It was quick. On Friday—the first day of Israel's strike on Iran—the spokesperson for China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs sounded relatively restrained, stating that his country "opposes actions that violate Iran’s sovereignty, security and territorial integrity." Less than 12 hours later, on Saturday morning, China returned to its familiar tune of a clear and unequivocal condemnation of Israel’s actions. China’s ambassador to the UN, Fu Cong, was the first to clarify the updated messaging, stating that China strongly condemns the Israeli attack on Iran. He further added that China “condemns armed attacks on peaceful nuclear facilities.”
This decisive message was quickly echoed by other voices—diplomats, researchers, and reporters in official Chinese media—who rushed to align with the regime’s official position in Beijing. Foreign Minister Wang Yi also reiterated the message of condemnation toward Israel’s use of force during his conversation with his Iranian counterpart. In contrast, in Wang’s conversation with Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar, he returned to the more restrained messaging, stating that China opposes Israel’s attack on Iran, which violates international law at a time when the diplomatic efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue have yet to be exhausted.
There is no reason to be alarmed by the Chinese condemnation—just as one should not be overly impressed by the conciliatory remarks of China’s newly appointed ambassador to Israel, who in April mentioned Hamas by name, which some commentators were quick to interpret as an implicit retroactive condemnation of the October 7 attacks. Both statements—the one condemning Israel and the one alluding to Hamas—are part of China’s balancing strategy. Beijing manages its regional presence by tailoring its messages selectively to different audiences: a firm condemnation at the UN, a balanced tone in Jerusalem, and reassurance in Tehran.
Through this approach, China manages to maintain channels of communication with all the key players—Iran, Israel, the Gulf states, and the United States—without becoming directly or substantively involved. This is not about morality, values, or ideology, but rather a pragmatic foreign policy that operates through the deliberate use of multiple versions: calibrated rhetoric tailored to each listener, aimed at securing calm that ensures investment, stability that enables trade, and an image of a responsible global power—all without paying a geopolitical price.
ה
It was quick. On Friday—the first day of Israel's strike on Iran—the spokesperson for China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs sounded relatively restrained, stating that his country "opposes actions that violate Iran’s sovereignty, security and territorial integrity." Less than 12 hours later, on Saturday morning, China returned to its familiar tune of a clear and unequivocal condemnation of Israel’s actions. China’s ambassador to the UN, Fu Cong, was the first to clarify the updated messaging, stating that China strongly condemns the Israeli attack on Iran. He further added that China “condemns armed attacks on peaceful nuclear facilities.”
This decisive message was quickly echoed by other voices—diplomats, researchers, and reporters in official Chinese media—who rushed to align with the regime’s official position in Beijing. Foreign Minister Wang Yi also reiterated the message of condemnation toward Israel’s use of force during his conversation with his Iranian counterpart. In contrast, in Wang’s conversation with Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar, he returned to the more restrained messaging, stating that China opposes Israel’s attack on Iran, which violates international law at a time when the diplomatic efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue have yet to be exhausted.
There is no reason to be alarmed by the Chinese condemnation—just as one should not be overly impressed by the conciliatory remarks of China’s newly appointed ambassador to Israel, who in April mentioned Hamas by name, which some commentators were quick to interpret as an implicit retroactive condemnation of the October 7 attacks. Both statements—the one condemning Israel and the one alluding to Hamas—are part of China’s balancing strategy. Beijing manages its regional presence by tailoring its messages selectively to different audiences: a firm condemnation at the UN, a balanced tone in Jerusalem, and reassurance in Tehran.
Through this approach, China manages to maintain channels of communication with all the key players—Iran, Israel, the Gulf states, and the United States—without becoming directly or substantively involved. This is not about morality, values, or ideology, but rather a pragmatic foreign policy that operates through the deliberate use of multiple versions: calibrated rhetoric tailored to each listener, aimed at securing calm that ensures investment, stability that enables trade, and an image of a responsible global power—all without paying a geopolitical price.
ה