While the United States was burning through cruise missiles, threatening to destroy Iranian civilization, and watching its Vice President shuttle between Budapest and Islamabad in the same week, Xi Jinping was doing something far more strategic. Nothing. Or not exactly nothing. China condemned the American attacks, quietly continued buying Iranian oil, discreetly helped push Tehran toward the ceasefire table mediated by Pakistan according to Donald Trump, and watched the rest of the world draw its own conclusions. This combination of minimal action and maximal positioning is how China has conducted its foreign policy for years. The war in Iran simply provided the most favorable conditions in years to do exactly that. The country that likely gained the most from this war did not fire a single shot.
The military "gift" that no one asked for
Starting with the point that should worry Pentagon planners. The US used approximately 80% of its stockpile of JASSM-ER stealth cruise missiles in the war with Iran, shifting reserves from the Pacific to support the campaign. The conflict significantly depleted stocks of Tomahawk and Patriot missiles, THAAD interceptors, and drones. These shortages are already creating ripples elsewhere. THAAD systems were removed from South Korea. Patriot batteries are unavailable for Ukraine. The American military is the strongest in the world, but it is not infinite. The campaign in Iran consumed ammunition at a rate that requires years to replenish, while simultaneously shifting US military attention and assets from the Pacific toward the Gulf. Beijing didn't have to do a thing to produce this result; Washington produced it for them.
The second military "gift" was intelligence. Beijing received a free masterclass in modern American warfare: how the US uses AI for targeting, how it rotates carrier strike groups, and how cheap Iranian drones exhaust the most expensive interceptors in the American arsenal. For Chinese military planners studying a potential Taiwan scenario, six weeks of observing the US military in real war conditions was more valuable than any simulation or satellite image.
When Donald Trump called on NATO allies and Indo-Pacific partners to provide military support to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, both sides refused. He publicly criticized Japan, South Korea, and Australia for their refusal to participate in the American attacks on Iran. The rift in the alliance was visible, loud, and noted by every government monitoring the region. America's allies saw the US move anti-aircraft systems from South Korea, leave partners in Asia without Patriot coverage, and transfer naval power from the Pacific to the Gulf. The message received in Seoul, Tokyo, Canberra, and Taipei was that American security guarantees come with an asterisk. Beijing didn't write this message; Washington did. But Beijing will be citing it for years.
How the energy equation shifted in China’s favor
The dominant assumption was that a war disrupting the Strait of Hormuz would severely harm China. It is the world’s largest oil importer, and about a third of its imports pass through Hormuz. When the Strait closed on March 4, that assumption seemed to be confirmed. However, it was more complex. China remains relatively protected in the short term, with its strategic oil reserves full. Renewable energy sources along with nuclear power now exceed 20% of China's total energy consumption, having surpassed oil as the second-largest energy source last year. The country is approximately 85% energy self-sufficient.
More importantly, the disruption accelerated an existing transition. When oil and gas supplies become weaponized, import-dependent countries speed up their shift to alternatives. China controls over 70% of the global supply chain in solar energy, wind turbines, batteries, and electric vehicles. The longer Hormuz remains disrupted, the deeper global dependence on Chinese green energy infrastructure becomes. Every government that saw oil at $120 and decided to accelerate investment in renewables is effectively increasing its reliance on Chinese components. The war was, in this sense, the stress test for which Chinese energy strategy was designed. According to a 2025 count by the Lowy Institute, 145 economies now trade more with China than with America. The energy disruption did not overturn this; it reinforced it.
The diplomacy that cost nothing
While Donald Trump was threatening to bomb Iran "back to the Stone Age," Beijing was quietly helping Pakistan bring the two sides to the table in Islamabad. Trump himself admitted this, stating that China helped lead Iran toward the ceasefire. China spent no obvious diplomatic capital, made no public commitments, and yet managed to extract credit for its contribution to a war it had condemned. China condemns American attacks on Iran but expands its economic ties with the Gulf states. It projects its cooperation with Russia while simultaneously preparing to participate in the reconstruction of post-war Ukraine. It maintains an alliance with North Korea while attempting to stabilize relations with South Korea. In other words, China maintains a diversified portfolio of transactional relationships centered on trade. This is not a contradiction; it is strategy, notes Modern Diplomacy.
Artificial intelligence
The massive development of artificial intelligence in the Gulf—billions from Microsoft, Oracle, Nvidia, and others—now faces geopolitical risk following Iranian attacks on AI-related infrastructure in the region. China already possesses the world's second-largest AI computing power and does not depend on the Gulf for its development. Every Western investment that is delayed is an investment that fails to create an alternative to Chinese infrastructure.
The limitations are real
Xi does not simply want a weakened United States, but one that still contributes to a stable global order. Beijing does not view every American failure as a Chinese gain. It often waits, watches, and calculates. The Chinese economy remains structurally dependent on export demand. Europe alone absorbs 15% of Chinese exports. A prolonged energy crisis that would plunge Europe and the US into recession would collapse Chinese demand, worsen the real estate crisis, and expose the weakness of domestic demand. Chinese authorities stated they want the war to end as soon as possible. What China ultimately desires is global stability. A prolonged war that keeps Hormuz closed, plunges Europe into recession, and collapses China’s exports is not a victory. It is mutual defeat with unequal short-term benefits.
What all this means
The war in Iran produced a long list of losers. Iran suffered severe military destruction, the Gulf states took hits they did not seek, and Lebanon lost over 2,000 people. The US spent $18 billion and more, exhausted Pacific stockpiles, and weakened its allied relationships. The global economy received an energy shock that the IEA describes as the largest disruption in history. China spent nothing, and lost no one.
It watched American military action up close, saw the Pacific stripped of defense systems, and observed US allies refusing to participate. It saw governments accelerate their dependence on Chinese energy technology. It helped mediate a ceasefire from behind the scenes and received public recognition from the US President himself. And it did so while publicly calling for peace and stability—the right posture for a power that wants to be seen as a responsible superpower in a world where the other started a war amidst nuclear negotiations. The ceasefire remains fragile. The talks in Islamabad continue. Nothing has been settled. But the strategic balance of the last six weeks has shifted in one direction—and it wasn't toward Washington.
www.bankingnews.gr
Readers’ Comments