TEHRAN – In the new international order, the concept of “power” is no longer defined solely by the number of nuclear warheads, overseas military bases, or classical security alliances; rather, the new geometry of global power is shaped by the capacity of supply chains, currency exchanges, infrastructure investments, and economic interdependence.

Within this novel framework, China has managed to elevate its position from a mere trading power in the late twentieth century to a “structural actor in international crisis management”—an actor whose primary tools for intervening in crises are not missiles and sanctions, but economic integration and financial leverage.

The defining distinction of China’s approach to international crises is rooted in the theory of “developmental peace” as opposed to Western “liberal peace.” Beijing believes that the primary root of many geopolitical conflicts and security instabilities in the Middle East, Africa, and Central Asia lies not in a vacuum of Western democracy, but in poverty, a deficit of infrastructural development, and a lack of connection to global markets. Therefore, Beijing utilizes initiatives such as the Belt and Road and strategic energy partnerships as efficient tools to contain security shocks. When countries share tangible, mutual economic interests in the continuity of joint projects, the cost of escalating tensions and war increases dramatically for them.

A concrete and successful example of this strategy can be seen in Beijing’s historic mediation between Tehran and Riyadh. Leveraging its immense weight as the largest buyer of Persian Gulf energy and the primary trading partner of both countries, China provided an economic-strategic platform for a political agreement without the need for ideological alignments. This model demonstrated that Beijing’s crisis management levers are built on a commitment to mutual interests and non-interference in internal affairs—a factor that has made Beijing’s model attractive and acceptable among the countries of the Global South.

Furthermore, in complex crises such as the war in Ukraine or tensions surrounding maritime security, China has managed—by relying on its position as a core commodity buyer—to prevent devastating fractures in the global energy and food markets. China’s policy is to maintain a balance between trade with Russia while simultaneously safeguarding Western markets; a strategy that prevents the deepening of acute international deadlocks and the uncontrolled spread of crises into the global economy.

Ultimately, Beijing has demonstrated that economic power is not merely a source of wealth, but a decisive lever for containing shocks and moderating geopolitical behavior. Although China’s cautious policy and avoidance of direct security guarantees may appear to limit its role in certain acute crises, an undeniable reality remains: in the current post-hegemonic world, no major international crisis can be managed, sustainably resolved, or contained without considering Beijing’s capacities, considerations, and economic levers.

Mahdi Zolfaghari is an Associate Professor at the Department of Asian Studies in Allameh Tabataba’i University