Despite formally advocating for neutrality and communication, China’s foreign policy has actually closely sided with Pakistan and Iran, particularly as regional tensions with Israel and India have increased. A combination of geopolitical strategy, economic interests, and a desire to offset Western influence are the driving forces behind this alignment.
China has publicly denounced Israel’s attacks on Iranian nuclear and military facilities following the escalation of hostilities between Iran and Israel in June 2025. The Chinese Foreign Ministry emphasized Tehran’s position and urged moderation from all sides by denouncing these actions as breaches of Iran’s sovereignty, security, and territorial integrity.
Chinese officials have stated their support for Iran’s right to defend its sovereignty and have specifically denounced Israel’s actions as a violation of international law. The disparity between Beijing’s aspirations as a global power and its actual influence over rapidly evolving regional crises is highlighted by the fact that, despite its strongly pro-Iranian rhetoric, it has not offered tangible assistance or taken any proactive steps toward mediation.
As part of its diplomatic engagement, China has communicated directly with Israeli and Iranian officials, highlighting the need for peaceful resolution and presenting itself as a possible mediator. Nonetheless, it has continuously favored Iran in its remarks and deeds, which is part of a larger trend of backing nations that oppose US and Western interests in the area.
China is even more strongly in favor of Pakistan. China has been the source of more than 80% of Pakistan’s recent arms imports, and Beijing has continuously thwarted Indian attempts to use the UN to impose sanctions on terrorist organizations based in Pakistan.
India, with whom China has its own territorial disputes, especially in Aksai Chin, is counterbalanced by China’s military and strategic support for Pakistan. China is anticipated to take a more assertive stance in the event of increased tensions between India and Pakistan, potentially even offering Pakistan direct military assistance.
This trilateral axis has been further cemented by recent events: Iran has signaled a new degree of strategic cooperation between Iran, Pakistan, and China by declaring that any attack on Pakistan would be viewed as an attack on Iran. This new alliance represents a dramatic shift in the balance of power in the region and is viewed as a direct threat to India, the US, Israel, and its allies.
China has substantial economic interests, especially in the energy sector, which support its growing ties with Iran. A 25-year cooperation agreement signed in 2021 commits China to investing $400 billion in Iran’s economy in exchange for discounted oil, with Iran providing around 15% of China’s oil imports. In addition to meeting China’s energy needs, this partnership gives Tehran access to resources that it can use to support its regional and military allies.
China’s efforts to mediate disputes are part of its larger Middle East strategy, as evidenced by its role in mediating the Saudi-Iranian rapprochement in 2023. However, its main goal of defending its economic interests and gaining more power at the expense of US dominance frequently takes precedence over its mediation efforts.
China continuously portrays its actions as promoting peace and upholding international law in its state-run media and diplomatic declarations, while accusing the US and its allies of causing instability in the region. Similar to the information tactics employed to defend Russia’s actions in Ukraine, Chinese online platforms have also enabled the spread of anti-Israel and occasionally anti-Semitic narratives.
China has demonstrated a clear pattern of supporting Pakistan and Iran in their respective conflicts with India and Israel, despite its claims of neutrality and support for peaceful development. A combination of economic interests, strategic rivalry with the US, and a desire to reshape the regional order in its favor drive this alignment. China’s rhetorical posturing and selective support highlight the localized character of its foreign policy, undermining its self-portrayal as an impartial global actor, even as it continues to position itself as a force for stability and communication.