The US-Israel war against Iran marks the final collapse of the US-led international order, laying bare the bankruptcy of American unipolar hegemony. Meanwhile, Iran emerges as a heroic and resilient defender of the Global South, while China is the only power with the moral clarity and strategic wisdom to restore order to a world in chaos.
Or at least, that is the conclusion you are meant to reach after reading the latest issue of Modern International Relations 现代国际关系.
Published by the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations (CICIR), Beijing’s premier civilian intelligence and influence organ linked to the Ministry of State Security (MSS), the journal occupies a unique place in China’s knowledge ecosystem.
The April 2026 issue of Modern International Relations - titled The US-Israel-Iran War: Geopolitical Game in the Middle East and Its Global Impact 美以伊战争：中东地缘博弈与全球冲击 - is devoted entirely to the war that began on February 28. The publication includes five articles written by some of the most prominent party-state experts and leading cadres 领导干部.
These include Liao Baizhi 廖百智, Director of CICIR’s Middle East Studies Institute; Tang Zhichao 唐志超, Director of the Research Division at the Institute of West Asian and African Studies (IWAAS) within the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS); Chen Wenxin 陈文鑫, Director of CICIR’s Institute of American Studies; Lu Ruquan 陆如泉, President of the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) Economics & Technology Research Institute; and Chen Qinghong 陈庆鸿, Deputy Director at CICIR’s Institute of World Political Studies.
Anyone expecting genuine policy debate or open-ended academic inquiry will be disappointed. Unlike classified neican 内参 reports, drafted for restricted circulation among senior leadership to inform decision-making, this journal is public for a reason: Its purpose is to instruct the readers how to interpret the war and consolidate what the Party calls a “correct understanding” 正确认识, ensuring that their understanding of our pressing international event aligns with the official party line as set by the CCP Central Committee.
And who are these readers? The outward-facing publication aims to influence the opinions of China's foreign policy elite, which includes academics, analysts, business leaders, "news" editors, diplomats, and party cadres, among others.
They, in turn, are responsible for influencing you.
On the surface, the writing is polished, internally coherent, and empirically grounded, with references to Western sources like Foreign Affairs, The Economist, and even Fox News. However, these references are selectively used, stripped of context, and reassembled to support a predetermined narrative.
The result is an echo chamber in which all authors arrive at the same predetermined conclusion, and this is its “scientific,” almost elegant, logic:
The US and Israel launched a brazen, illegal war of aggression in an effort by the increasingly “crazy” and desperate America to maintain regional dominance and “global hegemony at a low cost” 低成本维霸.
Iran’s “successful” use of asymmetric warfare and national resilience shows that the “Global South” has successfully countered US military aggression, shattering the myth of American invincibility.
The war completely backfired, saddling the US with massive financial debt and alienating European and Gulf allies. Furthermore, it paralyzed the Strait of Hormuz, triggering a devastating global energy and supply chain crisis
By destroying international rules, the United States has become the primary cause of global systemic risk, and therefore, the world must reject American hegemony and embrace a new, just international order centered on the UN and Xi Jinping’s Global Governance Initiative.
While these articles are poor guides to understanding the region itself, they are far from useless. Their value lies elsewhere. They reveal how China’s policy ecosystem frames the world, which arguments are being normalized, and which conclusions are being elevated into consensus.
Tuvia Gering 陶文亚@GeringTuvia
"Israel is Washington's most important ally in the region, a key pivot for US regional interests, and a forward grip for US regional hegemony" - Chen Wenxin, Director of the Institute of American Studies, China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations (CICIR), the 11th
6:46 AM · Apr 19, 2026 · 22K Views
8 Replies · 22 Reposts · 63 Likes
The following sections distill the five authors’ main arguments, with summaries and key excerpts organized around four central players: Israel, Iran, the Gulf, and China. The US runs through each section as a constant reference point.
The scholars depict Israel as a state aggressively pursuing total regional hegemony. Liao Baizhi of CICIR’s Middle East program argues that the military strike on Iran is the culmination of a long-term strategy:
“In recent years, the US and Israel have vigorously sought to dominate the construction of a ‘New Middle East,’ and this military strike against Iran is the most critical - and perhaps final - component of their grand design”.
Following what they call the “Al-Aqsa Flood” (It is telling that Chinese scholars often use Hamas’ term for the October 7 terror attacks, which killed 1,200 people and took 251 hostages, mostly civilians. Four of the murdered that day were Chinese nationals who’d been working in Israel), Liao describes an emboldened Israel that has “turned passive into active, fought on seven fronts and won on seven fronts, rebuilt its military deterrence, and emerged as a ‘little hegemon’ 小霸王 in the Middle East that strikes whoever it pleases.”
This neat framing strips away the core reality that Israel did not “turn active” by choice but was attacked and forced to respond on each of the multiple fronts. Hezbollah, backed by Iran, opened fire on Israel’s northern border on October 8, 2023, while we were still counting our dead from the massacre and fighting off the remnants of the Palestinian invaders. This was followed by attacks from other Iranian proxies, including the Houthis in Yemen, targeting Israeli and global shipping, Iraqi militias, and eventually direct Iranian strikes in April 2024.
Back to the article: Liao claims Israel has now adopted a policy of “peace through strength,” openly aiming to rebuild a “new order” in the region by force and ultimately restore the biblical map of “Greater Israel.” This conspiracy theory alleges that Israel secretly pursues a grand expansionist plot to carve out an empire stretching “from the Nile to the Euphrates,” annexing large swaths of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and beyond. This old trope, which first appeared in Arabic, Turkish, and Iranian media, has exploded in popularity in fringe antisemitic platforms after October 7. In China, it has been promoted by prominent scholars and “barbarian handlers” such as Liao, Ma Xiaolin, and CCG’s Victor Gao.
Not only is this idea contradicted by Israel’s 1979 return of the entire Sinai Peninsula to Egypt for the sake of peace, an area larger than Israel itself, and its unilateral 2005 disengagement from Gaza, which Hamas then seized, but no Israeli government has ever included “from the Nile to the Euphrates” in its official maps, policy documents, or diplomatic goals.
Regardless of the war’s outcome, Liao concludes that “Israel will remain the primary driver of geopolitical upheaval in the Middle East”.
Tuvia Gering 陶文亚@GeringTuvia
“The dream of ‘Greater Israel’ threatens the future of the Abraham Accords” - Prominent Chinese MENA scholar and former Xinhua journalist Ma Xiaolin continues to peddle a conspiracy theory that accuses Israel of pursuing a "Greater Israel," claiming that Israel wishes to
12:12 PM · Jul 23, 2025 · 662 Views
1 Repost · 2 Likes
The scholars also “internalize” Israel’s foreign policy, particularly under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Tang Zhichao with CASS asserts that the October 2023 attack “triggered the rise of Israel’s far-right political forces and fundamentally altered its national security strategy”. He views the ongoing conflict as a calculated instrument for domestic political survival. Tang observes that:
“Netanyahu is consolidating power through a perpetual state of war, using the prolongation of conflict as a means to extend his political life while advancing the annexation of the West Bank and expansionist regional policies”.
By doing so, Netanyahu is “systematically attempting to transform the strategic reality of the entire Middle East”. Furthermore, Tang frames the conflict as an ideological “total showdown” involving “Religious Zionism dominated by Israel’s far-right forces,” which he characterizes as a form of “regional expansionism”.
The moral and legal framing of Israel’s joint actions with the US is unequivocally condemned as a “war of aggression.” Tang elaborates on this breach:
“From the perspective of international law, this is a nakedly illegal war. The United States and Israel used diplomatic negotiations as a cover to launch a surprise attack... aimed directly at regime change and the ‘targeted killing’ of Iranian leadership”.
He claims that these actions “seriously violate the UN Charter” and “infringe upon Iran’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.” Furthermore, he warns that Israeli strikes on civilian infrastructure, such as schools, hospitals, and power plants, may be considered war crimes under international humanitarian and human rights law. Would he spare a thought for Iran’s illegal closure of the Strait of Hormuz or its indiscriminate use of cluster bombs against Israeli civilians, which constitutes a double war crime? Nope.
John Spencer@SpencerGuard
Yes, despite all the Xperts on the law of armed conflict, targeting bridges, power plants, oil and gas facilities, airfields, and other dual-use infrastructure like factories, communications nodes, and rail lines that serve both civilian and military needs may be lawful. The law
7:42 PM · Apr 5, 2026 · 338K Views
134 Replies · 535 Reposts · 2.44K Likes
While the US and Israel are currently aligned, the scholars highlight divergent motivations that supposedly threaten the partnership. Tang notes that while both seek to neutralize Iran, “Israel’s policies and goals are uncompromising, whereas the United States remains opportunistic and seeks to avoid being dragged into a permanent war”.
Chen Wenxin, the Director of the Institute of American Studies at CICIR, observes that as the war fails to achieve a “quick, decisive victory,” the friction between the allies is growing:
“The differences between the two sides regarding targets and strategic objectives have become increasingly obvious, standing in sharp contrast to their initial coordination; the rift is widening”.
His colleague Liao points out that the US domestic audience is increasingly questioning if “‘America First’ has given way to ‘Israel First’,” reflecting a growing criticism that “Israel has dragged the US into a war that should never have happened” (he uses the idiom, “the tail wagging the dog”). The scholars conclude that since “the core pillar of Israel’s regional hegemony is US support,” any exhaustion of US resources will leave Israel facing a “dilemma of strategic overreach”.
Whereas Israel is depicted as the epitome of debauched, misanthropic, grand scheming, and henchman of a failing hegemon, the Chinese scholars in these articles see Iran as a highly resilient, strategically astute, and fiercely independent nation that successfully used asymmetric warfare to counter US and Israeli military superiority. They argue that the US fundamentally misunderstood Iran's internal stability and resolve, ultimately leading to a strategic blunder that strengthened Iran's hardliners and eroded American hegemony.
The scholars portray Iran as a country with immense psychological and structural fortitude that only grows stronger under immense pressure. They argue that the US and Israel “overestimated their own strength and underestimated Iran’s will to resist.”
Rather than crumbling after the 12-day war in June last year, the scholars observe that Iran was “fully preparing for a ‘rematch’”. They highlight the extreme dedication of Iran’s leadership, noting that “former Supreme Leader Khamenei went to battle carrying his coffin’, requiring all high-ranking military and political officials to designate four successors.
Far from collapsing under the intense US-Israeli bombardment, the scholars observe that Iran did not experience military mutiny or mass civilian uprisings. Instead, they describe Iran’s national spirit as being “like a spring, the more it is pressed, the stronger it bounces back”.
The articles heavily emphasize Iran’s military intelligence [the one that saw all of its leaders in the different branches taken out by Israel and the US], noting that Iran successfully leveled the playing field against a superpower by adopting highly effective asymmetric tactics. The scholars state that Iran was “determined to fight a protracted war, a war of attrition, and a parallel war with the US and Israel”.
To survive the technological superiority of its enemies, Iran “activated a ‘mosaic defense,’ decentralizing military command” and ensured its “underground military facilities are scattered and hidden”. Economically, Iran weaponized its geography, “controlling the Strait of Hormuz, [and] transferring pressure to the US by impacting the global economy”.
When it came to direct combat, the scholars view Iran’s strategy as a brilliant economic trap for the US. They note that the conflict devolved into an “asymmetric attrition of low-cost saturation attacks”. They point out that “Iran counterattacked with cheap suicide drones, short-range missiles, and swarm tactics,” which forced the US and Israel to use multi-million dollar interception systems, creating a massive financial drain on American resources. Ultimately, the scholars conclude that “Iran, using asymmetric combat capabilities, homeland defense resilience, and regional coordinated countermeasures, has plunged the US into a strategic dilemma of high consumption, low returns, and strong backlash”.
Regarding the domestic landscape, they argue that the US–Israeli strikes paradoxically unified the country and radicalized its leadership. They describe Iran’s post-attack condition as “weaker but tougher,” a formulation that may sound neat in Marxist schools of dialectic materialism but is far less convincing in practice.
The scholars assert that “the decapitation strike backfired; hardliners led by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps have dominated Iranian politics like never before, and the voices of pragmatists and moderates have been weakened.” They also highlight how the external threat forged national unity, noting that “during wartime, the Iranian people united to defend against foreign enemies, including exiled opposition groups who called for maintaining a distance from the US and Israel.”
To their credit, the authors recognize the severe internal toll the war has taken. They predict that “post-war, the Iranian government will face severe economic, social, security and diplomatic challenges, and may respond to external threats and internal hidden dangers with a more radical and bellicose posture.”
To summarize the new threat Iran poses to the region, the scholars ominously warn: “After all, a wounded lion is more dangerous.”
Geopolitically, the Chinese scholars view Iran as a fundamental ideological and political opponent to American imperialism in the Middle East. They write that “the essence of the US-Iran contradiction is Iran’s opposition to the US seeking hegemony in the Middle East, opposing US interference, control, and penetration in Middle Eastern countries, and seeking an independent and autonomous development path.”
They note that for decades, Iran adapted to US isolation by “strengthening internal stability, developing a ‘resistance economy’, strengthening asymmetric military power and implementing a ‘forward deployment’ strategy, expanding external cooperation, and forming a regional ‘resistance front.’”
The authors argue that recent domestic protests in Iran (needless to say, they don’t mention the more than 30,000 Iranians killed by the regime during said protests in January) gave the US and Israel the “illusion that Iran was at its weakest internally.” Yet, the scholars emphatically declare that “facts have proved that the US and Israel seriously misjudged the stability of the Iranian regime, its military capabilities, and its strategic will to confront the US and Israel”.
The scholars view Iran’s successful survival as a historic turning point for international relations. By withstanding the full force of the US military, they conclude that “Iran has, to a certain extent, broken the chilling effect brought by the ‘Donroe Doctrine’ to the ‘Global South’ countries,” thereby shattering the myth of American military invincibility.
Iran launched well over 5,000 missiles and drones against Arab Gulf countries from February 28 until today. The authors contend that the Gulf nations have become unwilling victims of an “alliance dilemma,” facing severe economic disruption, infrastructure attacks, and the terrifying realization that their security partnerships with the United States are actively endangering them.
Liao Baizhi argues that the war completely derailed the Gulf states’ attempts to pivot toward economic modernization and exposed the fatal flaw in relying on the US for defense.
He notes that “Arab countries, especially Gulf oil-producing countries, originally tried their best to avoid being drawn into the war, focusing entirely inward to seek transformation and development, but the US-Israel-Iran war made their years of efforts go down the drain.” He adds that the economic damage was immediate: “In the first month alone, their economic output shrank by 5.2%-8.5%, equivalent to 103 billion-168 billion US dollars.”
Liao further details how the Gulf’s strategic bet failed: “After replacing ‘oil for security’ with ‘investment for security’ and building a new cooperation mechanism with the US, the Gulf countries vigorously developed their energy industries and started a diversification process...” However, because of the conflict, “...the US ‘security umbrella’ turned into a ‘lightning rod’, and their economic vulnerability was highlighted under the strikes of Iranian missiles and drones.”
Chen Qinghong of CICIR focuses on the structural failure of the US-Gulf military alliance, arguing that the presence of US bases made the Gulf states primary targets for Iran.
First, Chen argues that the US military installations in the Gulf did not protect the host nations: “...these bases and military facilities not only failed to play their due role in deterring war or guaranteeing security, but instead became the primary targets of Iran’s counterattacks, directly spreading the flames of war into the heartland of the Gulf states.”
Then, Chen highlights the severe economic projections, stating that “if the war continues until the end of April, the GDP of Saudi Arabia and the UAE may shrink by 3%-5%, and the downward economic pressure on countries like Qatar and Kuwait is even more prominent, with a shrinkage rate of up to 14%.”
Chen concludes that the Gulf states are suffering from an alliance trap. He writes: “In this round of geopolitical games, the Gulf countries did not directly participate in the confrontation, yet they bore the heaviest war costs, making it a typical case of being ‘implicated’ by an alliance”.
Chen Wenxin argues that the unilateral nature of the US and Israeli strikes has severely damaged the diplomatic relationship between the US and the Gulf nations. He states that the “Gulf countries were disappointed that the US did not communicate with them before the attack on Iran, were unwilling to actively get involved in the conflict, but had to bear heavy military, economic and humanitarian costs, and their trust in the US dropped significantly”.
Tang Zhichao focuses on the broader regional security implications, arguing that the war has forced the Gulf states back into a hostile posture toward Iran. He argues that because of the conflict, “Iran and the Gulf have returned to confrontation, the ‘peace oasis’ of the Gulf has been broken, and the Gulf countries have further realized the huge risk of over-reliance on the US security umbrella.”
Energy scholar Lu Ruquan looks at the conflict’s physical impact on the Gulf states’ primary economic engine: oil and gas extraction and exportation. He observes that “With the continuous escalation of the conflict, the energy infrastructure of the Gulf countries has also been affected and attacked.”
For context, Caixin reported yesterday that Chinese oil “imports from Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia dropped 64.5%, 52.3%, 46%, and 30.7%, respectively. Shipments from Oman, whose export terminals are outside the Strait of Hormuz, rose 44%... UAE unchanged.”
As a direct result of this crisis, Lu points out that “Currently, the Gulf countries are actively seeking alternative routes for oil and gas exports, attempting to bypass the Strait of Hormuz and use pipelines to transport oil and gas.”
Read more on the economic impact of the war on China in the previous issue of Discourse Power:
Will the Gulf States lean more or less on the US? I’d argue that despite what they write, Gulf states will likely lean even more heavily on the US for security in the near term.
Their advanced air defenses, built around US-supplied THAAD, Patriot, and related systems, intercepted the overwhelming majority of the Iranian barrage. This has been the most practical demonstration of the unmatched value of the American security umbrella and its sophisticated weaponry, capabilities that no other partner, whether China, Russia, or European alternatives, can currently replicate at scale.
China remains a vital economic partner but proved to be a non-actor during the conflict, offering no meaningful military defense; I heard from insiders in Saudi Arabia that Riyadh is angry with Beijing for not assisting them in operating the Chinese-made systems already in their inventory.
To be sure, the Gulf states remain angry about being drawn into the war without full prior consultation and have absorbed significant economic damage. Yet Iran’s unprovoked aggression has only hardened their stance toward Tehran and, in the end, pushed them closer to Washington, and in some cases to Israel as well.
Shalom Lipner@ShalomLipner
“[After] Iran’s full-throttle attack on the Gulf states,” @AnwarGargash said, “for countries that have relations with Israel... this relationship, in my opinion, will be even more strengthened. For those that don’t, I expect… more channels will be open.”
timesofisrael.com
Senior UAE official says Iranian attacks will drive Gulf countries into Israeli arms
1:51 PM · Mar 19, 2026 · 277 Views
China is positioned as a stabilizing champion of international law, multilateralism, and fair global governance throughout the text, while the US is used as a counterpoint, depicted as a destabilizing force whose reliance on hegemony and military alliances has fundamentally failed.
The most direct reference to the Chinese model comes at the conclusion of Chen Qinghong’s analysis of the global governance system. Chen argues that traditional Western geopolitical concepts, such as the “hegemonic stability theory” 霸权稳定论 and the “alliance security theory” 结盟求安论, have completely lost their persuasive power due to the chaos caused by the US-Israel-Iran war.
Because the US is now acting as the “destroyer of the system and a creator of systemic risks,” Chen argues that “the international society must completely abandon hegemonic thinking and antagonistic logic, and accelerate the construction of a more just, reasonable, pragmatic and effective new global governance system.”
To fill this void, Chen explicitly presents the Chinese leadership framework as the definitive answer:
“In this context, the Global Governance Initiative proposed by President Xi Jinping, which emphasizes the five concepts of sovereign equality, international rule of law, multilateralism, people-oriented, and striving for practical results, has more prominent major theoretical value and practical guiding significance in the face of a turbulent world intertwined with changes and chaos”.
Lu Ruquan promotes Chinese leadership as a stabilizing alternative specifically within the realm of global energy markets, which have been severely disrupted by the US-led conflict in the Middle East. Because the US actions have weaponized strategic chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz, Lu suggests China must step up to rewrite the rules of energy governance.
He recommends that China actively “promote the improvement of the global energy governance system”. Rather than relying on US-secured sea lanes, Lu proposes a Chinese-led multilateral approach: China should “jointly explore interest protection mechanisms with major energy consumer countries that are severely impacted, enhance the capability to prevent and handle energy security risks, and build a community of shared interests in overseas energy security”.
To cement this leadership role, Lu calls for China to project its diplomatic power, stating that China must “carry out high-quality home-field energy diplomacy to enhance our country’s voice and influence in global energy governance”. Furthermore, he suggests leveraging China’s dominance in green technology to lead the future of energy, advising the state to “give full play to the advantages of the new energy industry chain, strengthen the ‘going out’ of new energy equipment, technology, and capital, and actively participate in global energy transition cooperation”.
The authors follow Chinese official pronouncements by Wang Yi and other officials who frame the US approach to the Middle East as a regression to the “law of the jungle”, characterized by unilateral military strikes that bypass the UN Security Council and violate international law. In contrast, the authors promote the Chinese diplomatic model, which purportedly relies on the UN and international consensus, as the moral and practical alternative.
In fact, they argue that China is the primary defender of the international system, noting that in the face of US aggression, “Not only do major powers such as China and Russia explicitly condemn unilateral actions... ‘Global South’ countries also jointly issue calls to defend multilateralism and oppose power politics through multilateral forums.”
By aligning China with the Global South and the defense of the UN framework, the authors promote Chinese wisdom and multilateralism as the necessary antidote to US unilateralism, concluding that the international community must “support and revitalize the United Nations and international law” to prevent further global catastrophes.
Today we commemorated Yom HaZikaron, the Day of Remembrance for fallen soldiers and terrorist victims. As I write this, we have started celebrating our 78th Independence Day.
Scholars may continue to rearrange words and construct elaborate academic narratives to fit their (or the CCP's) worldview, but no amount of sophisticated phrasing or journal titles will change the stubborn, living fact in front of them: we are still alive. Am Yisrael Chai.
Below is a video of Israeli singer Daniel Weiss from Kibbutz Be’eri. He lost his father, Shmulik, in the October 7 massacre, and his mother, Yehudit, who was abducted by Hamas and killed in Gaza. Daniel performed this tribute from the balcony of their ruined home:
This melody
cannot be stopped,
we must continue to play
we must continue to play,
because this melody
cannot be stopped.
Tuvia Gering is a cyber-threat intelligence analyst at Planet Nine’s Digital Intelligence Team, a visiting fellow at the Israel-China Policy Center at the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), and a nonresident fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Global China Hub. The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of the author’s affiliated organizations.
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.