Between covert support and neutrality: the limits of Chinese-Pakistani intervention in the Iran-Israel war

Dr. Dalal Erekat: China is working systematically to consolidate its position as a counterweight to American and Western influence in various regional and international arenas.

Dr. Amr Hussein: Beijing has become increasingly bold in breaking Western hegemony over the arms supply to the Middle East and South Asia by imposing new equations.

Sulaiman Basharat: China understands well that what is happening in Iran could be a prelude to an upcoming battle with it on the economic and military levels.

Dr. Saeed Shaheen: Any potential escalation could push Iran to close the Straits of Hormuz and Bab al-Mandab, leading to a blockade of energy flows.

Awni Al-Mashni: We are facing a war that will shape a new regional landscape that the world, including Washington, will deal with after the sounds of the cannons cease.

Dr. Irene Saeed: Geopolitical alliances between Iran, China, and Pakistan are part of Tehran's preparations to confront the growing escalation.

Muhammad Joda: Indirect Chinese warning messages to Washington and its allies that any direct military intervention against Iran will not pass without a heavy cost.

The Middle East is poised for major transformations, with increasing talk of China and Pakistan intervening to support Iran in its war with Israel. Questions are being raised about whether this comes within the context of new international alignments or simply a means of leveraging the regional conflict.

In separate interviews with "I", political writers, analysts, specialists, and university professors believe that Beijing possesses multiple tools of influence, ranging from diplomatic, economic, and indirect military support. However, it remains careful not to cross red lines that could lead to an open confrontation with the West. Conversely, Pakistan balances its regional alliances and international relations, making any direct military support for Iran conditional on a threat to its vital interests.

They point out that the danger lies in the fact that any miscalculation by these parties could transform the conflict from a limited confrontation into a comprehensive regional crisis, with repercussions for global stability.

Rapid transformations in the structure of the international system

Dr. Dalal Araikat, professor of diplomacy and conflict resolution at the Arab American University, asserts that the current international landscape clearly reflects accelerating transformations in the structure of the international system toward a growing multipolarity, led by rising powers, most notably China, which is systematically working to consolidate its position as a counterweight to American and Western influence in various regional and international arenas.

Erekat explains that China, by strengthening its strategic partnerships with both Iran and Pakistan, seeks to achieve a set of profound strategic goals, foremost among which is breaking the Western containment policy imposed on it by building a broad system of alliances that serve its major projects.

Erekat points out that China's supply of weapons to Iran and its support for Pakistan's position cannot be viewed in isolation from this broader strategic orientation.

However, Erekat notes that China's actions are not limited to militarizing international relations, but also extend to significantly utilizing its diplomatic power. She cites China's pivotal role in brokering the historic agreement between Saudi Arabia and Iran, which ended years of tension between the two major regional powers.

Erekat believes this agreement represents an unprecedented shift in the region, where mediation has long been tied to American or European initiatives.

China as a stabilizing force capable of managing regional balances

Erekat believes that China's success in playing the role of mediator enhances its position as a stabilizing force capable of managing regional balances in a way that ultimately serves its economic and strategic interests.

Erekat explains that the essence of these Chinese moves revolves around the struggle to control global trade routes and crossings, which have become a central focus of what she describes as the "war of trade routes" currently taking place on the international scene.

Erekat points out that whoever controls these crossings—whether land via the Belt and Road Initiative or maritime via strategic straits and canals—holds powerful leverage in the profit-and-loss equations of the new international order.

Erekat points out that some regional or neighboring countries are considered losers in light of the new trade route projects, most notably Egypt.

She explained that the goal of these routes is to open an integrated land trade corridor linking the East and the Gulf states, passing through Israel, and reaching the Mediterranean coasts to the west.

Erekat asserts that this project aims, in practice, to replace the Suez Canal and the Red Sea route as major trade routes, leading to a decline in Egyptian influence in the region and the loss of one of Egypt's most important sources of economic and strategic power.

Erekat explains that Beijing is fully aware that controlling these crossings guarantees a safe and stable flow of energy and goods, while also giving it broad negotiating leverage against Washington's attempts to reshape global supply chains away from China.

Erekat believes that this trade and technological conflict between China and the US constitutes the true backdrop for the interactions in the current international scene.

It is too early to talk about a slide into a world war.

Despite escalating tensions in more than one regional arena, Erekat asserts that it is too early to talk about a slide into a world war in the traditional sense that the world experienced in the twentieth century.

Erekat says: "We are facing a new type of unconventional global warfare, in which proxy wars intertwine with economic pressures, cyber attacks, and struggles for influence in multiple regions around the world."

She stresses that all major international parties realize that engaging in a comprehensive war would mean catastrophic losses that could devastate everyone's interests, especially given the unprecedented intertwining of economic interests between the United States and China.

Therefore, according to Erekat's assessment, what is currently unfolding represents a complex and intricate confrontation based on calculated escalation within the limits of mutual deterrence, with a constant margin for miscalculations that could ignite certain regional arenas and increase the risk of escalation in some hotspots.

New equations through strategic alliances

Egyptian writer, political analyst, and researcher in international and strategic relations, Dr. Amr Hussein, asserts that recent Chinese moves, particularly its provision of advanced weapons to Iran and its push for Pakistan to join the same axis, represent fundamental shifts in the regional and international balance of power.

Hussein points out that Beijing has become increasingly bold in challenging Western hegemony over the armament of the Middle East and South Asia, and is seeking to impose new equations through strategic alliances that create pressure points on the United States and its allies.

Hussein explains that China's military support for Iran strengthens Tehran's ability to withstand Western pressure, escalating sanctions, and Israeli threats. Meanwhile, Pakistan's political or logistical involvement in this axis represents an additional and extremely dangerous escalation, as it opens a potential southern front in a region of extreme geographic and strategic sensitivity. This could disrupt regional calculations and impose new equations on the international balance of power.

Hussein warns of the danger of the situation sliding into all-out war if the exchange of shelling escalates and limited clashes turn into broader, more bloody operations.

The possibility of a large-scale military intervention will increase.

Hussein asserts that the future of escalation depends on the ability of the major powers to exercise self-restraint and confine conflicts to the arenas of their proxies.

Hussein points out that if major interests are directly targeted, such as American bases or Chinese or Western strategic interests, the likelihood of a broad military intervention will escalate, potentially transforming the conflict from a regional level into an open international confrontation.

Hussein stresses that the international community is now called upon to exert maximum diplomatic pressure to avert this catastrophic scenario, especially with the emergence of unprecedented alignments that could reshape the map of international alliances for decades to come.

Hussein asserts that current indicators point to a period of extreme tension reminiscent of the Cold War, with the critical difference that the front lines this time lie in already volatile regions such as Syria, Yemen, and the Gulf. This increases the likelihood of an explosion in the absence of effective channels for calming the situation and containing the escalation.

Hussein believes that the rapid developments are placing the world at a critical juncture and facing complex choices that require urgent collective action to control the escalation before an explosion becomes inevitable.

Rapid and deliberate development by Israel and America

Writer and political analyst Suleiman Bisharat believes that current international events reflect a rapid and carefully considered development by Israel and the United States, aimed at reshaping a new Middle Eastern and international equation, radically different from that of past decades.

Basharat believes that this war between Iran and Israel did not come out of nowhere, but rather is part of a well-thought-out plan aimed at radically changing the balance of power in the region.

Basharat explains that the timeline of this war does not appear to be as short as some might think. Rather, we are witnessing a state of continuous escalation and expansion, with Israel acting as a primary instrument of implementation for the United States, which is still monitoring the situation but may become directly involved soon.

In his analysis of Washington's deeper goals behind this escalation, Basharat emphasizes that the issue is not limited to Iran alone, but extends beyond that to an attempt to undermine the Sino-Iranian axis and gradually weaken it.

Basharat points out that part of the US strategy is to try to calm the Russian-Ukrainian front or neutralize Russia from the alliance equation, as a prelude to dismantling the existing interconnectedness between Moscow, China, and Tehran.

An American attempt to dismantle the Iranian political system

Basharat believes that the United States is currently attempting to dismantle the Iranian political system itself as a central objective of this war, preparing the political and geostrategic groundwork for establishing a new equation in the region that will serve American and Western influence in the future.

Regarding the Chinese position, Basharat believes that Beijing is aware of the seriousness of the situation and is not currently seeking to become directly involved in this conflict, but at the same time, it is closely monitoring developments.

China, according to Basharat, understands well that what is happening in Iran could be a prelude to a future economic and military confrontation with the country. Therefore, it is avoiding involvement at present. However, it will not allow Iran to collapse completely, as this would weaken its strategic position in the anticipated major confrontation with Washington in the future.

Basharat asserts that what is currently taking place is more than just a conventional military war; it is a massive strategic project to redraw the maps of influence and control in the Middle East and the world, at a pivotal moment that could reshape the balance of power for decades to come.

Limited support due to complex relationships

Dr. Saeed Shaheen, a professor of political media at Hebron University, asserts that Chinese support for the Islamic Republic of Iran remains limited politically and diplomatically, ruling out the possibility of it translating into direct military support due to China's extensive commercial interests with the United States, Europe, and even Israel.

Shaheen explains that economic relations between China and Iran, despite their importance in the areas of energy and trade, do not constitute a counterweight to China's greater interests with the West, prompting it to limit itself to positions of condemnation and calls for dialogue. This is the case with Russia, which has merely expressed a similar position despite its joint defense agreement with Iran.

Regarding Pakistan's position, Shaheen points out that Pakistan's media and political stance supporting Iran as a neighboring Muslim country is insufficient to translate into military support, given Pakistan's intertwined relations with European countries and Saudi Arabia, a strategic adversary of Iran.

Shaheen asserts that Pakistan will not make any radical change in its position unless it is directly exposed to security risks resulting from Israel's targeting of Iranian nuclear facilities, especially if this results in a nuclear radiation leak that threatens neighboring countries.

No indications of Chinese or Pakistani military intervention

Shaheen points out that, to date, there are no indications that China or Pakistan are prepared to intervene militarily in the Iranian-Israeli conflict, noting that any military escalation involving these two countries could lead to an expansion of the conflict and the involvement of major international powers such as the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and Russia.

Shaheen warns that any potential escalation could push Iran to close the Straits of Hormuz and Bab al-Mandab, leading to a blockade of energy flows that could trigger a global economic crisis. This could be exacerbated by rising oil prices and inflation, amid the fragility of international economies already suffering from the repercussions of trade wars and successive financial crises.

Shaheen explains that this situation could play into Russia's hands, as it will benefit from rising oil prices to finance its war in Ukraine, further complicating the geopolitical landscape.

Regarding Iran's domestic affairs, Shaheen notes that continued Israeli strikes could weaken the regime's domestic standing, with popular discontent growing and support for the Revolutionary Guards declining. This could open the door to the possibility of the Iranian regime's downfall, a goal Israel and the United States are working to achieve. He warns that the regime's downfall could create a dangerous political vacuum similar to what happened in Iraq or Libya, with disastrous consequences whose consequences are difficult to predict.

Crystallizing a new axis in the region

Writer and political analyst Awni Al-Mashni explains that China believes it has deep strategic interests in the Middle East and finds in Iran a partner with whom it shares many of these interests, most notably limiting American influence in the region.

Al-Mashni points out that, within the framework of this strategic rapprochement between Beijing and Tehran, a series of agreements were signed between the two countries two years ago, covering multiple areas that tangibly strengthened this alliance.

Al-Mashni points out that Sino-Pakistani relations with Iran are also being strengthened through the "Silk Road" project, which represents a major economic development for all three parties.

Al-Mashni believes it is only natural for China and Pakistan to side with Iran in this battle, especially given the complexities of the regional geopolitical landscape. Israel has sided with India in its conflict with Pakistan, which has strengthened the cohesion of the China-Pakistan-Iran axis.

In his analysis of the extent to which China and Pakistan could support Iran, Al-Mashni believes that the extent and nature of this support will be determined by the evolution of the battle itself, the threats facing Iran, and the extent of Chinese and Pakistani willingness to continue this support.

So far, Al-Mashni believes that limited political and military support, including weapons, is sufficient at this stage, but military escalation could lead to increased support in the future.

Al-Mashni believes that this war between Iran and Israel is practically contributing to the crystallization of a new axis in the region, distinct from the traditional American axis. This axis includes China, Pakistan, and Iran, with strong possibilities for Egypt to join this axis in the future, given that American policies are closely aligned with Israeli policies, which have become a heavy burden and a threat to the interests of several countries in the region.

The absence of a world war scenario at the present time

Regarding the possibility of escalation into a world war, Al-Mashni believes that such a scenario is unlikely at the present time, given the lack of interest of any party in such a scenario.

Al-Mashni asserts that the international equation will change, at least partially, after this war, as new alignments will be drawn and the balance of power will be redistributed in the region and the world.

However, Al-Mashni also warns of the dangerous role of Israel, which he describes as a "rogue state" capable of pushing matters toward a dangerous escalation in pursuit of its goals, even if that leads to a world war.

Al-Mashni explains that Israel will find someone to respond to this "madness," even from its largest ally, the United States, which does not wish to reach this level of global escalation, but is responding to it in service of Israeli adventures.

Al-Mashni believes we are facing a different kind of war, one that will shape a new regional landscape that the world, including the United States, will deal with differently after the sound of the cannons has ceased. He points out that Israel has exhausted its cards and has no choice but to deal with this new reality that will impose itself after the battle ends.

Intensive preparations for more complex phases of the conflict

Egyptian academic and political analyst Dr. Irene Said asserts that the growing geopolitical alliances between Tehran, Beijing, and Islamabad are part of Iran's preparations to confront increasing escalation, particularly in light of the US's declared support for the occupying state of Israel.

Saeed explains that the signs of unequal military strikes between the two sides are becoming increasingly clear. Despite Iran's possession of a vast arsenal of missiles and drones, the recent Israeli attacks have been characterized by their intensity and quality, coinciding with the start of the influx of Western arms shipments to the region, reflecting extensive preparations for more complex phases of the conflict.

Saeed points out that several scenarios remain on the table for dealing with this conflict, ranging from military to diplomatic options, with Israel insisting on stripping Iran of its nuclear capabilities and even seeking to completely remove Ali Khamenei's regime.

In contrast, Saeed points out that there appears to be flexibility within the US administration, represented by President Donald Trump, who has expressed a willingness to resume negotiations with Tehran. This aligns with some statements issued by Iranian officials, which express a willingness to negotiate, given that the safety of the nuclear program is a key axis in the current conflict.

Regarding the possibility of a full-scale war, Saeed explained that the current situation remains within the framework of limited military operations, emphasizing that declaring war requires a set of formal and substantive conditions that have not yet been met. These conditions include a formal declaration of intentions by the warring parties, a comprehensive military buildup, and, most importantly, the approval of the relevant parliaments to enter the war, which has not yet occurred.

Saeed asserts that despite the severity of the escalation, the parties still prefer negotiations, given the different international and regional circumstances that differ from the atmosphere that preceded the outbreak of conventional wars.

Political and economic alliances have become declared military axes.

Writer and political analyst Mohamed Gouda believes that the regional conflict is rapidly taking on international dimensions, with political and economic alliances transforming into declared military axes.

Joudah asserts that China's military support for Iran and Pakistan's involvement within this axis carry several profound strategic implications that portend a radical shift in the equations of international influence.

He explains that what we are witnessing is the emergence of an anti-Western axis led by China, with the participation of Iran and Russia, in a clear effort to counter American and Western influence in the Middle East and South Asia.

Joudah points out that Pakistan's nuclearization within this axis raises the threat level, as it portends an escalation that could extend geographically to include the Arabian Gulf region, the Indian subcontinent, and even Central Asia.

Joudeh asserts that, through these moves, China is sending indirect warning messages to the United States and its regional allies, stating that any direct military intervention against Iran will not be without a heavy cost and could lead to a widespread regional explosion.

Joda believes that China is exploiting existing crises, such as the chronic tension between India and Pakistan or the weakness of the US position on certain fronts, to bolster its influence without the need for a direct military confrontation with the West.

As for the possibility of sliding into a full-scale world war, Joudeh believes this scenario remains a real possibility, albeit a low one so far, thanks to the existence of invisible red lines that the major powers are trying not to cross.

Joudeh warns of several scenarios that could lead to a world war, most notably a major power being directly attacked, nuclear powers such as India, Pakistan, or Israel becoming embroiled in open confrontations, or the collapse of international deterrence mechanisms and the disregard for treaties governing the use of lethal weapons.

Joudeh asserts that a regional expansion of the war seems likely if the mutual attacks escalate or the parties lose control over their local proxies, expressing his concern that the accumulation of miscalculations could lead the world into an unforeseen, catastrophic confrontation, despite the lack of a genuine desire among the major powers to wage a comprehensive global war.