As the US gambles on swift military might to advance its interests, China navigates a treacherous diplomatic landscape with hard choices
The United States’ strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities on June 22 – followed abruptly by US President Donald Trump’s announcement of a fragile “complete and total ceasefire” between Israel and Iran – exposes a critical nuance in America’s changing strategic posture. Where Washington pursues global primacy through continuous military intervention, gambling that overwhelming force can prompt capitulation, China charts a different course.
Beijing follows a “long peace” path, having leveraged economic statecraft and diplomacy while avoiding major military entanglements since its 1979 border war with Vietnam. This difference reflects profoundly contrasting visions of national power and international order, with profound implications for the next phase of great power competition.
Trump’s gambit – contingent on Iran accepting de-escalation after its retaliatory strikes on a US base in Qatar – signals a tactical shift towards limited force as a bargaining chip. This manoeuvre may diverge from past “forever wars” but hinges on Tehran’s restraint and Israel’s acceptance.
If Iran continues working on its internationally contested nuclear programme and support of regional insurgencies, Washington could either lose credibility or face renewed escalation. This would reaffirm the “long war” paradigm’s persistent volatility.
The US attack on Iran fits its decades-long pattern of military interventions. Since the Cold War ended, the US has engaged in near-continuous operations, intervening in the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen.
This state of constant war sustains American dominance but demands colossal resources. US military spending in 2024 amounted to US$997 billion, more than the spending of the next nine militaries combined. Trump’s hybrid tactic of simultaneous escalation and ceasefire proclamations reveals strategic schizophrenia: attempting to balance military deterrence with selective disengagement, yet still risking entanglement in the very quagmire it seeks to avoid.
In stark contrast, China’s strategic toolkit centres on “geoeconomics.” Its paramount goal is securing a peaceful environment and a stable flow of resources needed for development – lifting hundreds of millions from poverty while building formidable technological and industrial capacity. Externally, this drives projects like the Belt and Road Initiative, deploying capital and infrastructure to cultivate influence and secure supply chains.
Since 1979, China has refrained from initiating major military conflicts. Its military modernisation, while significant, focuses primarily on defence and regional deterrence, especially concerning Taiwan and the South China Sea.
China’s power projection remains fundamentally economic; its assertiveness is calibrated to avoid triggering large-scale, sustained warfare that characterises US policy. This long peace has arguably been instrumental in enabling China’s remarkable economic rise.
This divergence makes the current geopolitical moment critical. While the US identifies China as its “pacing challenge”, urgent crises – Ukraine and the Middle East – fracture Washington’s focus and drain resources. Grand strategy falters under the tyranny of immediate conflicts.
As the US allocates military assets, diplomatic bandwidth and billions in aid to Eastern Europe and the Middle East, its capacity to forge a coherent Indo-Pacific counter-strategy diminishes. US interventions collectively risk imperial overstretch, benefiting Beijing.
Yet this reality defies simplistic narratives of China gaining a pure advantage. Beijing navigates a treacherous diplomatic landscape. It sees value in portraying itself as a responsible peacemaker – contrasting itself with the US – as shown by its mediation between Iran and Saudi Arabia. The stability of critical oil supply routes aligns with its core interests.
However, China also possesses strong incentives to prevent Iran’s collapse. Tehran serves as a vital diplomatic and economic partner, a counterweight to Washington’s influence and a fellow target of American pressure.
A diminished Iran would represent a strategic setback, especially given Iran’s ties with Russia – another crucial Chinese partner facing Western pressure over Ukraine. A decisive Nato victory perceived as crippling Moscow would also isolate Beijing. Hence, China faces the intricate challenge of fostering conflict resolution while covertly ensuring its key partners remain resilient enough to absorb and resist US pressure.
A plausible strategic interpretation of the US-Iran escalation frames it through this wider lens. Factions within the US establishment may seek to simultaneously weaken all of America’s adversaries – Russia, China and Iran. A new front against Tehran could isolate Moscow as well as disrupt China’s energy corridors and overall influence in the Middle East.
Strait of Hormuz: shipping activity in the world's busiest oil chokepoint
The coming moves by Beijing and Moscow will be significant. Will China double down on its partnership with Russia by providing crucial economic lifelines? Will both powers boost military and economic support for Iran?
Such a coordinated “axis of resistance” strategy could prove highly effective in exploiting America’s stretched posture. Forcing Washington to divert even more military resources, financial aid and diplomatic energy across multiple flashpoints would sap its strength.
Moscow and Beijing would be afforded precious strategic breathing room and greater latitude to manoeuvre in their core regions. Insulated from direct involvement in these conflicts, China can maintain its focus on economic consolidation and regional influence, leveraging its long peace.
The conclusion is inescapable: Trump’s “strike-and-truce” approach is sharpening, rather than resolving, US-China tensions. Washington’s expanded volatility – even in contained form – perpetuates a strategy that distracts from China’s rise. China’s long peace, built on avoiding conflict while wielding economic influence, has gained appeal among Global South nations weary of Western interventions.
This divergence has transformed great-power rivalry into a more volatile arena where miscalculation risks soar and military primacy proves brittle. Long peace and long war aren’t just slogans. The conflict between the two doctrines is the motivating principle of an age in which patient stability contends with coercive gambits. The former is gaining strategic momentum.
