‘Military ventures bring long-term decline’: How Beijing views the Iran crisis Premium

Wang Dong discusses Beijing's perspective on the U.S. and Israel's military actions in Iran and their regional implications.

In an interview with The Hindu, Wang Dong, professor at the School of International Studies at Peking University and executive director of the Institute for Global Cooperation and Understanding, who is a leading Chinese expert on global governance and China-U.S. relations, shares a perspective on how the attack on Iran by the U.S. and Israel, and the ongoing crisis engulfing West Asia, is being seen in Beijing.

Interview edited for clarity:

How do you view the strikes by the U.S. and Israel and the latest developments in Iran? Are you surprised?

The latest military strikes against Iran have triggered a dangerous escalation in the Middle East [West Asia], pushing the region to the brink of a full-scale conflict. As an observer, I am deeply alarmed, rather than surprised. For years, tensions have been building over regional security, nuclear non-proliferation, and external intervention. What has happened is a reckless breakdown of restraint, violating the sovereignty of a UN member state and disregarding basic norms of international relations. Such moves will not resolve disputes; they will only fuel cycles of retaliation, humanitarian suffering, and wider instability. The international community should recognise that military adventurism carries catastrophic, long-term costs for the entire region and global energy and security systems.

China’s initial official statement on February 28 said it was “highly concerned over the military strikes” and called “for an immediate stop of the military actions”. But it did not condemn the strikes, which struck me as a rather measured response. How did you see China’s statement?

First, I need to correct this factual inaccuracy: China has explicitly and clearly condemned these military strikes. China’s position is consistent and firm. It opposes and condemns the use of force against sovereign states, stresses respect for sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity, and calls for an immediate end to military actions. This is not “measured restraint” but a principled stand anchored in the UN Charter and international law. China’s response is calm, responsible, and focused on de-escalation, not inflammatory rhetoric. It rejects bloc confrontation and power politics, and advocates dialogue as the only viable path. This is what a responsible major power should do.