Craig Singleton, a former U.S. diplomat, is a senior fellow and senior director of the China Program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
For the second time in as many months, Beijing has found itself relegated to the superpower sidelines as Washington pummels one of its principal diplomatic partners. Iran now offers a broader lesson for Beijing: American hard power can upend decades of soft-power investment overnight. But if the war turns into an exhausting quagmire, China could gain the upper hand over the United States in the long term.
China’s response to the widening Middle East conflict follows a predictable playbook: condemn Washington, rhetorically champion sovereignty and stability and call for a return to diplomacy. Beyond public posturing, however, China has offered Iran no meaningful support — militarily, economically or diplomatically.
For Beijing, this is a familiar script. It is the same approach China adopted after President Donald Trump deposed Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela — another country where China maintains significant energy, telecommunications and port infrastructure assets.
China’s choices in Iran reflect less calibrated restraint than structural constraint. Put simply, Beijing’s lofty geopolitical rhetoric far outpaces its reach. It lacks the means to project force in the Gulf and the alliance network to influence battlefield outcomes. Nor is Beijing seeking to confront Washington just as tensions have stabilized after last year’s bruising trade war. For a country that aspires to global leadership, those realities are as consequential as they are humbling.
Importantly, nothing suggests Washington’s Iran campaign was designed to counter China, even if the downstream effects may still undercut Chinese interests. Great powers rarely experience shocks in isolation, and Beijing will interpret recent developments through its own strategic lens. China will draw a dual conclusion: American military power remains formidable, and the U.S. is a volatile, declining power that still poses the greatest risk to China’s security and ambitions.
China’s response, in plain terms, will be to continue hedging against perceived U.S. instability by doubling down on its policy of self-reliance — hardening supply chains, strengthening industrial capacity and shrinking Washington’s ability to constrain China’s decisions in a crisis.
The People’s Liberation Army will also study this conflict closely. China’s military is already dissecting the operational lessons, including how U.S. and allied forces neutralized Iranian air defenses and coordinated precision strikes. This is not an academic exercise. It will feed directly into Beijing’s planning for contingencies closer to home, including a potential conflict over Taiwan.
China’s more immediate exposure is economic. Iran supplies roughly 1.4 million barrels per day to China — about 13 percent of its imports — and around half of China’s imported oil transits the Strait of Hormuz. A prolonged disruption would tighten markets and raise costs. But Beijing has prepared for precisely this moment. Beyond expanding nuclear and solar power, China has built roughly 1.2 billion barrels of oil storage capacity, including strategic and commercial reserves. Even if those tanks are not full, they could cover several months of imports, cushioning supply shocks. What’s more, Iranian oil shipments to China have not been halted by the war, and Washington has taken no steps to seize them.
Beijing’s real vulnerability is not physical shortage but short-term financial strain. Iranian crude typically tradesat an $8 to $10 per barrel discount; losing that margin could cost Chinese refiners more than $4 billion annually. This explains why China is pushing Tehran to reopen the strait — even if the bill amounts to little more than an expensive inconvenience.
Amid the escalating conflict in the Middle East, Trump delayed a highly anticipated summit with Chinese leader Xi Jinping in Beijing that had been scheduled for late March. The move reflects his near-term focus on managing the war and its global spillover effects. In Beijing, the delay likely comes as a quiet relief. The original timing had created an awkward tableau: welcoming Trump just as he helped topple one of China’s closest diplomatic partners. But the shift in summit timing does not alter China’s underlying calculus. Xi was never likely to jeopardize China’s core interests with Washington simply to shield Tehran from consequences it cannot control.
If anything, the delay reinforces that timing, not trajectory, is the variable in play. A postponement is more plausible than a derailment. In the interim, China has strong incentives to preserve the tactical trade truce reached by both leaders in October. The deal buys time for economic recovery, locks in tariff predictability and reduces the odds of sudden sanctions risks at a moment of geopolitical volatility. Maintaining summit momentum, even on a revised timeline, reinforces Beijing’s preferred narrative of stability between the two near-peer powers and preserves space for continued negotiation.
Whether today’s conflict ultimately helps or hurts China’s long-term position depends on the endgame. A prolonged quagmire that bleeds U.S. resources and breeds war fatigue would weaken Washington’s resolve for a future fight, potentially in the Indo-Pacific. A short, decisive campaign that achieves its stated objectives would do the opposite and stiffen deterrence. For Beijing, the stakes are the signal: America’s capacity to impose outcomes, sustain operations, and exit on its own terms.
More than anything though, a prolonged conflict could hand China the commodity it prizes most: time to strengthen its hand before rivalry with Washington sharpens again — an outcome Beijing almost certainly expects now.
The post Prolonging the war with Iran could strengthen China’s hand appeared first on Washington Post.
