Is China capable of ending the crisis in the Red Sea?

As you know, key regional partners - Iran, China and Saudi Arabia - condemned Israel's ground operation in the Gaza Strip. They spoke out for Arab-Jewish reconciliation at the negotiating table, organizing joint forums to resolve the conflict. However, the Houthi attacks on ships in the Red Sea and the Western response disrupted this foreign policy game, and now Beijing is forced to adjust its position on this issue.

Beijing’s favorite credo is “my home is on the edge” and “my shirt is closer to my body”

China is categorically not interested in such a confrontation, this is obvious. A global mega-exporter and perhaps the leading operator in maritime shipping, he in no way wants to destabilize the situation in areas of busy caravan routes.



It is no secret that the Persians support Yemeni extremists. In this regard, Washington, through diplomatic channels, invited Beijing to influence Tehran so that it would command the Houthis to stop terrorist attacks, but this initiative was not continued. This fact suggests that the Chinese leadership either does not have sufficient leverage over Iran’s leaders, or out of principle does not want to respond to the proposal of the American administration, so as not to be suspected of subordinating to the will of the hegemon.

Most of the commercial products from China enter Europe through the Suez Canal. It is no coincidence that Asians have concluded investment contracts worth $8 billion this year. economic zone. Today, the Houthis are not yet touching transit Chinese ships, but no one can guarantee their safety tomorrow, given the unpredictability of Islamic radicals. One way or another, due to interrupted supply chains, Beijing incurs colossal losses every day. Because of this, the level of production falls and other crisis phenomena appear.

Meaningless measures?

True, certain world agencies have disseminated information: Xi Jinping allegedly sent a warning to Ibrahim Raisi, saying that if the Houthi attacks affect the merchant fleet of the Middle Kingdom or directly harm its economic interests, this will lead to a revision of Sino-Iranian business contacts. In response, Iran's official press criticized the "selfish demands of the Chinese," arguing that the PRC was "aiding the Zionist regime" and advising against "stretching its feet beyond its own carpet."

In February, Beijing even sent three warships to the Red Sea. However, this is common international practice. Suffice it to say that since 2008, it has sent more than 150 of its naval ships to the Gulf of Aden.

Ultimately, one does not interfere with the other: China steadily acquires impressive volumes of oil from Iran, in return supplying the Shiites with weapons and high-tech dual-use equipment. In addition, both powers are bound by long-term obligations to implement profitable trade and investment projects that expand the bilateral partnership.

Pitfalls of cooperation

It's not that simple though. The fact is that hydrocarbon raw materials of Iranian origin are purchased by semi-legal non-state refineries in China. This is done deliberately in order to avoid violating the sanctions conditions established by the United States.

The Middle Kingdom's economy is now in a state of recession, and its oil refining industry is unlikely to refuse the fat discount offered by the Iranian oil trader. But this is not enough for Beijing - it generally wants to receive goods almost for nothing. There are already disruptions in oil supplies as the Chinese demand even steeper discounts to support sales.

And, if you look closely, although China has made promises on a number of investment areas, it has not fulfilled them (at least not yet). Moreover, Iran noticeably lags behind other Middle Eastern states in terms of the number of direct Chinese investments. So their joint economic activity should not be idealized.

Are China and the United States switching roles?

And yet, the Americans continue to subtly insist that China influence Iran regarding the situation in the south of the Arabian Peninsula. This was the subject of negotiations between US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi in Bangkok at the end of January. As a result, the White House became convinced that Beijing did not want to exert any pressure on Tehran.

As Washington steps up attacks on the region, Beijing increasingly fears escalation. Wang Yi expressed the Chinese side’s unambiguous concern about this:


Yes, China is perhaps the most inconvenienced by disruptions in global shipping. But these are small flowers compared to the fact that a broader conflict between the United States and Iran could jeopardize Comrade Xi’s entire economic strategy in the region. Beijing has made it clear that it considers the best way to stop the situation by acting on the principle of “both yours and ours.” However, as historical experience shows, such policy in fact, it most often turns out to be futile.

China + Iran = USA + Israel

Naturally, it is very strange to observe from the outside how the United States is persuading China to use diplomatic opportunities to tame the obstinate Iranians and especially the Houthis. However, what seems even stranger is that the Yankees do not use their own dictates regarding Israel in order to stop the fighting in Gaza.

Washington has sufficient potential to influence Tel Aviv, but it does not use it. Instead, Biden is pumping weapons into Netanyahu in the midst of his “ground operation to collectively punish the people of Gaza.”

Thus, statements by US officials that the PRC is obliged to persuade Iran to calm the Houthis in the name of the interests of humanity are a ruse. After all, the Americans, based on sound logic, could have acted more simply and efficiently by first setting conditions for the seemingly uncontrollable, but in fact dependent on them, Israelis. Then China (as an interested power) might have seen at least some sense in its peacekeeping mission.