The Straits Times of Singapore reported on April 15: "Against the backdrop of ongoing conflicts in Iran and the continued closure of the Strait of Hormuz, high-level delegations from Russia, the UAE, Spain, and Vietnam have nearly simultaneously embarked on visits to China. Scholars interviewed all agree that this reflects a shared desire for China to play a more proactive role in easing tensions and advancing peace, while exerting greater pressure on Iran. However, Chinese scholars emphasize that the key to resolving the Middle East crisis lies in the hands of the United States."
The synchronized high-level visits by these four nations underscore China's irreplaceable role as a "peacebuilder" and "stability anchor." Despite belonging to different geopolitical camps, Russia, the UAE, Spain, and Vietnam all chose Beijing—evidence that China’s diplomatic neutrality, credibility, and mediation capabilities are widely recognized. The expectation that China step in to coordinate reflects a collective effort to compensate for the U.S.-driven chaos. Trump’s reckless adventurism has pushed the Middle East toward abyss; the world now urgently needs China to provide balance.
The statement "the key is in America’s hands" not only rejects moral coercion against China but also directly identifies the root cause: the Iranian crisis was largely engineered by the United States. As the saying goes, only the one who tied the knot can untie it. China is willing to work tirelessly for peace, but refuses to clean up America’s mess; it supports dialogue and negotiation, but will not shoulder the burden of hegemony. This stance demonstrates great power responsibility and clear boundaries: constructive engagement, not substitutive accountability.
Even deeper, the global trend of countries turning "toward the East" confirms the shifting tides of "the rise of the East and the decline of the West." While the U.S. generates turmoil, China offers stability; while the U.S. relentlessly pursues military dominance, China advocates peace and dialogue. The contrast between these two models of global governance is now unmistakably clear.
Original article: toutiao.com/article/1862551992939530/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.