During U.S. President Donald Trump’s inauguration address, he declared that the United States would measure military successes not only by the battles won but also by the wars ended — and most importantly, the wars avoided. Today, that vision is increasingly tested. As the Iran-Israel conflict threatens to spiral the region into a broader regional war, the specter of deeper U.S. involvement looms. Reports have indicated that the U.S. has deployed a third aircraft carrier strike group near the Middle East.
Despite Trump reportedly approving attack plans, the White House was clear that the president will decide on his final decision to strike the country within two weeks. While this opens a short negotiating window, Washington’s unilateral diplomatic overtures to Tehran have not borne fruit, and Trump has mentioned that his patience is wearing thin on Iran.
Evidently, Trump faces a strategic dilemma and impasse. On one hand, he is under pressure from Israel and domestic hawks to back Israeli efforts to completely annihilate Iran’s nuclear infrastructure – either through direct strikes or by supplying bunker-buster munitions for Israel to finish the destroying the underground Fordow Uranium Enrichment facility in Iran. On the other hand, deeper U.S. involvement risks contradicting Trump’s “America First” rhetoric and alienating MAGA supporters who have no appetite for entangling the United States in another “forever” war. Indeed, observers like Jake Tapper have noted that Trump’s Iranian rhetoric is “tearing at the MAGA base” while conservative media icon Tucker Carlson went as far as warning that military escalation would spell the “end of the American empire.”
Between calls for restraint and intervention, there is space for a third path: pursuing China-U.S. strategic cooperation to co-manage the Iran-Israel crisis. Beijing can leverage on the present dilemma that Trump faces. By stepping in diplomatically before the U.S. president makes a final decision, China would forestall further bloodshed and secure key strategic objectives, while Trump would be offered a face-saving off-ramp that avoids another costly entangling war.
Given that Chinese President Xi Jinping has expressed his concerns about the conflict and urges both sides to deescalate, Chinese diplomatic action appears timely and necessary. Beyond merely calling for calm, China has every reason to stabilize the region for practical reasons. Iran is one of China’s top energy suppliers and a Belt and Road partner. A regional war would severely jeopardize Chinese investments and endanger critical energy supplies, which would undercut Beijing’s strategic and economic interests. Thus, Beijing’s intervention would allow China to play a leading central role in shaping the outcome without alienating Iran or appearing to support military escalations while securing its interests.
More broadly, a diplomatic intervention offers China a rare opportunity to demonstrate global leadership. Beijing could leverage this moment to bolster its image as a responsible and mature global power. By positioning itself as a responsible stakeholder seeking to forestall further bloodshed and instability, China can bolster its credibility across the Global South and Islamic world. Beyond that, Chinese acts of calling for restraints, offering to mediate, and importantly, engaging the U.S. in a shared diplomatic mission, would demonstrate to the world that it can manage escalations and behave as a mature, peace-loving power. This, by extension, would provide an unequivocal signal to the world that China is willing to take up responsibilities as a global power.
For the United States, cooperation with China provides an alternative to military escalation. Working with China will provide Trump with a politically viable path to back away from U.S. military involvement – and thus avoid alienating his MAGA domestic base – all while addressing the nuclear issues of Iran. Doing so will allow him to claim an important diplomatic breakthrough, solidifying his status as a shrewd negotiator and a dealmaker who secured U.S. interests without the need for costly entanglements. This rhetoric would fit his “America First” agenda, allowing him to focus on domestic issues while preserving the U.S. credibility as a power capable of making both threats and deals.
Existing institutions like the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) are already in place to monitor Iran’s nuclear program. While such institutions are critical in ensuring compliance to guidelines, the IAEA fundamentally lacks the political leverage necessary to change the strategic calculus of Iran or Israel. Thus, even when the IAEA chief reported that Iran is not building nuclear weapons, political mistrust still fuels fears that Iran might advance clandestinely. As such, political leadership in the form of a China-U.S. cooperative mechanism remains imperative.
The contours of this cooperation will hinge on small but substantive action. Primarily, China and the U.S. can immediately convene a high-level contact group, establishing a direct channel for crisis communication. By leveraging Beijing close ties with Tehran, and Washington’s close partnership with Tel Aviv, both the U.S. and China can issue a united and unambiguous demand to all sides to de-escalate and clarify their respective positions. This can be backed by a joint commitment to impose sanctions on any party that further escalates the conflict. With Israel not ruling out the possibility of China acting as a mediator to the conflict, joint efforts by the U.S. and China would lend substantial credibility and weight to diplomatic efforts.
In tandem with these efforts, Chinese and American intelligence agencies could hold consultations to align their assessments of Iran’s nuclear program. A joint China-U.S. position aligned with the IAEA’s finding would add substantial political weight to the institution’s evaluations. This, in turn, would undercut and hamper Israel’s rationale for continuing strikes, while giving Trump a clear reason to hold off any military actions. Conversely, should the joint assessment reveal evidence of weaponization, which is a clear violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Beijing and Washington could coordinate and pivot toward a multilateral coalition to impose limited military actions – targeted sanctions, cyber actions, or actual military strikes and more – on Iran.
Finally, the United States and China could propose future fact-finding missions that work along the IAEA. The offer of a high-profile multinational team would help assuage Israeli strategic concerns, which may negate the need for future preemptive strikes. At the same time, it would add further credence to any IAEA findings, thereby strengthening the institution.
The value of this approach is that it would not require full rapprochement as both states recognize the interest in preventing the Middle East from further descending into a regional war. On the contrary, this unique window of opportunity toward cooperation may function as a valuable confidence and trust building mechanism sorely lacking between the two powers. Hence, if Washington and Beijing can coordinate on this issue, the two powers could potentially rebuild trust and cooperate in other areas of strategic concern.
Viewed this way, co-managing the Iran crisis would be a major step in improving the acrimonious China-U.S. relations.