Tensions in the Middle East have reached a new boiling point after the United States launched a naval operation to enforce a blockade of the strategic Strait of Hormuz on Monday, paired with an unprecedented tariff threat targeting third-party countries that supply weapons to Iran. The escalation has drawn a firm response from China, which has called for both Washington and Tehran to return to diplomatic negotiations to de-escalate the crisis.
The tariff threat expanded to China in mid-April, when then-U.S. President Donald Trump warned of a 50% punitive tariff on Chinese goods over unconfirmed reports that Beijing planned to deliver air defense systems to Tehran. The move represents a clear escalation of Washington’s strategy to cut off external support for Iran and extend pressure to other major trading partners that maintain normal economic ties with the Islamic Republic.
Chinese analysts widely view the dual campaign of military blockade and tariff threats as a deliberate act of extreme pressure aimed at forcing Beijing to align its policy with U.S. demands and push Iran into concessions on key negotiating issues. They note that after failing to secure breakthroughs either through military confrontation or diplomatic talks, the U.S. has increasingly turned to unilateral trade measures and coercive tariff threats to gain strategic leverage.
“Trump has shifted tactics. The White House wants to combine military pressure alongside Israel and use tariffs to cut off Iran’s external lifelines,” said Da Bao, a Henan-based political commentator, referring to Iran’s critical crude oil export revenue that flows through trade with China. He added that the U.S. warning against Chinese arms shipments is less about enforcing international norms and more about setting a precedent to weaponize tariffs amid regional conflicts. “What counts as military equipment today? Drone components? Semiconductors? Maintenance services? Today it’s weapons, tomorrow it could be technology, then financing. This is just an expansion of political coercion,” Da Bao explained. He also argued that deploying tariffs as a strategic tool in an active conflict reflects the U.S.’s declining ability to mobilize allied consensus and growing difficulty resolving disputes through targeted, traditional measures.
Ming Yue, a Hebei-based analyst, pushed back on the U.S.’s unsubstantiated claims of Chinese weapons supplies to Iran. She pointed out that China is Iran’s second-largest import source, with bilateral trade hitting $9.96 billion last year, and that Chinese exports to Iran consist primarily of industrial machinery, electrical goods, auto parts, textiles and metal products – not tanks, missiles or ammunition. She added that U.S. media and officials have deliberately mislabeled legitimate, routine economic cooperation between Beijing and Tehran as military support to frame China as a destabilizing actor, a move aligned with U.S. domestic political and electoral priorities.
On the economic impact of additional tariffs, Ming Yue noted that China has already diversified its export markets to the European Union and ASEAN, meaning new U.S. tariffs would have only limited economic impact. Instead, she argued, most tariff costs would ultimately be passed to American consumers and businesses, while U.S. firms with deep supply chain exposure to China, such as Apple and Tesla, would face disrupted production and lost revenue. She also observed that the public has grown accustomed to the pattern observers have dubbed “TACO” – short for “Trump Always Chickens Out” – where threats are dramatically escalated then partially rolled back later.
The current crisis follows a turbulent sequence of diplomatic and military moves in early April. After Trump threatened massive military strikes that would push Iran back to the “Stone Age” if it did not reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a 14-day provisional ceasefire between the U.S., Iran and Israel was reached in the final 90 minutes before Trump’s April 7 deadline, raising tentative hopes of de-escalation that was set to expire on April 21. But just one day after the ceasefire took effect, Israel launched large-scale airstrikes across Beirut, the Bekaa Valley and southern Lebanon, targeting Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem. The strike killed Qassem’s nephew and personal secretary, Ali Yusuf Harshi, failing to eliminate the Hezbollah leader but escalating tensions on the Lebanese front.
On April 11, U.S. Vice President JD Vance held 21 hours of negotiations with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in Islamabad, Pakistan, aimed at forging a long-term ceasefire. The talks collapsed without agreement: Washington demanded that Tehran abandon its stockpile of highly enriched uranium and halt all nuclear weapons-related development, as well as accept a U.S.-Iran joint management framework for the Strait of Hormuz. Iranian negotiators rejected both proposals, and insisted any ceasefire deal must cover Lebanon amid ongoing Israeli strikes on Hezbollah – a condition Washington failed to enforce on its ally.
Chinese analysts argue the provisional ceasefire was a deliberate trap set by the U.S. and Israel to reset pressure on Iran while preserving military leverage, noting Tehran would never have accepted the pause if it had known Israel would immediately launch strikes on Lebanon. Lao Ge, a Guangdong-based commentator, drew parallels to ancient Chinese military wisdom from *The Commentary of Zuo*, which notes that a fighting force loses momentum if it pauses before securing its goals: the first push is strong, the second weaker, the third exhausted. He outlined three core strategic risks Iran faces from the ceasefire trap: first, it loses mobilization momentum, as wartime urgency shifts to public relief that erodes deterrence and national resolve; second, it puts key ally Hezbollah in an impossible position – if Iran intervenes to support the group, it is blamed for breaking the ceasefire, but if it holds back, Hezbollah is gradually weakened by ongoing Israeli strikes; third, reopening the Strait of Hormuz surrenders Iran’s strongest bargaining chip, stabilizes global oil markets, and gives the U.S. time to reinforce its military presence in the region. “Tehran would have been better off maintaining pressure despite U.S. threats and even limited infrastructure damage than losing its core ally in Lebanon,” Lao Ge argued.
Qin Tian, deputy director of the Institute of Middle East Studies at the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations (CICIR), confirmed the Strait of Hormuz is the decisive stake in the current standoff. “For Iran, the Strait is one of the most effective tools in its confrontation with the U.S. and Israel, and a core national security asset,” Qin said. “Tehran should use this leverage to secure meaningful concessions from the U.S. side.” He added that competition between Washington and Tehran for control over the waterway will only intensify in the coming weeks.
As of Monday, the U.S. has expanded its blockade operation into the Gulf of Oman, targeting vessels linked to Iranian trade while claiming to allow neutral shipping to pass unimpeded. U.S. Central Command has issued warnings that any vessels entering the restricted zone risk interception, underscoring the large scale of the operation. U.S. officials also confirmed they have begun mine-clearing operations in and around the Strait after reports of Iranian naval mine deployments that disrupted a large share of global oil flows, noting that reopening full shipping lanes will be slow and carry operational risks. The operation has already pushed global oil prices above $100 per barrel, drawing public criticism from NATO allies who oppose the blockade’s disruptive impact on global energy markets.
China has issued a formal response to the escalating crisis. Guo Jiakun, a spokesperson for China’s Foreign Ministry, emphasized that the Strait of Hormuz is a critical global trade and energy route, and maintaining its safety, stability and open access serves the shared interests of the entire international community. “The root cause of the current disruption is the ongoing military conflict. To resolve the issue, hostilities must end as soon as possible, and all parties must maintain calm and exercise maximum restraint,” Guo said, adding that China will continue to play a constructive role in advancing diplomatic talks.
Chinese Defense Minister Admiral Dong Jun issued a firmer warning to Washington, cautioning against the Strait of Hormuz blockade and rejecting any U.S. interference in normal bilateral relations between Beijing and Tehran. “China has legitimate trade and energy agreements with Iran, and we expect other parties not to interfere in our sovereign affairs,” Dong said, noting that the Strait of Hormuz remains open to Chinese commercial shipping in line with international law.