Published On 4/29/2026
Sixty days after the American-Israeli war with Iran, the Chinese press is monitoring the features of what it described as a state of “no war, no negotiation” between Iran and the United States, amid diplomatic attempts and proposed formulas for peace that may be a way out for both parties without addressing the roots of the conflict.
While Western coverage focuses on US President Donald Trump’s internal accounts and pressure on Iran, the Chinese press seems more concerned with the repercussions of the crisis on the security of sea lanes and the stability of energy markets, and highlighting the responsibility of the United States and its allies for sparking the crisis and its continuation.
Read also
list of 2 itemsend of list
Iranian diplomatic attack
In a long reading published by the official People’s Daily newspaper, the Chinese news agency “Xinhua” indicates that “the war has been going on in Iran for 60 days, while the two parties have become in a state of stagnation, far from comprehensive war and far from real negotiations,” pointing out that this situation allowed Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi to initiate in recent days a “diplomatic move” that included successive visits to Pakistan, the Sultanate of Oman, and Russia.
The newspaper quoted multiple sources as saying that Tehran presented during this round a new “gradual” plan to negotiate with the United States, based on first focusing on the Strait of Hormuz crisis and the American naval blockade, then extending the ceasefire for a long period or agreeing to end the war completely, with negotiations on the nuclear file beginning after the reopening of the Strait and the lifting of the American blockade.
Although Washington confirmed that it had received the plan, the response was not positive, and the report quoted an American official as saying that President Trump said that he was “not satisfied with this plan” because it did not include nuclear issues, in a move that the media described as weakening “hopes for reaching a solution to the conflict that has disrupted supplies, fueled inflation, and claimed the lives of thousands.”
Conflict freeze
Chinese coverage tried to give reasons for the continuation of the stalemate. According to the report, experts believe that the United States and Iran are stuck in a “no war, no negotiation” situation for three main reasons that may keep this situation in place for some time:
- Complete lack of political trust. Academic Hassan Ahmadian of Tehran University says that Iran has “given up illusions about the United States and will not easily accept its negotiating conditions.”
2. The sharp contrast in negotiating positions, as the fundamental differences over the nuclear program and the Strait of Hormuz remain “irreconcilable” in the foreseeable future.
3. Internal pressures on both parties, as you find Trump administration itself –According to expert Bao Zhengzhang from Shanghai International Studies University, there is a dilemma between not wanting to make concessions at the negotiating table, and not being prepared to fight a new all-out war with Iran, at a time when the approaching midterm elections are narrowing the margin for political maneuvering.
Continuing the war is extremely difficult
On the Iranian side, the new leadership seeks to stabilize the internal situation by adopting a “hard” stance towards the United States, but at the same time it faces a human and material cost that makes the continuation of the war extremely difficult.
Analysts – whose opinions are cited by Al-Shaab newspaper – point out that this stalemate reflects each party’s attempt to “barter time for strategic space.” The United States seeks to “crush” the Iranian economy through the naval blockade and create internal transformations, while Tehran hopes to “crush” the Trump administration by taking advantage of the pressure of oil price fluctuations and political pressure related to American electoral entitlements.
Conflict freeze
Some strategic experts believe that this situation may slide into a “freeze of the conflict,” where the root causes of the war are not resolved, and the possibility of escalation remains without reaching the level of a “total war.”
On the other hand, Chinese media quotes American and Western sources as pessimistic assessments of the chances of success of the Iranian proposal.
It is likely –According to what the Global Times newspaper reported from CNN, Trump will reject the plan, because lifting the American blockade on Iranian ports without addressing concerns about the nuclear program “will eliminate a major source of pressure that the United States has in the negotiations.”
Western reports reported by the newspaper also indicate that the White House is committed to making the nuclear file “at the forefront” of any settlement, while Tehran proposes to transfer this file to later stages after stopping the war and reopening the Strait.
Gradual access to peace
The Global Times newspaper, which is close to the official Chinese orientation, provided a detailed reading of the Iranian proposal that was discussed in American decision-making circles, and described this proposal as a “phased peace plan” based on gradual solutions that take into account the balance between maritime security and the nuclear file.
The newspaper points out that although the American President had spoken two months ago about quick results of the crisis, the reality on the ground remains different, as the war continues and the human and economic losses are increasing, which deepens the state of exhaustion on both sides.
This contradiction between the hardening of the rhetoric and the calculations of cost and feasibility is what makes the Iranian peace proposal a possible way out for Trump without a declared defeat, and for Tehran without an immediate surrender of its basic cards.
Proactive attitude
The newspaper quoted Chinese expert Dong Manyuan as saying, “Iran took a proactive stance by submitting a proposal for negotiation,” explaining that “the US President’s dissatisfaction may not mean a categorical rejection, which leaves room for the possibility that Washington will submit a counter-proposal after further study,” stressing that “negotiations are necessary for both sides, and that each of them has a strategic need to limit losses.”
Dong added, “An examination of the details shows that Iran did not abandon its preconditions, but rather postponed the talks on the nuclear file, making the Strait of Hormuz a major point of contention,” warning that “before a consensus is reached, it remains uncertain whether the situation will improve, and fluctuations are likely to occur.”
The strait between siege and legitimacy
Chinese coverage also gives a wide space to the Strait of Hormuz as a vital international corridor for global trade and energy flows. In the context of following developments on the ground, the Global Times indicates that the US Central Command (CENTCOM) announced that the destroyer USS Rafael Peralta stopped an oil tanker after it attempted to sail to an Iranian port, and described this as part of the US blockade of Iranian ports.
The newspaper also presents international positions critical of the disruption of navigation, as it quotes British Secretary of State Stephen Doty as saying in the Security Council that the strait “must be reopened completely and without conditions, with freedom of navigation restored in accordance with international law.”
As for the Chinese delegate to the United Nations, Fu Cong, he stressed at the same session that “the root cause of the obstruction of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz is the illegal military operations launched by the United States and Israel against Iran,” stressing that maintaining peace, stability, and freedom of navigation in the region serves the common interests of the international community.
Concerned about the risks of escalation
The Global Times also refers to the repeated warnings issued by the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs and its embassy in Tehran, in which it called on Chinese citizens to avoid traveling to Iran, and urged those there to move to safer areas, in a reflection of Beijing’s concern about the risks of escalation and the possibility of security chaos, despite its talk at the same time about the opportunities for a settlement.
The Chinese reading shows that the Iranian peace proposal seems closer to a tactical solution for both parties than an end to the conflict between Washington and Tehran. It may relieve pressure on the American president, who is facing the cost of a long war and its effects on the economy. It also gives the Iranian leadership an opportunity to rearrange its cards while keeping the nuclear file as a postponed negotiating card.
But this gradual settlement does not remove the fundamental contradictions between the two parties, which is the space that China may use to employ its media and diplomatic tools to present itself as a force defending freedom of navigation and market stability, and to bear the cost of militarizing the Strait on Washington and its allies.
The Chinese press says that the most important question that remains open is whether this gradual settlement will turn into a permanent peace, or whether it will merely constitute a stop in a longer conflict over the shape of the regional order and the future of American influence in the Gulf.
