US and China will never agree on their approach towards Iran-Israel conflict

The American Lens: Preemption and Punishment

The United States has always framed Iran through the prism of preemption. Since the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the subsequent hostage crisis, Washington’s perception of the Islamic Republic has been stuck in a loop: a rogue state that must be deterred, isolated, or eliminated.

From economic sanctions to targeted assassinations of Iranian scientists and military commanders, the U.S. strategic approach rests on the belief that Iran is perpetually on the verge of destabilizing the region.

This narrative has been further entrenched by American neoconservatives and right-wing nationalists, especially during the Trump presidencies. In their worldview, Iran is the hub of malign influence across the Middle East, financing Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and Shia militias in Iraq and Syria.

The latest military escalations—especially Israel’s preemptive strike on suspected Iranian nuclear facilities and Tehran’s retaliatory missile salvos—have only solidified America’s instinct to double down.

With the specter of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon again dominating headlines, President Trump has made it clear: the only viable option is complete capitulation by Tehran.

Whether through bunker-buster bombs or maximum pressure campaigns, the U.S. sees Iran as a target of coercive diplomacy—one where war is diplomacy by other means.

The Chinese Perspective: Stability and Sovereignty

China, by contrast, approaches Iran with strategic caution and a strong preference for dialogue over deterrence.

Beijing sees Iran not as a rogue actor but as a vital node in its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), as well as a crucial energy partner in a world increasingly fragmented by Western sanctions.

From Beijing’s vantage point, stability in the Persian Gulf is essential for the uninterrupted flow of oil and trade, and therefore, any unilateral military action against Iran—especially by the U.S. or Israel—represents a reckless gamble with global consequences.

Beijing’s diplomatic doctrine, which stresses non-interference and multipolarity, rejects the notion that regime change or armed conflict is a legitimate path toward regional peace. Instead, China has actively promoted de-escalation, even facilitating the 2023 rapprochement between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

While this agreement is now in jeopardy, it underscores China’s belief that inclusive diplomacy, not selective deterrence, is the path to sustainable peace.

Moreover, China sees Iran’s geopolitical resistance as symbolic of the Global South’s struggle against Western hegemony.

To stand with Iran is, in some respects, to challenge the post-Cold War order that the U.S. has dominated for decades.

While Beijing does not endorse every Iranian action, it firmly opposes Washington’s tendency to weaponize sanctions, impose secondary embargoes, and deploy military forces under the pretext of security.

Ideological Impasse

At its core, the U.S.-China divergence over Iran stems from a deeper philosophical rift. The United States, informed by its exceptionalist ideology, sees itself as the guardian of a liberal international order.

In this framework, adversaries like Iran must either conform or be confronted. Meanwhile, China champions a pluralistic order where no single model of governance is universally applicable.

What Washington sees as a dangerous theocracy, Beijing regards as a sovereign nation with its own civilizational trajectory.

This clash of values explains why all prior attempts to forge common ground between the two on Middle East security—whether through UN Security Council resolutions or backchannel diplomacy—have failed. Even the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which momentarily aligned Western and Eastern powers, ultimately collapsed under U.S. pressure, leaving China frustrated and Iran emboldened.

Geopolitical Realities and Emerging Camps

In the current crisis, these ideological differences are further hardened by alliance commitments and regional calculations.

The U.S. remains bound to Israel through an unshakeable strategic and emotional bond. It has furnished Israel with billions in military aid and will not stand by if Tel Aviv is drawn into a war of attrition.

China, on the other hand, has cultivated deeper ties with Iran and the Arab world through platforms such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and the recent China-GCC Strategic Dialogue.

With the emergence of two camps—one rallying around the West and Israel, and another aligning more loosely around China, Russia, and parts of the Islamic world—the Iran-Israel conflict becomes yet another proxy front in the U.S.-China rivalry.

This zero-sum dynamic is exacerbated by domestic political pressures in both Washington and Beijing. For Trump, who thrives on hardline posturing, backing down from Iran would be seen as weakness. For Xi Jinping, remaining passive while a key strategic partner is bombarded undermines China’s growing reputation as a defender of Global South interests.

Implications for Southeast Asia and ASEAN

For Southeast Asia, particularly ASEAN, the implications are grave. While ASEAN states have long maintained neutrality in Middle East conflicts, the expanding schism between Washington and Beijing threatens to split the region along fault lines of economic dependence and security allegiances. Malaysia and Indonesia, both staunch supporters of Palestinian rights, find themselves increasingly vocal against Israeli actions. Yet, as the U.S. escalates its involvement, ASEAN risks being dragged into an ideological vortex.

Moreover, the Iran-Israel conflict risks upending global energy markets, disrupting trade flows, and diverting diplomatic attention from Southeast Asia’s own urgent crises—Myanmar, Thai-Cambodia border rift and economic recovery post-COVID-19.

Conclusion: No Convergence, Only Containment

In sum, the United States and China will not agree—neither on the roots of the Iran-Israel conflict, nor on its resolution. Their differences are not merely tactical but deeply structural. As each pursues its own brand of global order, the Middle East becomes yet another arena of contestation, rather than cooperation.

Rather than aiming for unrealistic consensus, the international community—including ASEAN—must now work towards containment and de-escalation. The priority is not to reconcile two incompatible worldviews, but to prevent yet another regional war from igniting a global inferno.

---

Phar Kim Beng, PhD, is Professor of ASEAN Studies at the International Islamic University Malaysia and a former Head Teaching Fellow at Harvard University.