China has strongly condemned the US-Israel strikes on Iran and the killing of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, calling the attack “a serious violation of Iran’s sovereignty and security” and saying it tramples the UN Charter and basic norms of international relations.
Beyond legal and diplomatic objections, Beijing has strategic reasons for concern. Iran is one of China’s most important suppliers of oil and natural gas. Estimates suggest as much as 90% of Iranian oil production is exported to China, often routed via third countries to skirt international sanctions. Since April 2025, many Iranian oil exports have been settled in renminbi because Iran is excluded from SWIFT.
The conflict has also highlighted the strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz, the chokepoint connecting the Persian Gulf to the Arabian Sea. Around 20% of the world’s oil consumption—about 20 million barrels per day—passes through the strait, roughly half destined for China. Beijing views any prolonged closure as a direct threat to its energy security; commercial traffic through the waterway has nearly halted since the attacks began.
Iran and China also share growing political ties. Iran joined the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in 2023 and BRICS+ in 2024, aligning more closely with Beijing and Moscow. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi criticized the “blatant killing” of a sovereign head of state and noted the strikes occurred while US and Iranian officials were engaged in negotiations aimed at a diplomatic solution.
European responses have been mixed. Germany, France and the UK jointly condemned Iran’s retaliatory actions while avoiding direct criticism of the US and Israel. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said the US had spent weeks seeking a negotiated solution, alleging Iran refused a verifiable agreement to end its military nuclear program and would not restrain its ballistic missile program or destabilizing regional activities. Germany’s foreign minister said Berlin would examine the legal grounds for an armed attack on Iran.
Many international law experts disagree with the strikes. Christoph Safferling of the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg told German public broadcaster ARD that there is a comprehensive prohibition on the use of force and that attacks on Iran as a sovereign state are contrary to international law. He warned that legal arguments used by the US could be co-opted by other states to justify aggressive actions, such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
The strikes follow other controversial US actions earlier in the year, including the capture of Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro, which also alarmed Beijing. Chinese President Xi Jinping has warned of a turning point marked by dramatic upheavals and urged against a “law of the jungle,” calling on major powers not to “arbitrarily attack other countries based on their military superiority.”
Politically, the strikes give China an opening to bolster its global image by portraying itself as a defender of international law and multilateral institutions like the UN, and by criticizing US-led unilateralism. This positions China as an alternative partner to Europe and other states disillusioned with US actions.
Yet the crisis also presents dilemmas for Beijing. If Washington’s justifications for attacking Iran are accepted as precedent, similar logic could be invoked to legitimize aggressive moves elsewhere—most notably by China toward Taiwan. Beijing regards Taiwan as part of China and has not ruled out force to achieve reunification. The principle that powerful states should not use force arbitrarily cuts both ways: China can denounce US actions to gain diplomatic leverage while retaining the option to assert its own core interests, including over Taiwan.
The core question for Beijing is one of priorities. China aims to present itself as a responsible power that strengthens international institutions and avoids arbitrary use of force to enhance its global standing. At the same time, it may be tempted to pursue territorial and security objectives by force if it deems them essential. Which path China ultimately chooses will reveal which of its core interests—global image and multilateralism or assertive territorial control—prevails.
This article was originally written in German.