Why the U.S. Can’t Be Israel’s Only Bet Anymore
In a move that has raised eyebrows globally, Israel has reached out to China—its geopolitical rival in many areas—seeking Beijing’s help to rein in Iran amidst ongoing conflict. This unusual outreach comes despite the backdrop of a fresh military escalation involving Israeli and U.S. strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities. The question is: Why China? And why now?
As global attention remains focused on the evolving Israel-Iran tensions, this development signals a deeper layer of realpolitik. It reveals not only shifting regional dynamics but also how China’s growing economic influence may now extend to crisis management in the Middle East. This article explores the background of Israel’s outreach, the evolving geopolitical narrative, and the broader implications for global diplomacy.
Beijing avoids commitment, revealing it buys from Iran — not controls it
Israel’s approach to China is grounded in one key strategic calculation: Iran’s economic lifeline runs through Beijing. With U.S. and European sanctions tightening the noose, China remains Iran’s largest oil customer, keeping its economy afloat despite international isolation.
Israel’s Consul-General in Shanghai publicly stated that Iran’s regime would “collapse” if China ceased oil purchases. This is not an exaggeration—over 80% of Iran’s sanctioned oil exports go to China, often through discreet channels and shadow fleets. By asking China to “rein in” Tehran, Israel is essentially trying to pressure Beijing into using its trade ties as leverage.
Yet China’s response has remained cautious. Beijing condemned “foreign bullying” (a veiled criticism of U.S.-Israel strikes), but offered no strong commitment to act. This diplomatic ambiguity has highlighted the limits of China’s willingness to jeopardize its own energy security for Middle East stability.
Israel’s China outreach reveals the new rules of global diplomacy
It’s important to understand why Israel made this appeal in the first place—especially given its long-standing alliance with the United States. Following Operation Rising Lion, where Israeli and U.S. airstrikes reportedly hit Iranian nuclear facilities and killed senior commanders, tensions have escalated sharply.
But the U.S. itself is facing global backlash, including pressure from within NATO allies to de-escalate. Moreover, with a volatile U.S. election approaching, Israel may not be confident about Washington’s long-term strategic consistency. Hence, the outreach to China represents both a hedging strategy and an attempt to test Beijing’s role as a global powerbroker.
This signals a diplomatic pivot—where even Israel is willing to engage China in matters of regional war and peace, despite ideological differences.
From Shanghai to Shiraz, Beijing’s hands remain tied by self-interest
While many in the West view China as Iran’s strategic ally, this episode reveals that Beijing’s influence over Tehran is far from absolute. During the latest round of strikes, China remained a bystander—issuing symbolic condemnations, but stopping short of economic or diplomatic retaliation.
Analysts argue that Iran’s deep state and military apparatus (IRGC) operate largely independent of Chinese persuasion. Additionally, China’s broader interest lies in maintaining energy flows and global trade stability, not in defending Iran’s aggressive behavior.
Thus, China’s silence during the bombings exposed its limitations—it may be Tehran’s customer, but not its commander. This lack of decisive action has, paradoxically, also benefited Israel, by reducing the chance of an Iran-China united front.
Israel’s overture to China is a telling sign of how traditional alliances and rivalries are being tested in the current global order. By appealing to Beijing, Israel is recognizing China’s economic clout—but also revealing its urgent desire to prevent wider war through any means possible.
Meanwhile, China’s restrained response signals a calculated neutrality, prioritizing self-interest over ideology. The broader lesson here is clear: in the 21st-century multipolar world, economic interdependence may shape diplomacy more than ideology or historic loyalties.
As the situation evolves, whether China chooses to act or stay on the sidelines could redefine its image—not just as an economic giant, but as a credible peacemaker—or a hesitant superpower.
