Beijing has forcefully condemned the US‑Israel strikes on Iran and the reported killing of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, calling the attack “a serious violation of Iran’s sovereignty and security,” a trampling of the UN Charter and of basic norms of international relations.
Beyond those legal and diplomatic objections, China has clear strategic reasons to be alarmed. Iran is one of Beijing’s most important suppliers of oil and gas: estimates cited in the original account suggest up to 90% of Iran’s oil production is sold to China, often routed through third countries to evade sanctions. Since April 2025 many Iranian exports have reportedly been settled in renminbi because Iran is excluded from SWIFT.
The crisis has also underscored the strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz, the chokepoint connecting the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea. Roughly 20% of global oil consumption—about 20 million barrels per day—passes through the strait, with around half of that volume bound for China. Beijing views any prolonged disruption there as a direct threat to its energy security; commercial traffic through the waterway has been said to have nearly halted since the attacks began.
Politically, ties between Iran and China have been strengthening. Iran joined the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in 2023 and BRICS+ in 2024, aligning more closely with Beijing and Moscow. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi denounced the “blatant killing” of a sovereign head of state and noted the strikes took place while US and Iranian officials were reportedly engaged in talks aimed at a diplomatic solution.
European responses have been mixed. Germany, France and the UK condemned Iran’s retaliatory actions while avoiding outright criticism of the US and Israel. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz defended US efforts to seek a negotiated settlement, accusing Iran of refusing a verifiable deal to end a military nuclear program and of failing to curb its ballistic missiles and regional destabilizing activities. Germany’s foreign minister said Berlin would examine the legal basis for an armed attack on Iran.
Many international law experts, however, dispute the legality of the strikes. Christoph Safferling of the University of Erlangen‑Nuremberg told German public broadcaster ARD there is a broad prohibition on the use of force and that attacks on Iran as a sovereign state contravene international law; he warned that legal arguments advanced by Washington could be co‑opted by other powers to justify their own aggressive acts.
The strikes come after other controversial US actions earlier this year, including the reported capture of Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro, which also alarmed Beijing. Chinese President Xi Jinping has warned the world faces a turning point with dramatic upheavals, urging against a “law of the jungle” and calling on major powers not to “arbitrarily attack other countries based on their military superiority.”
Politically, the crisis gives China an opportunity to burnish its image as a defender of international law and multilateral institutions like the UN, and to cast itself as an alternative partner to Europe and others disillusioned by US unilateralism. At the same time, the situation creates a dilemma for Beijing: if Washington’s justifications for striking Iran are accepted as precedent, similar logic might be used to legitimize forceful moves elsewhere—most notably toward Taiwan, which China regards as part of its territory and has not ruled out reclaiming by force.
In short, Beijing faces a choice of priorities. It can emphasize responsible state behavior, support multilateral legal norms and build global influence through diplomacy. Or it can preserve the option of using force to pursue core territorial and security objectives when it deems them essential. Which path China ultimately follows will reveal whether its priority is global image and multilateralism or assertive territorial control.
This article was originally written in German.