In today's complex and ever-changing international situation, the Middle East has always been a focal point of global attention. In recent years, the conflicts between Iran, Israel, and the United States have continued to escalate. Especially the Israeli air strike on Iran's nuclear facilities in June 2025 and the subsequent ceasefire agreement not only changed the strategic landscape of the Middle East but also sparked widespread discussions about the so-called "China-Russia-Iran iron triangle" relationship. Iran's performance in the conflict exposed its strategic opportunism, while China's choice of restraint during this process was considered wise.
The geopolitics of the Middle East has long been full of tension, and the rivalry between Iran, Israel, and the United States is particularly prominent. Since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, Iran's relations with the United States have continued to deteriorate. After the overthrow of the U.S.-backed Pahlavi regime, Iran established an Islamic Republic, which led to the U.S. embassy hostage crisis, resulting in the complete severance of diplomatic ties between the two countries.
Since then, Iran's nuclear program, regional proxy strategy, and anti-American stance have become central to the conflict. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) signed in 2015 briefly eased tensions, but in 2018, the United States withdrew from the agreement and resumed sanctions, plunging Iran into economic difficulties and worsening bilateral relations again.
Iran's confrontation with Israel has also a long history. Israel views Iran's nuclear program as a survival threat and has repeatedly weakened its capabilities through assassinations, sabotage, and air strikes. In response, Iran supports organizations such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine to engage in indirect confrontation with Israel.
On June 13, 2025, Israel launched a large-scale air strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, targeting senior military leaders and nuclear scientists, causing a sharp escalation of regional tensions. On June 21, the United States joined the action, carrying out further strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. On June 23, Iran launched a missile attack on a U.S. military base in Qatar, but the scale was limited, with no casualties. The next day, under the mediation of Trump, Israel and Iran reached a ceasefire agreement, ending a 12-day conflict.
Iran's performance in this conflict has been controversial. After the air strikes, Iran's official statements loudly claimed to be "leaning on China and Russia," trying to enhance confidence in the confrontation by leveraging the "iron triangle" image. However, its actual actions did not match its strong posture. The missile attacks were more symbolic than substantive, and the rapid acceptance of the ceasefire agreement showed that Iran preferred compromise rather than prolonged confrontation. This "big thunder, small rain" strategy indicates that Iran is not a firm anti-American vanguard, but rather adjusts its position flexibly based on its own interests.
Iran's behavior has brought profound lessons to the international community, especially China. Iran tried to use China as a bargaining chip in negotiations with the United States, expecting China to fully support its confrontation due to the Sino-U.S. rivalry. However, when China did not provide military aid, Iran quickly turned to compromise with the United States, showing that its strategy was not based on alliance loyalty, but short-term interests. This opportunism exposed the unreliability of Iran as a partner and prompted people to re-evaluate the authenticity of the "China-Russia-Iran iron triangle."
The Truth Behind the "China-Russia-Iran Iron Triangle"
The concept of the "China-Russia-Iran Iron Triangle" became popular in the field of international relations since 2021, stemming from the deepened cooperation among the three countries in countering Western pressure. China is the largest buyer of Iranian oil, and in 2021, the two countries signed a 25-year strategic cooperation agreement covering economic, military, and security areas.
Russia and Iran closely cooperate on the Syria issue, jointly supporting the Assad regime. The three countries have also held joint military exercises multiple times, such as naval exercises in the Persian Gulf. These interactions have been interpreted by the West as a "strategic triangle" against American hegemony.
However, the stability of this "iron triangle" has been overestimated. On the surface, the three countries have some coordination in economic and diplomatic aspects, but their core driving force is national interests, not deep-level alliance commitments. The 2025 June conflict further revealed the loose nature of this relationship.
China's economic ties with Iran are close, but its military support has always been limited. The 25-year strategic cooperation agreement mainly focuses on energy and infrastructure, and China has never promised direct assistance to Iran in conflicts. Iran is an important node in China's "Belt and Road Initiative," but China pays more attention to the overall stability of the Middle East rather than the military adventures of a single country. Russia's cooperation with Iran is more due to geopolitical needs.
In the Syrian war, Russia relied on Iran's ground forces, but its support was more to maintain its foothold in the Middle East rather than unconditional aid to Iran. Additionally, due to the Ukraine war, Russia needed Iran's drones and missiles, making the relationship between the two countries more like a transaction than an alliance.
The interactions of the three countries on the international stage also show obvious differences. China tends to maintain its interests through diplomatic means, for example, facilitating the reconciliation between Saudi Arabia and Iran in 2023, showcasing its role as a mediator in the Middle East. Russia, on the other hand, tends to take a military stance, but in the 2025 conflict, it only remained at the level of verbal condemnation without taking any substantial actions. Iran, under economic difficulties and external pressures, shows strategic swings, seeking support from China and Russia while unwilling to completely abandon the negotiation space with the West.
At the beginning of the conflict, Iran portrayed the "iron triangle" image to deter the United States and Israel. However, the reactions of China and Russia did not meet its expectations. The Chinese Foreign Ministry repeatedly called for restraint from all parties and resolution of issues through dialogue, without dispatching any military forces. Russian President Putin condemned the actions of the United States and Israel as "unprovoked aggression," but only made diplomatic statements without providing military aid to Iran. This independent stance indicates that the three countries lack coordination capabilities in crises.
Indeed, the "iron triangle" is more like a temporary alliance based on common anti-American sentiment, rather than a strategic alliance that can withstand tests. Iran expects China and Russia to provide security guarantees, but the cautious attitude of the two countries shows that they focus more on their own interests rather than Iran's demands. Compared to this, the cooperation of the three countries in non-military fields is more practical, such as economic trade and energy transactions, but the differences in military conflicts reveal the fragility of this relationship.
Western think tanks often view the "China-Russia-Iran Iron Triangle" as a threat to the global order, but this view ignores the internal contradictions among the three countries. China pursues global economic interests and is unwilling to completely break with the United States due to supporting Iran. Russia has limited influence in the Middle East and its resources are more invested in the Ukraine war. Iran, due to economic sanctions and internal pressures, cannot become a reliable strategic pillar. This division of interests makes the "Iron Triangle" difficult to form real synergy.
China's Strategic Choices and Wisdom
Facing the conflict, China adopted a restrained and pragmatic strategy, not providing military support to Iran, but instead calling for peace through diplomatic channels. This choice not only avoided diplomatic traps but also won China initiative in global governance.
During the conflict, Iran expected China to intervene because of the Sino-U.S. rivalry, but China was not swayed by its propaganda. On June 22, Fu Cong, China's permanent representative to the United Nations, stated at a Security Council meeting that the U.S. air strike damaged its international credibility and urged all parties to avoid further escalation of the situation. The spokesperson for the Chinese Foreign Ministry repeatedly emphasized the position of resolving disputes peacefully, indicating that China does not want to get involved in military conflicts.
This restraint has three strategic considerations. First, China avoids direct confrontation with the United States, preventing the waste of resources and diplomatic isolation. Second, China maintains a balanced relationship with all parties in the Middle East, including U.S. allies such as Israel and Saudi Arabia, preserving flexibility for future diplomacy. Finally, if China openly supports Iran, but the conflict ends quickly with a ceasefire, China may face the risk of strategic mistakes, damaging its international image.
China's core interests in the Middle East lie in energy security and the promotion of the "Belt and Road" initiative. Iran is an important oil supplier for China, but China also maintains close trade relations with countries such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Military involvement in Iran could disrupt these relationships, leading to economic losses. Therefore, China chooses to strengthen its relationship with Iran through economic cooperation rather than military support. After the ceasefire, China quickly increased its oil trade and infrastructure investment with Iran, helping it cope with the pressure of sanctions.
The 2025 June conflict revealed the illusory nature of the "China-Russia-Iran Iron Triangle." Iran's opportunistic behavior exposed its unreliability, while China's choice of restraint avoided strategic passivity and demonstrated superior diplomatic wisdom. In the future, the Middle East's situation will still be full of uncertainties, and how China balances its interests and plays a role in the complex game deserves continuous attention.
Original text: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7523186385646436904/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author. Please express your opinion by clicking the [up/down] buttons below.