle East and jointly safeguard the basic norms of international relations.

Ibrahim Khalil Ahasan, a Dhaka, Bangladesh-based journalist.

The attack has triggered significant Iranian retaliation across the region, from Israel to U.S. military bases in Gulf countries, heightening the risk of a wider confrontation. Particularly alarming are reports of civilian casualties, including damage to medical facilities and harm to schoolchildren in Iran, raising grave humanitarian concerns under international law.

The economic repercussions could be equally severe: nearly 20% of global oil supplies pass through the Strait of Hormuz, and any disruption would intensify global energy volatility. Escalation in the Red Sea corridor further threatens supply chains linking Asia and Europe. With the World Bank reporting that disruptions linked to the Red Sea crisis had, by late 2024, driven some global freight indices more than 140% above pre-crisis levels, renewed disruptions in these two strategic shipping corridors are further pushing up transport costs and heightening risks to food, fuel and fertilizer security. Such pressures could aggravate global inflation at a time when the world economy is already strained by geopolitical fragmentation and the lingering aftershocks of Donald Trump's tariff-driven trade tensions.

Against this backdrop, China's timely response, including clear condemnation of the U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran, urgent calls for an immediate ceasefire, a prompt return to dialogue and negotiations, and a firm reaffirmation of the principle of noninterference, has been described by many global security and strategic affairs analysts as predictable and pragmatic diplomacy. From the first day of the outbreak of hostilities, China's engagement has been specific, timely and constructive.

Statements from the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson and continued diplomatic outreach by Foreign Minister Wang Yi reflect sustained communication with multiple stakeholders, ranging from major countries to directly concerned parties. Beijing's core positions are clear: an immediate cessation of military operations and a comprehensive ceasefire; a return to dialogue under U.N. auspices; reaffirmation that regime change by force is illegitimate; protection of maritime security and stable energy flows; and safeguarding all countries' sovereignty, security and territorial integrity in accordance with international law.

These are not abstract slogans; they represent systemic safeguards aimed at preserving international stability. By reinforcing multilateral coordination, supporting U.N.-centered mediation and promoting inclusive dialogue, China presents its approach as one rooted in responsibility, balance and long-term global security. It is, however, far more than that, as China stands in alignment with broad segments of the international community that have expressed support for a peaceful, international law-based approach prioritizing de-escalation, respect for sovereignty and the resolution of disputes through dialogue rather than force.

China's diplomatic activism, exemplified by Wang Yi's phone calls with his counterparts in countries like Iran, Russia, Israel, Oman and France, along with emergency consultations at the U.N. Security Council, underscores Beijing's efforts to preserve institutional channels for dialogue and to promote de-escalation amid growing regional tensions. These communications stress the urgency of halting military operations, advancing political-diplomatic solutions and preventing broader spillover, demonstrating China's commitment to diplomacy and its support for a multilateral global order based on international law and the purposes and principles of the UN Charter.

The coordination between Beijing and Moscow at the Security Council underscores a broader claim: that crisis management must return to multilateral platforms rather than ad hoc coalitions. And this coordination indicates that Beijing is deploying major-country diplomacy to help defuse the crisis.

An Iranian flag is pictured at the United Nations headquarters in New York, Jan. 8, 2020. [Photo by Li Muzi/Xinhua]

At the same time, its parallel communication with concerned parties, including Iran, Israel and member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council, underscores a constructive and peace-oriented approach. This path emphasizes de-escalation through negotiation, dialogue and consultation, while opposing the use of force, preventing civilian casualties, safeguarding global supply chains and averting a return to the "law of the jungle" in international relations.

Here, China situates the episode within its Global Security Initiative, which advocates "indivisible security" and opposition to unilateral sanctions and strikes. The argument is that security cannot be achieved by maximizing one actor's dominance at the expense of systemic equilibrium.

This reflects China's structural diplomacy in the new era, a strategic vision of how global security should function amid uncertainty and the risk of a return to the "law of the jungle." It calls on all parties to uphold international law, strengthen multilateral mechanisms and resolve conflicts through political means, contributing to the building of a community with a shared future for humanity.

When Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi described the killing as "unacceptable" and a violation of sovereignty, he was not merely defending Tehran. He was defending the post-1945 prohibition on the use of force embedded in the U.N. Charter. Article 2(4) explicitly forbids force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. The strikes were not authorized by the U.N. Security Council. Nor did they meet the Caroline test of imminent self-defense under customary international law. China's position is therefore jurisprudential, not ideological.

Moreover, China's call for urgent diplomatic resolution and restraint resonates with the broader effort to ensure global prosperity for all, as continuing escalation along vital supply chain routes threatens to trigger a global recession, disproportionately affecting the majority of countries worldwide.

Negotiations between Washington and Tehran in Geneva had reportedly shown incremental progress. Military action during dialogue does more than halt talks. It degrades the credibility of diplomacy as an institution. If negotiations can be interrupted by force or used as operational cover and tactical feint to mask a “decapitation strike,” why would any state limit enrichment, reduce arsenals or expose facilities to inspection?

Data from the International Atomic Energy Agency has repeatedly indicated that while Iran expanded its uranium enrichment capacity, there has been no verified decision to weaponize the program. U.S. intelligence assessments in recent years have similarly noted that Iran has not made a decision to build nuclear weapons. If military force becomes acceptable despite ongoing negotiations in Oman, Geneva and those scheduled for Vienna, the signal to other states would be stark: diplomacy is unreliable and even risky, and deterrence requires acceleration.

China has long supported a political settlement of the Iran nuclear issue and welcomed progress in recent U.S.-Iran talks that also addressed Israel's security concerns, but Beijing says that this diplomatic process has been undermined by the disruption caused by military strikes.

History provides sobering metrics. According to the Costs of War project at Brown University, post-2001 Middle East conflicts have cost over $8 trillion and resulted in hundreds of thousands of direct civilian deaths. Regime-change operations in Iraq and Libya produced prolonged instability, not durable governance. The gains from the oil reserves in the two countries as expected by some in the U.S. failed to materialize. The lesson may be learned again in the case of Iran.

Iran's political system, unlike personalist regimes, is institutionalized. For instance, despite repeated calls from U.S. officials for Iranians to challenge their leadership, the U.S.-Israeli strikes, widely seen as aimed at regime change, have failed to achieve their objectives and have instead further united the Iranian people against the U.S.-Israeli attack.

This photo taken on June 13, 2025 shows buildings damaged during Israeli strikes in Tehran, Iran. [Photo/Xinhua]

In theoretical terms, escalation dominance with coercive and imposed post-conflict governance planning produces repeated retaliation cycles. The security dilemma intensifies. The risk of horizontal spillover rises sharply, whether to Gulf states, nonstate actors or maritime chokepoints.

The Strait of Hormuz handles roughly 20% of global oil flows. A disruption of even 10% to 15% historically correlates with oil price spikes exceeding 30% in short order. As of March 2, Brent crude is up 9% amid supply concerns. Analysts warn that in the event of a prolonged disruption, prices could exceed $100 per barrel as up to one-fifth of global crude supply faces logistical constraints.

For advanced economies, such volatility is disruptive. For developing economies, it is destabilizing. The IMF estimates that a sustained $10 increase in oil prices can shave 0.2 to 0.4 percentage points off global GDP growth. For energy-importing nations in South and Southeast Asia, East Asia and Africa, inflationary pass-through is immediate, amplifying food insecurity and sovereign debt stress.

Beijing's framing of energy security as common security reflects this systems-level risk modeling. Escalation in the Persian Gulf externalizes costs onto nations with no role in the conflict. That is why Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning has urged safeguarding navigation and uninterrupted supply.

Some Western narratives propagate the idea that Beijing is exploiting Western missteps for geopolitical gain. In reality, China does not pursue opportunistic advantage amid the conflict. Instead, it champions global and regional stability, emphasizing the vital role of multipolarity in sustaining an international order based on international law and the purposes and principles of the UN Charter.

As Wang Yi has cautioned, the alternative is a regression toward the "law of the jungle," where unilateral force dominates, sovereignty is ignored and global security faces serious disruption. If so-called "preemptive or preventive strikes" become normalized, middle powers will hedge through armament. Nuclear latency will shorten globally. Alliance entanglements will deepen.

Data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute shows global military expenditure reached a record $2.7 trillion in 2024. The trajectory is already upward. The Middle East accounts for one of the highest per capita defense burdens worldwide. Further escalation compounds an accelerating arms dynamic. China's stance, therefore, is anchored in a simple systems proposition: in a nuclearized, economically interdependent world, escalation produces nonlinear risk.

Beijing consistently states it does not take sides in regional conflicts. Yet neutrality does not imply silence. By condemning the killing of a sovereign leader and opposing unauthorized strikes, China reinforces two norms: noninterference and peaceful settlement. This aligns with its long-standing principle of mutual respect and territorial integrity, principles repeatedly invoked in its diplomacy across Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia.

Moreover, China's economic exposure to the Middle East, including energy imports, Belt and Road infrastructure and maritime trade, gives it direct stakes in stability. According to China Customs data, bilateral trade between China and Middle Eastern states exceeded $500 billion in recent years. Conflict disrupts not only energy but supply chains, logistics insurance premiums, and financial markets.

In this context, China's insistence on restraint is more rational than rhetorical. A multipolar world is not inherently peaceful, but it requires stronger norms to function. Sovereignty, multilateral authorization and diplomatic primacy are those norms. Responsible powers dampen volatility; they do not amplify it.

In an interconnected global economy, peace in the Middle East is not a regional favor. It is a structural necessity. China's timely call for de-escalation is therefore not simply a diplomatic gesture. It is a warning: without adherence to international law and multilateral governance, the world edges closer to systemic fracture. And once fracture begins, no nation remains insulated. The international community should, therefore, reject any act that violates international law, refrain from applying double standards, and work with China to de-escalate the situation in the Middle East and jointly safeguard the basic norms of international relations.

Ibrahim Khalil Ahasan, a Dhaka, Bangladesh-based journalist.

Here, China situates the episode within its Global Security Initiative, which advocates "indivisible security" and opposition to unilateral sanctions and strikes. The argument is that security cannot be achieved by maximizing one actor's dominance at the expense of systemic equilibrium.

This reflects China's structural diplomacy in the new era, a strategic vision of how global security should function amid uncertainty and the risk of a return to the "law of the jungle." It calls on all parties to uphold international law, strengthen multilateral mechanisms and resolve conflicts through political means, contributing to the building of a community with a shared future for humanity.

When Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi described the killing as "unacceptable" and a violation of sovereignty, he was not merely defending Tehran. He was defending the post-1945 prohibition on the use of force embedded in the U.N. Charter. Article 2(4) explicitly forbids force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. The strikes were not authorized by the U.N. Security Council. Nor did they meet the Caroline test of imminent self-defense under customary international law. China's position is therefore jurisprudential, not ideological.

Moreover, China's call for urgent diplomatic resolution and restraint resonates with the broader effort to ensure global prosperity for all, as continuing escalation along vital supply chain routes threatens to trigger a global recession, disproportionately affecting the majority of countries worldwide.

Negotiations between Washington and Tehran in Geneva had reportedly shown incremental progress. Military action during dialogue does more than halt talks. It degrades the credibility of diplomacy as an institution. If negotiations can be interrupted by force or used as operational cover and tactical feint to mask a “decapitation strike,” why would any state limit enrichment, reduce arsenals or expose facilities to inspection?

Data from the International Atomic Energy Agency has repeatedly indicated that while Iran expanded its uranium enrichment capacity, there has been no verified decision to weaponize the program. U.S. intelligence assessments in recent years have similarly noted that Iran has not made a decision to build nuclear weapons. If military force becomes acceptable despite ongoing negotiations in Oman, Geneva and those scheduled for Vienna, the signal to other states would be stark: diplomacy is unreliable and even risky, and deterrence requires acceleration.

China has long supported a political settlement of the Iran nuclear issue and welcomed progress in recent U.S.-Iran talks that also addressed Israel's security concerns, but Beijing says that this diplomatic process has been undermined by the disruption caused by military strikes.

History provides sobering metrics. According to the Costs of War project at Brown University, post-2001 Middle East conflicts have cost over $8 trillion and resulted in hundreds of thousands of direct civilian deaths. Regime-change operations in Iraq and Libya produced prolonged instability, not durable governance. The gains from the oil reserves in the two countries as expected by some in the U.S. failed to materialize. The lesson may be learned again in the case of Iran.

Iran's political system, unlike personalist regimes, is institutionalized. For instance, despite repeated calls from U.S. officials for Iranians to challenge their leadership, the U.S.-Israeli strikes, widely seen as aimed at regime change, have failed to achieve their objectives and have instead further united the Iranian people against the U.S.-Israeli attack.

This photo taken on June 13, 2025 shows buildings damaged during Israeli strikes in Tehran, Iran. [Photo/Xinhua]

In theoretical terms, escalation dominance with coercive and imposed post-conflict governance planning produces repeated retaliation cycles. The security dilemma intensifies. The risk of horizontal spillover rises sharply, whether to Gulf states, nonstate actors or maritime chokepoints.

The Strait of Hormuz handles roughly 20% of global oil flows. A disruption of even 10% to 15% historically correlates with oil price spikes exceeding 30% in short order. As of March 2, Brent crude is up 9% amid supply concerns. Analysts warn that in the event of a prolonged disruption, prices could exceed $100 per barrel as up to one-fifth of global crude supply faces logistical constraints.

For advanced economies, such volatility is disruptive. For developing economies, it is destabilizing. The IMF estimates that a sustained $10 increase in oil prices can shave 0.2 to 0.4 percentage points off global GDP growth. For energy-importing nations in South and Southeast Asia, East Asia and Africa, inflationary pass-through is immediate, amplifying food insecurity and sovereign debt stress.

Beijing's framing of energy security as common security reflects this systems-level risk modeling. Escalation in the Persian Gulf externalizes costs onto nations with no role in the conflict. That is why Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning has urged safeguarding navigation and uninterrupted supply.

Some Western narratives propagate the idea that Beijing is exploiting Western missteps for geopolitical gain. In reality, China does not pursue opportunistic advantage amid the conflict. Instead, it champions global and regional stability, emphasizing the vital role of multipolarity in sustaining an international order based on international law and the purposes and principles of the UN Charter.

As Wang Yi has cautioned, the alternative is a regression toward the "law of the jungle," where unilateral force dominates, sovereignty is ignored and global security faces serious disruption. If so-called "preemptive or preventive strikes" become normalized, middle powers will hedge through armament. Nuclear latency will shorten globally. Alliance entanglements will deepen.

Data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute shows global military expenditure reached a record $2.7 trillion in 2024. The trajectory is already upward. The Middle East accounts for one of the highest per capita defense burdens worldwide. Further escalation compounds an accelerating arms dynamic. China's stance, therefore, is anchored in a simple systems proposition: in a nuclearized, economically interdependent world, escalation produces nonlinear risk.

Beijing consistently states it does not take sides in regional conflicts. Yet neutrality does not imply silence. By condemning the killing of a sovereign leader and opposing unauthorized strikes, China reinforces two norms: noninterference and peaceful settlement. This aligns with its long-standing principle of mutual respect and territorial integrity, principles repeatedly invoked in its diplomacy across Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia.

Moreover, China's economic exposure to the Middle East, including energy imports, Belt and Road infrastructure and maritime trade, gives it direct stakes in stability. According to China Customs data, bilateral trade between China and Middle Eastern states exceeded $500 billion in recent years. Conflict disrupts not only energy but supply chains, logistics insurance premiums, and financial markets.

In this context, China's insistence on restraint is more rational than rhetorical. A multipolar world is not inherently peaceful, but it requires stronger norms to function. Sovereignty, multilateral authorization and diplomatic primacy are those norms. Responsible powers dampen volatility; they do not amplify it.

In an interconnected global economy, peace in the Middle East is not a regional favor. It is a structural necessity. China's timely call for de-escalation is therefore not simply a diplomatic gesture. It is a warning: without adherence to international law and multilateral governance, the world edges closer to systemic fracture. And once fracture begins, no nation remains insulated. The international community should, therefore, reject any act that violates international law, refrain from applying double standards, and work with China to de-escalate the situation in the Middle East and jointly safeguard the basic norms of international relations.

Ibrahim Khalil Ahasan, a Dhaka, Bangladesh-based journalist.

The attack has triggered significant Iranian retaliation across the region, from Israel to U.S. military bases in Gulf countries, heightening the risk of a wider confrontation. Particularly alarming are reports of civilian casualties, including damage to medical facilities and harm to schoolchildren in Iran, raising grave humanitarian concerns under international law.

The economic repercussions could be equally severe: nearly 20% of global oil supplies pass through the Strait of Hormuz, and any disruption would intensify global energy volatility. Escalation in the Red Sea corridor further threatens supply chains linking Asia and Europe. With the World Bank reporting that disruptions linked to the Red Sea crisis had, by late 2024, driven some global freight indices more than 140% above pre-crisis levels, renewed disruptions in these two strategic shipping corridors are further pushing up transport costs and heightening risks to food, fuel and fertilizer security. Such pressures could aggravate global inflation at a time when the world economy is already strained by geopolitical fragmentation and the lingering aftershocks of Donald Trump's tariff-driven trade tensions.

Against this backdrop, China's timely response, including clear condemnation of the U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran, urgent calls for an immediate ceasefire, a prompt return to dialogue and negotiations, and a firm reaffirmation of the principle of noninterference, has been described by many global security and strategic affairs analysts as predictable and pragmatic diplomacy. From the first day of the outbreak of hostilities, China's engagement has been specific, timely and constructive.

Statements from the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson and continued diplomatic outreach by Foreign Minister Wang Yi reflect sustained communication with multiple stakeholders, ranging from major countries to directly concerned parties. Beijing's core positions are clear: an immediate cessation of military operations and a comprehensive ceasefire; a return to dialogue under U.N. auspices; reaffirmation that regime change by force is illegitimate; protection of maritime security and stable energy flows; and safeguarding all countries' sovereignty, security and territorial integrity in accordance with international law.

These are not abstract slogans; they represent systemic safeguards aimed at preserving international stability. By reinforcing multilateral coordination, supporting U.N.-centered mediation and promoting inclusive dialogue, China presents its approach as one rooted in responsibility, balance and long-term global security. It is, however, far more than that, as China stands in alignment with broad segments of the international community that have expressed support for a peaceful, international law-based approach prioritizing de-escalation, respect for sovereignty and the resolution of disputes through dialogue rather than force.

China's diplomatic activism, exemplified by Wang Yi's phone calls with his counterparts in countries like Iran, Russia, Israel, Oman and France, along with emergency consultations at the U.N. Security Council, underscores Beijing's efforts to preserve institutional channels for dialogue and to promote de-escalation amid growing regional tensions. These communications stress the urgency of halting military operations, advancing political-diplomatic solutions and preventing broader spillover, demonstrating China's commitment to diplomacy and its support for a multilateral global order based on international law and the purposes and principles of the UN Charter.

The coordination between Beijing and Moscow at the Security Council underscores a broader claim: that crisis management must return to multilateral platforms rather than ad hoc coalitions. And this coordination indicates that Beijing is deploying major-country diplomacy to help defuse the crisis.

An Iranian flag is pictured at the United Nations headquarters in New York, Jan. 8, 2020. [Photo by Li Muzi/Xinhua]

At the same time, its parallel communication with concerned parties, including Iran, Israel and member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council, underscores a constructive and peace-oriented approach. This path emphasizes de-escalation through negotiation, dialogue and consultation, while opposing the use of force, preventing civilian casualties, safeguarding global supply chains and averting a return to the "law of the jungle" in international relations.

Here, China situates the episode within its Global Security Initiative, which advocates "indivisible security" and opposition to unilateral sanctions and strikes. The argument is that security cannot be achieved by maximizing one actor's dominance at the expense of systemic equilibrium.

This reflects China's structural diplomacy in the new era, a strategic vision of how global security should function amid uncertainty and the risk of a return to the "law of the jungle." It calls on all parties to uphold international law, strengthen multilateral mechanisms and resolve conflicts through political means, contributing to the building of a community with a shared future for humanity.

When Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi described the killing as "unacceptable" and a violation of sovereignty, he was not merely defending Tehran. He was defending the post-1945 prohibition on the use of force embedded in the U.N. Charter. Article 2(4) explicitly forbids force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. The strikes were not authorized by the U.N. Security Council. Nor did they meet the Caroline test of imminent self-defense under customary international law. China's position is therefore jurisprudential, not ideological.

Moreover, China's call for urgent diplomatic resolution and restraint resonates with the broader effort to ensure global prosperity for all, as continuing escalation along vital supply chain routes threatens to trigger a global recession, disproportionately affecting the majority of countries worldwide.

Negotiations between Washington and Tehran in Geneva had reportedly shown incremental progress. Military action during dialogue does more than halt talks. It degrades the credibility of diplomacy as an institution. If negotiations can be interrupted by force or used as operational cover and tactical feint to mask a “decapitation strike,” why would any state limit enrichment, reduce arsenals or expose facilities to inspection?

Data from the International Atomic Energy Agency has repeatedly indicated that while Iran expanded its uranium enrichment capacity, there has been no verified decision to weaponize the program. U.S. intelligence assessments in recent years have similarly noted that Iran has not made a decision to build nuclear weapons. If military force becomes acceptable despite ongoing negotiations in Oman, Geneva and those scheduled for Vienna, the signal to other states would be stark: diplomacy is unreliable and even risky, and deterrence requires acceleration.

China has long supported a political settlement of the Iran nuclear issue and welcomed progress in recent U.S.-Iran talks that also addressed Israel's security concerns, but Beijing says that this diplomatic process has been undermined by the disruption caused by military strikes.

History provides sobering metrics. According to the Costs of War project at Brown University, post-2001 Middle East conflicts have cost over $8 trillion and resulted in hundreds of thousands of direct civilian deaths. Regime-change operations in Iraq and Libya produced prolonged instability, not durable governance. The gains from the oil reserves in the two countries as expected by some in the U.S. failed to materialize. The lesson may be learned again in the case of Iran.

Iran's political system, unlike personalist regimes, is institutionalized. For instance, despite repeated calls from U.S. officials for Iranians to challenge their leadership, the U.S.-Israeli strikes, widely seen as aimed at regime change, have failed to achieve their objectives and have instead further united the Iranian people against the U.S.-Israeli attack.

This photo taken on June 13, 2025 shows buildings damaged during Israeli strikes in Tehran, Iran. [Photo/Xinhua]

In theoretical terms, escalation dominance with coercive and imposed post-conflict governance planning produces repeated retaliation cycles. The security dilemma intensifies. The risk of horizontal spillover rises sharply, whether to Gulf states, nonstate actors or maritime chokepoints.

The Strait of Hormuz handles roughly 20% of global oil flows. A disruption of even 10% to 15% historically correlates with oil price spikes exceeding 30% in short order. As of March 2, Brent crude is up 9% amid supply concerns. Analysts warn that in the event of a prolonged disruption, prices could exceed $100 per barrel as up to one-fifth of global crude supply faces logistical constraints.

For advanced economies, such volatility is disruptive. For developing economies, it is destabilizing. The IMF estimates that a sustained $10 increase in oil prices can shave 0.2 to 0.4 percentage points off global GDP growth. For energy-importing nations in South and Southeast Asia, East Asia and Africa, inflationary pass-through is immediate, amplifying food insecurity and sovereign debt stress.

Beijing's framing of energy security as common security reflects this systems-level risk modeling. Escalation in the Persian Gulf externalizes costs onto nations with no role in the conflict. That is why Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning has urged safeguarding navigation and uninterrupted supply.

Some Western narratives propagate the idea that Beijing is exploiting Western missteps for geopolitical gain. In reality, China does not pursue opportunistic advantage amid the conflict. Instead, it champions global and regional stability, emphasizing the vital role of multipolarity in sustaining an international order based on international law and the purposes and principles of the UN Charter.

As Wang Yi has cautioned, the alternative is a regression toward the "law of the jungle," where unilateral force dominates, sovereignty is ignored and global security faces serious disruption. If so-called "preemptive or preventive strikes" become normalized, middle powers will hedge through armament. Nuclear latency will shorten globally. Alliance entanglements will deepen.

Data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute shows global military expenditure reached a record $2.7 trillion in 2024. The trajectory is already upward. The Middle East accounts for one of the highest per capita defense burdens worldwide. Further escalation compounds an accelerating arms dynamic. China's stance, therefore, is anchored in a simple systems proposition: in a nuclearized, economically interdependent world, escalation produces nonlinear risk.

Beijing consistently states it does not take sides in regional conflicts. Yet neutrality does not imply silence. By condemning the killing of a sovereign leader and opposing unauthorized strikes, China reinforces two norms: noninterference and peaceful settlement. This aligns with its long-standing principle of mutual respect and territorial integrity, principles repeatedly invoked in its diplomacy across Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia.

Moreover, China's economic exposure to the Middle East, including energy imports, Belt and Road infrastructure and maritime trade, gives it direct stakes in stability. According to China Customs data, bilateral trade between China and Middle Eastern states exceeded $500 billion in recent years. Conflict disrupts not only energy but supply chains, logistics insurance premiums, and financial markets.

In this context, China's insistence on restraint is more rational than rhetorical. A multipolar world is not inherently peaceful, but it requires stronger norms to function. Sovereignty, multilateral authorization and diplomatic primacy are those norms. Responsible powers dampen volatility; they do not amplify it.

In an interconnected global economy, peace in the Middle East is not a regional favor. It is a structural necessity. China's timely call for de-escalation is therefore not simply a diplomatic gesture. It is a warning: without adherence to international law and multilateral governance, the world edges closer to systemic fracture. And once fracture begins, no nation remains insulated. The international community should, therefore, reject any act that violates international law, refrain from applying double standards, and work with China to de-escalate the situation in the Middle East and jointly safeguard the basic norms of international relations.

Ibrahim Khalil Ahasan, a Dhaka, Bangladesh-based journalist.

Here, China situates the episode within its Global Security Initiative, which advocates "indivisible security" and opposition to unilateral sanctions and strikes. The argument is that security cannot be achieved by maximizing one actor's dominance at the expense of systemic equilibrium.

This reflects China's structural diplomacy in the new era, a strategic vision of how global security should function amid uncertainty and the risk of a return to the "law of the jungle." It calls on all parties to uphold international law, strengthen multilateral mechanisms and resolve conflicts through political means, contributing to the building of a community with a shared future for humanity.

When Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi described the killing as "unacceptable" and a violation of sovereignty, he was not merely defending Tehran. He was defending the post-1945 prohibition on the use of force embedded in the U.N. Charter. Article 2(4) explicitly forbids force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. The strikes were not authorized by the U.N. Security Council. Nor did they meet the Caroline test of imminent self-defense under customary international law. China's position is therefore jurisprudential, not ideological.

Moreover, China's call for urgent diplomatic resolution and restraint resonates with the broader effort to ensure global prosperity for all, as continuing escalation along vital supply chain routes threatens to trigger a global recession, disproportionately affecting the majority of countries worldwide.

Negotiations between Washington and Tehran in Geneva had reportedly shown incremental progress. Military action during dialogue does more than halt talks. It degrades the credibility of diplomacy as an institution. If negotiations can be interrupted by force or used as operational cover and tactical feint to mask a “decapitation strike,” why would any state limit enrichment, reduce arsenals or expose facilities to inspection?

Data from the International Atomic Energy Agency has repeatedly indicated that while Iran expanded its uranium enrichment capacity, there has been no verified decision to weaponize the program. U.S. intelligence assessments in recent years have similarly noted that Iran has not made a decision to build nuclear weapons. If military force becomes acceptable despite ongoing negotiations in Oman, Geneva and those scheduled for Vienna, the signal to other states would be stark: diplomacy is unreliable and even risky, and deterrence requires acceleration.

China has long supported a political settlement of the Iran nuclear issue and welcomed progress in recent U.S.-Iran talks that also addressed Israel's security concerns, but Beijing says that this diplomatic process has been undermined by the disruption caused by military strikes.

History provides sobering metrics. According to the Costs of War project at Brown University, post-2001 Middle East conflicts have cost over $8 trillion and resulted in hundreds of thousands of direct civilian deaths. Regime-change operations in Iraq and Libya produced prolonged instability, not durable governance. The gains from the oil reserves in the two countries as expected by some in the U.S. failed to materialize. The lesson may be learned again in the case of Iran.

Iran's political system, unlike personalist regimes, is institutionalized. For instance, despite repeated calls from U.S. officials for Iranians to challenge their leadership, the U.S.-Israeli strikes, widely seen as aimed at regime change, have failed to achieve their objectives and have instead further united the Iranian people against the U.S.-Israeli attack.

This photo taken on June 13, 2025 shows buildings damaged during Israeli strikes in Tehran, Iran. [Photo/Xinhua]

In theoretical terms, escalation dominance with coercive and imposed post-conflict governance planning produces repeated retaliation cycles. The security dilemma intensifies. The risk of horizontal spillover rises sharply, whether to Gulf states, nonstate actors or maritime chokepoints.

The Strait of Hormuz handles roughly 20% of global oil flows. A disruption of even 10% to 15% historically correlates with oil price spikes exceeding 30% in short order. As of March 2, Brent crude is up 9% amid supply concerns. Analysts warn that in the event of a prolonged disruption, prices could exceed $100 per barrel as up to one-fifth of global crude supply faces logistical constraints.

For advanced economies, such volatility is disruptive. For developing economies, it is destabilizing. The IMF estimates that a sustained $10 increase in oil prices can shave 0.2 to 0.4 percentage points off global GDP growth. For energy-importing nations in South and Southeast Asia, East Asia and Africa, inflationary pass-through is immediate, amplifying food insecurity and sovereign debt stress.

Beijing's framing of energy security as common security reflects this systems-level risk modeling. Escalation in the Persian Gulf externalizes costs onto nations with no role in the conflict. That is why Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning has urged safeguarding navigation and uninterrupted supply.

Some Western narratives propagate the idea that Beijing is exploiting Western missteps for geopolitical gain. In reality, China does not pursue opportunistic advantage amid the conflict. Instead, it champions global and regional stability, emphasizing the vital role of multipolarity in sustaining an international order based on international law and the purposes and principles of the UN Charter.

As Wang Yi has cautioned, the alternative is a regression toward the "law of the jungle," where unilateral force dominates, sovereignty is ignored and global security faces serious disruption. If so-called "preemptive or preventive strikes" become normalized, middle powers will hedge through armament. Nuclear latency will shorten globally. Alliance entanglements will deepen.

Data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute shows global military expenditure reached a record $2.7 trillion in 2024. The trajectory is already upward. The Middle East accounts for one of the highest per capita defense burdens worldwide. Further escalation compounds an accelerating arms dynamic. China's stance, therefore, is anchored in a simple systems proposition: in a nuclearized, economically interdependent world, escalation produces nonlinear risk.

Beijing consistently states it does not take sides in regional conflicts. Yet neutrality does not imply silence. By condemning the killing of a sovereign leader and opposing unauthorized strikes, China reinforces two norms: noninterference and peaceful settlement. This aligns with its long-standing principle of mutual respect and territorial integrity, principles repeatedly invoked in its diplomacy across Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia.

Moreover, China's economic exposure to the Middle East, including energy imports, Belt and Road infrastructure and maritime trade, gives it direct stakes in stability. According to China Customs data, bilateral trade between China and Middle Eastern states exceeded $500 billion in recent years. Conflict disrupts not only energy but supply chains, logistics insurance premiums, and financial markets.

In this context, China's insistence on restraint is more rational than rhetorical. A multipolar world is not inherently peaceful, but it requires stronger norms to function. Sovereignty, multilateral authorization and diplomatic primacy are those norms. Responsible powers dampen volatility; they do not amplify it.

In an interconnected global economy, peace in the Middle East is not a regional favor. It is a structural necessity. China's timely call for de-escalation is therefore not simply a diplomatic gesture. It is a warning: without adherence to international law and multilateral governance, the world edges closer to systemic fracture. And once fracture begins, no nation remains insulated. The international community should, therefore, reject any act that violates international law, refrain from applying double standards, and work with China to de-escalate the situation in the Middle East and jointly safeguard the basic norms of international relations.

Ibrahim Khalil Ahasan, a Dhaka, Bangladesh-based journalist.

The attack has triggered significant Iranian retaliation across the region, from Israel to U.S. military bases in Gulf countries, heightening the risk of a wider confrontation. Particularly alarming are reports of civilian casualties, including damage to medical facilities and harm to schoolchildren in Iran, raising grave humanitarian concerns under international law.

The economic repercussions could be equally severe: nearly 20% of global oil supplies pass through the Strait of Hormuz, and any disruption would intensify global energy volatility. Escalation in the Red Sea corridor further threatens supply chains linking Asia and Europe. With the World Bank reporting that disruptions linked to the Red Sea crisis had, by late 2024, driven some global freight indices more than 140% above pre-crisis levels, renewed disruptions in these two strategic shipping corridors are further pushing up transport costs and heightening risks to food, fuel and fertilizer security. Such pressures could aggravate global inflation at a time when the world economy is already strained by geopolitical fragmentation and the lingering aftershocks of Donald Trump's tariff-driven trade tensions.

Against this backdrop, China's timely response, including clear condemnation of the U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran, urgent calls for an immediate ceasefire, a prompt return to dialogue and negotiations, and a firm reaffirmation of the principle of noninterference, has been described by many global security and strategic affairs analysts as predictable and pragmatic diplomacy. From the first day of the outbreak of hostilities, China's engagement has been specific, timely and constructive.

Statements from the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson and continued diplomatic outreach by Foreign Minister Wang Yi reflect sustained communication with multiple stakeholders, ranging from major countries to directly concerned parties. Beijing's core positions are clear: an immediate cessation of military operations and a comprehensive ceasefire; a return to dialogue under U.N. auspices; reaffirmation that regime change by force is illegitimate; protection of maritime security and stable energy flows; and safeguarding all countries' sovereignty, security and territorial integrity in accordance with international law.

These are not abstract slogans; they represent systemic safeguards aimed at preserving international stability. By reinforcing multilateral coordination, supporting U.N.-centered mediation and promoting inclusive dialogue, China presents its approach as one rooted in responsibility, balance and long-term global security. It is, however, far more than that, as China stands in alignment with broad segments of the international community that have expressed support for a peaceful, international law-based approach prioritizing de-escalation, respect for sovereignty and the resolution of disputes through dialogue rather than force.

China's diplomatic activism, exemplified by Wang Yi's phone calls with his counterparts in countries like Iran, Russia, Israel, Oman and France, along with emergency consultations at the U.N. Security Council, underscores Beijing's efforts to preserve institutional channels for dialogue and to promote de-escalation amid growing regional tensions. These communications stress the urgency of halting military operations, advancing political-diplomatic solutions and preventing broader spillover, demonstrating China's commitment to diplomacy and its support for a multilateral global order based on international law and the purposes and principles of the UN Charter.

The coordination between Beijing and Moscow at the Security Council underscores a broader claim: that crisis management must return to multilateral platforms rather than ad hoc coalitions. And this coordination indicates that Beijing is deploying major-country diplomacy to help defuse the crisis.

An Iranian flag is pictured at the United Nations headquarters in New York, Jan. 8, 2020. [Photo by Li Muzi/Xinhua]

At the same time, its parallel communication with concerned parties, including Iran, Israel and member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council, underscores a constructive and peace-oriented approach. This path emphasizes de-escalation through negotiation, dialogue and consultation, while opposing the use of force, preventing civilian casualties, safeguarding global supply chains and averting a return to the "law of the jungle" in international relations.

Here, China situates the episode within its Global Security Initiative, which advocates "indivisible security" and opposition to unilateral sanctions and strikes. The argument is that security cannot be achieved by maximizing one actor's dominance at the expense of systemic equilibrium.

This reflects China's structural diplomacy in the new era, a strategic vision of how global security should function amid uncertainty and the risk of a return to the "law of the jungle." It calls on all parties to uphold international law, strengthen multilateral mechanisms and resolve conflicts through political means, contributing to the building of a community with a shared future for humanity.

When Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi described the killing as "unacceptable" and a violation of sovereignty, he was not merely defending Tehran. He was defending the post-1945 prohibition on the use of force embedded in the U.N. Charter. Article 2(4) explicitly forbids force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. The strikes were not authorized by the U.N. Security Council. Nor did they meet the Caroline test of imminent self-defense under customary international law. China's position is therefore jurisprudential, not ideological.

Moreover, China's call for urgent diplomatic resolution and restraint resonates with the broader effort to ensure global prosperity for all, as continuing escalation along vital supply chain routes threatens to trigger a global recession, disproportionately affecting the majority of countries worldwide.

Negotiations between Washington and Tehran in Geneva had reportedly shown incremental progress. Military action during dialogue does more than halt talks. It degrades the credibility of diplomacy as an institution. If negotiations can be interrupted by force or used as operational cover and tactical feint to mask a “decapitation strike,” why would any state limit enrichment, reduce arsenals or expose facilities to inspection?

Data from the International Atomic Energy Agency has repeatedly indicated that while Iran expanded its uranium enrichment capacity, there has been no verified decision to weaponize the program. U.S. intelligence assessments in recent years have similarly noted that Iran has not made a decision to build nuclear weapons. If military force becomes acceptable despite ongoing negotiations in Oman, Geneva and those scheduled for Vienna, the signal to other states would be stark: diplomacy is unreliable and even risky, and deterrence requires acceleration.

China has long supported a political settlement of the Iran nuclear issue and welcomed progress in recent U.S.-Iran talks that also addressed Israel's security concerns, but Beijing says that this diplomatic process has been undermined by the disruption caused by military strikes.

History provides sobering metrics. According to the Costs of War project at Brown University, post-2001 Middle East conflicts have cost over $8 trillion and resulted in hundreds of thousands of direct civilian deaths. Regime-change operations in Iraq and Libya produced prolonged instability, not durable governance. The gains from the oil reserves in the two countries as expected by some in the U.S. failed to materialize. The lesson may be learned again in the case of Iran.

Iran's political system, unlike personalist regimes, is institutionalized. For instance, despite repeated calls from U.S. officials for Iranians to challenge their leadership, the U.S.-Israeli strikes, widely seen as aimed at regime change, have failed to achieve their objectives and have instead further united the Iranian people against the U.S.-Israeli attack.

This photo taken on June 13, 2025 shows buildings damaged during Israeli strikes in Tehran, Iran. [Photo/Xinhua]

In theoretical terms, escalation dominance with coercive and imposed post-conflict governance planning produces repeated retaliation cycles. The security dilemma intensifies. The risk of horizontal spillover rises sharply, whether to Gulf states, nonstate actors or maritime chokepoints.

The Strait of Hormuz handles roughly 20% of global oil flows. A disruption of even 10% to 15% historically correlates with oil price spikes exceeding 30% in short order. As of March 2, Brent crude is up 9% amid supply concerns. Analysts warn that in the event of a prolonged disruption, prices could exceed $100 per barrel as up to one-fifth of global crude supply faces logistical constraints.

For advanced economies, such volatility is disruptive. For developing economies, it is destabilizing. The IMF estimates that a sustained $10 increase in oil prices can shave 0.2 to 0.4 percentage points off global GDP growth. For energy-importing nations in South and Southeast Asia, East Asia and Africa, inflationary pass-through is immediate, amplifying food insecurity and sovereign debt stress.

Beijing's framing of energy security as common security reflects this systems-level risk modeling. Escalation in the Persian Gulf externalizes costs onto nations with no role in the conflict. That is why Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning has urged safeguarding navigation and uninterrupted supply.

Some Western narratives propagate the idea that Beijing is exploiting Western missteps for geopolitical gain. In reality, China does not pursue opportunistic advantage amid the conflict. Instead, it champions global and regional stability, emphasizing the vital role of multipolarity in sustaining an international order based on international law and the purposes and principles of the UN Charter.

As Wang Yi has cautioned, the alternative is a regression toward the "law of the jungle," where unilateral force dominates, sovereignty is ignored and global security faces serious disruption. If so-called "preemptive or preventive strikes" become normalized, middle powers will hedge through armament. Nuclear latency will shorten globally. Alliance entanglements will deepen.

Data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute shows global military expenditure reached a record $2.7 trillion in 2024. The trajectory is already upward. The Middle East accounts for one of the highest per capita defense burdens worldwide. Further escalation compounds an accelerating arms dynamic. China's stance, therefore, is anchored in a simple systems proposition: in a nuclearized, economically interdependent world, escalation produces nonlinear risk.

Beijing consistently states it does not take sides in regional conflicts. Yet neutrality does not imply silence. By condemning the killing of a sovereign leader and opposing unauthorized strikes, China reinforces two norms: noninterference and peaceful settlement. This aligns with its long-standing principle of mutual respect and territorial integrity, principles repeatedly invoked in its diplomacy across Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia.

Moreover, China's economic exposure to the Middle East, including energy imports, Belt and Road infrastructure and maritime trade, gives it direct stakes in stability. According to China Customs data, bilateral trade between China and Middle Eastern states exceeded $500 billion in recent years. Conflict disrupts not only energy but supply chains, logistics insurance premiums, and financial markets.

In this context, China's insistence on restraint is more rational than rhetorical. A multipolar world is not inherently peaceful, but it requires stronger norms to function. Sovereignty, multilateral authorization and diplomatic primacy are those norms. Responsible powers dampen volatility; they do not amplify it.

In an interconnected global economy, peace in the Middle East is not a regional favor. It is a structural necessity. China's timely call for de-escalation is therefore not simply a diplomatic gesture. It is a warning: without adherence to international law and multilateral governance, the world edges closer to systemic fracture. And once fracture begins, no nation remains insulated. The international community should, therefore, reject any act that violates international law, refrain from applying double standards, and work with China to de-escalate the situation in the Middle East and jointly safeguard the basic norms of international relations.

Ibrahim Khalil Ahasan, a Dhaka, Bangladesh-based journalist.