Trump's Iran gambit: Why Xi Jinping stayed quiet-what it means for Taiwan

On June 22, 2025, when US President Donald Trump authorized a series of unprecedented airstrikes against Iranian nuclear sites, it marked America's most significant military escalation in the Middle East since the invasion of Iraq. While international condemnation was swift and predictable from nations like Russia, Turkey, and Pakistan, the most notable voice was the one largely missing from the chorus: China.

As per an Opinion by Karishma Vaswani in Bloomberg, Trump’s decision to bomb Iran ’s nuclear sites dramatically exposed the boundaries of China’s influence, leaving Beijing relegated to the diplomatic sidelines.

Despite robust rhetorical condemnation-branding the strikes as a “serious violation” of international law-Chinese leader Xi Jinping has notably refrained from any meaningful diplomatic or military response. Instead, Trump swiftly transitioned from striking Iranian facilities to mediating a tenuous ceasefire between Israel and Iran, reinforcing Washington’s longstanding dominance in global crises.

China, meanwhile, stuck to a cautious script, advocating restraint without putting its geopolitical weight behind concrete diplomatic initiatives.

Why it matters

• The cautious Chinese response underscores Beijing’s strategic limitations, contradicting Xi’s carefully cultivated narrative that China can counterbalance US power globally.
• China has steadily positioned itself as a responsible alternative to US leadership, especially under Trump's turbulent America First policies. But this crisis lays bare the stark gap between China's rhetoric of global responsibility and its actual influence in geopolitical flashpoints.
• At stake for Beijing is the credibility of its claims of promoting a multipolar world, raising questions among countries in the Global South and the Middle East about China’s reliability as a genuine global power beyond economic partnerships.

Zoom in

Beijing’s interests in Iran are substantial but complicated, rooted primarily in energy and economic investments.

China imports approximately 90% of Iran’s oil exports, accounting for nearly 14% of China's total crude imports. Yet despite such dependency, China's direct investments in Iran have been relatively modest compared to its stakes in Saudi Arabia or the UAE, reflecting cautious Chinese corporations wary of crossing US sanctions.

The 25-year, $400 billion strategic partnership agreement inked in 2021 between Beijing and Tehran promised massive infrastructure and energy projects. Yet actual implementation has lagged due to fears of provoking Washington's ire. Bill Figueroa, a China-Iran expert at the University of Groningen, underlines this point clearly: "Chinese state-owned companies have largely stayed away, mostly out of fear of running afoul of US sanctions."

Trump’s military strikes have thus sharpened these contradictions. With the US flexing its military might, Beijing's primary response has been passive: evacuating thousands of Chinese citizens from Iran and urging stability to safeguard its oil supplies through the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz.

Between the lines

• China’s passivity in this crisis aligns with Xi Jinping’s innate caution in foreign policy. Xi’s strategic focus remains primarily domestic-on economic recovery, social stability, and avoiding confrontations that could disrupt the fragile US-China relationship, recently stabilized through trade negotiations.
• China’s military presence abroad remains intentionally minimal. Its only overseas military base is a modest naval outpost in Djibouti, positioned alongside other foreign military installations, hardly signaling ambition for aggressive power projection.
• As per Vaswani, Jennifer Parker, a defense expert at the ANU National Security College, captured this strategic calculation succinctly: “China’s relationships with other nations are forged out of convenience. Beijing won't intervene significantly unless compelled to protect its own interests.”
• Moreover, Xi's caution also reflects deeper strategic thinking among Chinese policymakers who view US involvement in the Middle East as a distraction that ultimately benefits China’s long-term objectives. This aligns with historical Chinese views of the region as a geopolitical quagmire capable of draining America’s strategic resources, potentially hastening the decline of US global hegemony.
• William Figueroa, a China-Iran expert at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands, bluntly told the washington Post: "China has little ability to affect the situation directly... it has no ability to militarily influence that conflict."

What they are saying

• Chinese officials sharply criticized Trump’s actions yet stopped short of decisive action or influence:
• China’s UN ambassador Fu Cong emphasized, “Iran was hurt but the United States’ credibility was also damaged-both as a country and as a participant in any international negotiations.”
• A Global Times editorial condemned the attack, stating that Washington was “adding fuel to the fire of war and pushing the Iran-Israel conflict to a more uncontrollable situation.”
• However, Beijing faced skepticism even from Iran-friendly corners. Gedaliah Afterman, a China expert at Israel’s Reichman University, noted that despite close Sino-Iranian ties, “it’s not clear whether or not [China] could convince Iran,” especially given China's lack of meaningful leverage over military affairs or diplomatic outcomes.

The big picture

China’s limited influence in the Iran crisis has deeper global implications. Despite diplomatic breakthroughs in the Middle East, such as the Saudi-Iranian normalization deal brokered by Beijing in 2023, China remains fundamentally constrained in leveraging its economic power into geopolitical clout during major crises.

Trump’s proactive yet aggressive approach in Iran contrasts sharply with China’s cautious diplomacy, reinforcing global perceptions of US military dominance and diplomatic reach. This diminishes China’s ability to effectively position itself as a credible alternative to US global leadership.

Furthermore, Trump’s assertiveness could reshape calculations in Beijing, particularly regarding potential US responses in other hotspots closer to China, such as Taiwan. Gedaliah Afterman noted: “Trump’s willingness to intervene with force in Iran might make Beijing think the US is more likely to respond militarily to a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan.”

Conversely, other analysts suggest US military entanglement in the Middle East could reduce strategic pressure on China elsewhere, including on economic fronts. Mohammed Alsudairi, a China-Middle East expert at the Australian National University, said: “US political and strategic bandwidth is limited. The US could be dragged into a quagmire, indirectly benefiting China.”

What’s next

• Looking forward, Beijing will likely continue its cautious approach in the Middle East. Its primary focus will remain on protecting economic interests, particularly securing oil supplies and safeguarding trade routes, without provoking further confrontation with the US.
• There is a possibility, however, that China might gradually seek to strengthen its diplomatic role in less contentious regional issues-continuing infrastructure investments and quiet diplomacy through the Belt and Road Initiative, rather than direct confrontation or military involvement.
• Yet the lingering question remains whether China will ever translate economic clout into genuine geopolitical power or if Beijing will consistently prefer caution, leaving the global stage largely dominated by more assertive powers like the United States.
• In this Iran crisis, China’s restrained response revealed more clearly than ever the true extent-and the significant limitations-of its global ambitions.
• (With inputs from agencies)