EXPLORE THIS STORY
MILITARY ESCALATION BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND IRAN
Beijing weighs the risk of escalation in the Gulf and presents its own de-escalation channel in the face of Washington's military unilateralism.
Dominant angle identified — does not reflect unanimity of this country’s media
Beijing, July 10, 2026. China's government reports that the US has struck Iran for a second consecutive day, citing the US Central Command, which states that the strikes aim to "degrade Iran's ability to threaten the freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz." Over 20 US warships are now patrolling the waters of the Middle East. China's public media also highlights a rarely emphasized human cost: according to Iranian sources, "two fishermen were killed in missile strikes," which has not been commented on by the US. Tehran has taken the issue to the UN Security Council, calling the strikes a new "flagrant violation."
The trigger remains the three tankers hit in the Strait of Hormuz - including a Qatari methanier and a Saudi oil tanker - which led the US to revoke Iran's oil export license. China notes that the US has declared the ceasefire agreement "ended," with US leaders describing Iranian leaders in strong terms, which China's media reports without additional commentary.
China's analysis expands on this: an opinion piece describes three rival architectures for the post-war regional setup - one centered on the Abraham Accords, led by the US; a regional autonomy path supported by Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, and Pakistan; and a third, "backed by China," based on a Saudi-Iranian rapprochement. China's media emphasizes that these three paths converge on one point: avoiding a wider war and preserving the fluidity of the Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of the world's oil and LNG passes. China also notes the confusion of US leaders during the NATO summit in Ankara, where a reference was made to missiles fired by the "Islamic Republic of Japan" - a slip-up interpreted as a sign of the pressure on the White House.
Beijing focuses on the factual timeline of the strikes rather than their legitimacy
China prefers a multipolar reading of the Middle East, highlighting its own mediation role
Limited coverage of detailed US justifications, more often cited than discussed
Discover how another country covers this same story.