MADRID – On the contemporary West Asian chessboard, China is emerging as an increasingly decisive actor. Its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)—one of the largest geoeconomic projects of the 21st century—requires solid anchors in a strategic region where energy routes, trade corridors, and some of the world’s most protracted conflicts intersect.

Yet Beijing faces a dilemma: how can it guarantee stability and continuity in a region marked by deep rivalries without abandoning its traditional role as a “neutral” actor? The time for postponement has passed. The very structure of the international system forces choices, and in West Asia that choice boils down to Iran.

The thesis of this analysis is straightforward: if China wants to secure its Eurasian economic project, only a firm alignment with Iran can achieve this. The alternative—a “weak” balancing act with Israel or its allies—jeopardizes not only the BRI in the region, but also Beijing’s ability to project itself as a stabilizing power in the Global South.

The Belt and Road as global architecture

China conceives of the BRI as an infrastructure of multipolar integration. Its core objectives are threefold:

Energy: securing stable supplies from the Persian Gulf and Central Asia to East Asia.

Connectivity: establishing land and maritime corridors linking Eurasia with Africa.

Economic diplomacy: consolidating a global environment less dependent on the dollar and Western financial hegemony.

West Asia, given its geography and energy resources, is central to all three pillars. No overland route to Europe or maritime corridor to Africa can bypass its straits and ports. For this reason, Beijing cannot treat the region as a mere transit zone—it must be viewed as a nucleus requiring lasting stability.

China and Iran: Strategic affinity

Iran offers China what no other regional power can provide simultaneously:

Energy depth: vast oil and gas reserves capable of sustaining Chinese growth for decades.

Central location: a crossroads between Central Asia, West Asia, and the Indian Ocean, ideal for articulating both land and maritime corridors.

Political autonomy: unlike Saudi Arabia or the UAE, Iran is not a U.S. protectorate, giving Beijing more strategic room for maneuver.

Political convergence: like China, Iran promotes a multipolar order and questions Western hegemony.

This alignment does not need to be ideological; it is structural. Both powers benefit from weakening dependence on the transatlantic order and consolidating alternative networks.

In 2021, China signed a 25-year strategic cooperation agreement with Tehran, covering multi-billion-dollar investments in infrastructure, transport, and energy. Yet Beijing is believed to have has remained cautious, reluctant to commit fully. That hesitation is becoming increasingly untenable.

Israel a Structural Risk for the BRI

Israeli expansionism is a factor of instability that directly threatens China’s regional interests. Israel is neither a neutral nor a predictable partner:

Colonial-expansionist dimension: since 1948, and especially after 1967, Israel has projected beyond its borders, fueling an endemic conflict.

Regional spillover effect: every offensive in Gaza, every operation in Lebanon or Syria, multiplies tensions around Iran and its allied Resistance movements.

Asymmetry with Washington: Israel functions as a strategic appendage of the United States, acting as a vector for the American agenda in the region.

For China, which seeks stable trade corridors, Israel represents at best a permanent risk factor—and at worst a catalyst of instability capable of derailing billion-dollar investments.

Israeli territorial expansion—its ambitions in Gaza, the West Bank, and beyond—must not be seen as a purely “local” issue. Every step in that direction drags the wider region toward insecurity. For the BRI, this amounts to a systemic threat: land routes crossing Iran and Iraq toward the Mediterranean, or maritime routes reliant on Persian Gulf stability, become vulnerable with every surge in Israeli-Palestinian violence.

Clash of logics: Colonialism vs. connectivity

From another prism, China’s dilemma can be described as the clash of two incompatible logics. On one side is the Israeli-expansionist logic: permanent war, military control, and the fragmentation of neighbors. On the other is China’s BRI logic: connectivity, interdependence, and the predictability of trade corridors.

Israeli expansion relies on instability to survive—fragmenting Palestine, weakening Syria, pressuring Lebanon, encircling Iran. Chinese expansion, by contrast, requires stability: secure pipelines, functioning ports, uninterrupted railways.

These two models cannot coexist in the same geopolitical space. China’s entry into the region forces a choice: submit to a regional order of walls and violence, or build one of routes and horizontal linkages.

If Israel represents permanent destabilization, Iran functions as a pivot of resistance and containment. Not because Tehran is free from internal tensions or military projection, but because its structural role is to block Israeli and U.S. expansion.

For China, the consequences are direct:

Security of land corridors: the route connecting Xinjiang with Turkey and the Mediterranean inevitably passes through Iran. If this section succumbs to instability induced by Tel Aviv or Washington, the entire BRI architecture falters.

Energy balance: without Iran as counterweight, Saudi Arabia and the UAE—still aligned with Washington—retain leverage to pressure Beijing through supply or pricing.

Projection toward the Indian Ocean: Iran provides direct access to ports like Chabahar and to corridors toward Pakistan, India, and beyond.

Thus, Chinese alignment with Iran is not sentimental or ideological – it is a survival strategy for the BRI.

The Mirage of Israeli Pragmatism

Some Chinese experts argue that Israel could be a valuable technological and economic partner for the BRI, citing cooperation in agriculture, water, and digital innovation.

But this reasoning confuses tactical collaboration with strategic alliance. Israel can offer advanced technologies, but never political stability. Its dependence on Washington and its expansionist logic make it an unreliable partner for a multi-century initiative like the BRI. What is at stake is not access to an agricultural patent, but the consistency of energy corridors that will fuel China through the 21st century.

Another key element is perception in the Global South. China presents itself as an alternative to Western order, but its credibility depends on its stance toward Palestine and Israel. For most Arab and Muslim societies, Israel embodies a colonial project perpetuating injustice. Ambiguity from Beijing toward Tel Aviv would undermine its legitimacy as leader of the Global South.

By contrast, Iran is seen as a state resisting hegemony and colonial expansion. Supporting Tehran would not only secure routes and energy, but also strengthen China’s image as a political-moral reference for a multipolar and just order. The dilemma is transparent: either China builds global legitimacy, or it erodes it by wavering on Israel.

Risk scenario: Gaza–Golan–Iran intersection 

The current situation in Gaza, ongoing tensions in the Syrian Golan, and sustained pressure on Iran create a triangular risk capable of endangering the BRI. Each Israeli military escalation pulls the region into a spiral affecting pipelines, gas reserves, and maritime routes.

It is naive to think China can indefinitely remain detached. Global interdependence means a conflagration in this zone affects energy markets, maritime insurance, and investor risk perceptions in infrastructure.

The only actor showing real capacity to resist such pressures is Iran. Through its network of alliances—Hezbollah, Syria, Palestinian groups—Iran is the only force capable of imposing limits on Israeli expansion. If China wants stable corridors, it must support the actor that curbs instability.

For decades, China’s West policy relied on balance: ties with Iran, economic relations with the Persian Gulf, occasional cooperation with Israel. This strategy allowed expansion without deep commitments.

Today, that equilibrium is reaching its limits. Israeli radicalization, open competition with the United States, and the centrality of West Asia to the BRI force Beijing to choose. Neutrality no longer brings benefits—it generates vulnerability.

The future of the Belt and Road in West Asia depends on a strategic definition. China cannot sustain two opposing logics: the Israeli expansionist-colonial one, which thrives on conflict, and the BRI logic of connectivity, which requires stability and predictability.

Choosing Israel is to undermine the project from within, condemning it to vulnerability. Choosing Iran is to build an axis of stability, energy, and projection toward Eurasia and the Indian Ocean.

This is not an ideological choice, but a geopolitical calculation: ensuring the corridors function for decades to come. Without a strong and supported Iran, Beijing’s dreams of global integration could evaporate into a sea of conflicts driven by the colonial-expansionist logic Israel represents.