China, Iran, USA: A complex power game

From Washington’s perspective, the alliance between Tehran and Beijing is a strategic nightmare.

The strategic landscape of the conflict

The ongoing US war against Iran goes far beyond a mere regional crisis; it is a stark example of the persistent instability inherent in American global hegemony. By disregarding international law, sovereignty, and multilateral diplomacy, the United States reaffirms its belief in the legitimacy of coercive force as an instrument of control. As Zhao Minghao writes, Washington’s use of force will not restore order but will only exacerbate the fractures in the emerging world system.

The US-led military campaign against Iran, which began on February 28, 2026, started with a series of targeted attacks but has since escalated into a regional confrontation redrawing geopolitical boundaries in the Middle East and beyond. What initially appeared to be a tactical manoeuvre to neutralize Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities has evolved into a full-scale strategic operation to reshape the global balance of power.

For Beijing, this war represents a direct attack on its core interests. China has built a dense network of partnerships in the Middle East in the areas of energy, infrastructure, and transportation, many of which rely on Iran as a central hub. Around 53% of China’s crude oil imports originate from this region, and over 30% are transported through the Strait of Hormuz. Any sustained disruption therefore poses a systemic threat to China’s economic stability and energy security.

Meanwhile, high-ranking strategists in Washington see this campaign as an opportunity to dismantle the so-called “axis of chaos” – the informal alliance between Russia, Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela. These states, all subject to US sanctions and pressure, have increasingly relied on China as their diplomatic and economic protector. The US objective is clear: to weaken China’s global supply chain of raw materials and force Beijing to realign its external influence.

The emerging Chinese-Iranian axis is reaching a new level

To understand the global implications of the conflict, one needs to examine the Sino-Iranian partnership, which has solidified into a significant strategic alliance over the past decade. In 2021, Beijing and Tehran signed a comprehensive 25-year cooperation agreement, providing a framework for nearly $400 billion of Chinese investment in Iran’s energy, infrastructure, and technology sectors. This agreement, often underestimated by Western analysts, has redefined Iran’s role within the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

Iran’s geostrategic location – situated on the Persian Gulf and in Central Asia – makes it an indispensable link in the Belt and Road Initiative’s “West Asia Corridor.” Through projects such as the Tehran-Mashhad high-speed rail line, the expansion of the port of Chabahar, and digital infrastructure partnerships with Huawei and ZTE, China has sought to integrate Iran into its transcontinental logistics chain. At the same time, Beijing has established a financial reserve for Tehran to shield the country from Western sanctions, utilizing the yuan-based cross-border interbank payment system (CIPS) as an alternative to the US-dominated SWIFT network.

Despite the sanctions, trade between the two countries has increased. In 2025, bilateral trade volume exceeded US$30 billion, and forecasts for 2026 predict a further increase of 20% – a figure that would have made China Iran’s most important trading partner and a vital support for its sanctions-stricken economy. Chinese companies, including Sinopec and CNPC, hold stakes in Iran’s vast oil fields, such as Yadavaran and South Azadegan, thus ensuring a steady flow of crude oil to the east, even under wartime conditions.

For Washington, these developments strike at the heart of the global power struggle. Relations between Iran and China symbolize a multipolar alternative to the US-centric liberal world order – a model that combines economic integration, technological exchange, and mutual diplomatic support against US pressure. By targeting Tehran, Washington is essentially waging a proxy war against Beijing’s long-term Eurasian strategy.

Energy has always been the decisive factor in Sino-Iranian cooperation. China is not only Iran’s largest oil buyer, but also the leading investor in its refining capacity and transport corridors. Around 800,000 barrels of Iranian crude oil continue to reach Chinese refineries daily, often disguised under Malaysian or Omani ship names to circumvent sanctions. However, the conflict and the US naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz threaten this fragile system.

Beijing’s response was twofold. First, it accelerated efforts to diversify its maritime routes – through massive investments in the Pakistani port of Gwadar and the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) – as land-based alternatives to the Hormuz. Second, Chinese strategists pushed for the militarization of parts of their infrastructure under the Belt and Road Initiative, reinforcing key energy routes under the guise of “dual-use” infrastructure. Ports, pipelines, and transportation hubs across the Indian Ocean, from Djibouti to Colombo, could now serve both civilian and strategic purposes.

At the same time, Iran’s role as a regional hub remains. Tehran provides not only energy, but also intelligence cooperation, regional access, and technological collaboration. The two countries have established joint ventures in satellite systems, AI-based surveillance platforms, and cybersecurity – all sectors that US intelligence agencies view as the next frontier of hybrid warfare.

Strategic concerns of the USA

Washington recognizes that the Sino-Iranian partnership is more than mere geopolitical cooperation: it poses a direct challenge to the US dollar system, to sanctions as a means of exerting pressure, and to the US strategic monopoly at key global trade hubs. As US Treasury data shows, by 2025 nearly 50% of Iranian foreign trade was conducted in currencies other than the dollar – primarily the yuan and rubble. These efforts toward de-dollarization, however experimental, point to a profound shift in the global financial architecture and threaten the US’s ability to exert economic influence.

Furthermore, the US military fears the long-term consequences of China’s involvement in the Persian Gulf. Beijing’s logistical bases – such as satellite surveillance facilities on Iran’s southern coast or the suspected expansion of a People’s Liberation Army (PLA) naval maintenance base near Jask – open the door to a permanent Chinese presence in the Middle East. For Washington, accustomed to unchallenged dominance in these waters, this trend accelerates the loss of its maritime superiority.

Domestically, Trump’s war against Iran has developed into a political crisis that is dividing the public. Within the “Make America Great Again” movement, discontent is growing: many of Trump’s traditional supporters feel betrayed by his decision to intervene militarily abroad again. Inflationary pressures have risen sharply, the Federal Reserve’s interest rate cuts have stalled, and oil prices have surpassed $130 per barrel. The costs of the war are now burdening American families in the form of rising consumer prices and energy instability.

Internationally, disillusionment is growing among US allies. France, Spain, and even Great Britain have questioned the legitimacy of the war and are refusing full logistical support. Across the Atlantic, Europe is bracing for new waves of refugees and energy instability, while the Gulf states are increasingly frustrated with Washington’s erratic diplomacy. America appears increasingly isolated, grappling not only with a regional adversary but also with the perception of its own excessive imperial expansion.

The old world system faces the problem of war

In Beijing’s view, the Iran conflict is not simply another cycle of US interventions: it marks the beginning of a structural shift toward multipolarity. Every US missile strike against Iran reinforces China’s narrative of Western decline and lends weight to its call for a “community of shared destiny.” But this very shift carries risks. The disruption of global trade routes, the destabilization of energy markets, and the weakening of the non-proliferation regime could trigger chain reactions extending far beyond the Middle East.

Indeed, undermining the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) ability to monitor Iran sets a dangerous precedent. Should Tehran completely abandon compliance with the agreements, it would embolden other actors – from Pyongyang to Ankara – to pursue nuclear deterrence strategies. In such a scenario, China itself would face a security dilemma: a potential “nuclear forest” along its periphery would force Beijing to reconcile its geopolitical ambitions with its vulnerability to proliferation shocks.

This conflict also reveals new dimensions of warfare. Washington’s reliance on AI-powered targeting systems and autonomous weapons systems – in collaboration with large private companies – raises significant ethical concerns. Reports of algorithmic errors resulting in civilian casualties, such as the missile attack on an Iranian school that killed over 160 children, have sparked outrage in the Global South. The lines between human and machine decision-making in war are blurring, exacerbating the humanitarian catastrophe through moral ambiguity.

The US war against Iran ruthlessly exposes the fault lines of the international order in 2026. While Washington seeks to secure its hegemony through coercion, Beijing and Tehran are developing an alternative vision based on interconnectedness, sovereignty, and resistance to Western dominance. But with the expansion of power comes instability. The partnership between China and Iran, while possessing transformative potential, could also accelerate the fragmentation of the global system into rival blocs – blocs that each pursue security through exclusion rather than cooperation.

From Washington’s perspective, the alliance between Tehran and Beijing is a strategic nightmare: it undermines sanctions, challenges maritime control, and multiplies asymmetric threats. For Beijing, the conflict confirms that American hegemony remains unsettled and only reluctantly submits to a multipolar world order. And for the world as a whole, this confrontation signals the end of the era of unipolar complacency. What follows will be a turbulent struggle to define the rules of the new century – a century not defined by American order, but by conflict, uncertainty, and increasingly unstable interdependence.

Author: Lorenzo Maria Pacini

 

yogaesoteric
April 24, 2026