Active Neutrality in the Middle East – Chinese Commentary on the US-Iran war

Treść źródłowa

Executive SummaryChinese expert commentary largely recommends pursuing a position of neutrality and mediation in the Iran-US war, with only two senior academics making subtle arguments for a more assertive posture.Zheng Yongnian writes that Beijing should “demonstrate the strength and policies befitting a great power”.Zheng Ge claims that the sustainability of China’s “active neutrality” depends on the war’s direction, noting that meaningful mediation “requires China to transcend its traditional ‘non-interference’ principle”.Legal condemnation of the strikes coexists with something closer to strategic respect, with several authors arguing that China must learn from this demonstration of American power.Several authors read the operation through the lens of US “offshore balancing”, with one warning that the Middle East template could be replicated in East Asia with Japan playing Israel’s role.Others view the conflict as a strategic opportunity for China, with several predicting that the US will become entangled in the Middle East.Authors broadly agree that the strategic implications for China hinge on how the war ends: US success would challenge China’s vision of declining American hegemony, while a quagmire would accelerate it.Commentary is sceptical that regime change is achievable without ground troops—a red line all authors agree Trump will not cross.Most analysts view US-Iran nuclear negotiations as cover for a premeditated attack—though many of the same analysts simultaneously portray the war as primarily Israel-driven.One author argues that China’s overriding priority …