China’s quiet brokerage: Can Beijing make the US-Iran truce stick?

On 28 February, while Iran was negotiating with the US, President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu launched a joint military strike against Iran. During a live broadcast that day, I said I was not sure how the war would specifically unfold, but I was certain of the outcome — that all three countries would ultimately declare themselves victorious.

On the morning of 8 April, Beijing time, with the mediation of Pakistan and other countries, the US and Iran accepted the proposal for a two-week ceasefire. The two countries also agreed to begin negotiations in Islamabad on 10 April to end the war completely.

After Trump repeatedly declared that the US had won the war, and with Netanyahu asserting that Iran had suffered an irreparable blow, Iran likewise proclaimed victory — claiming it had compelled Washington to accept a ceasefire.

Despite the differences in demands between the US and Iran, both negotiators understand they need to make compromises. Moreover, no country reveals its hand before entering the negotiating room. In observing the upcoming US-Iran talks in Islamabad, close attention should be paid to the core demands of both sides — the US wants Iran to change its hostile attitude, and Iran wants the lifting of sanctions.

If we limit our focus to just the US and Iran, there is ample room for compromise between the two sides. Washington’s demands on Iran — specifically regarding uranium enrichment — can be fully achieved through negotiations; the US can afford to wait. Furthermore, the US has broader strategic interests involving Iran, ranging from regional security to global power competition. Even Iranian control of the Strait of Hormuz may be acceptable to President Trump, provided a suitable deal is reached.

Because the US-led international sanctions on Iran are a key obstacle to the latter’s development, continued fierce confrontation with the US has long lost its popular support in Iran, and even within the political system, this view faces increasing challenges. Pushing for the early lifting of US sanctions is the urgent hope of the vast majority of Iranians, which clearly requires easing relations with the US. Moreover, in recent years, internal stability in Iran has become a major problem, and for Iran, which is currently facing a leadership transition, it must also confront the demands of the majority of its people.

Therefore, I have never worried that the US and Iran lack sufficient room for compromise. What truly worries me regarding US-Iran relations is Israel’s destructive role. Prime Minister Netanyahu has been pushing for a US military attack on Iran, and after being rejected by one US president after another, he finally got President Trump’s support.

To date, President Trump has suffered a humiliating defeat in terms of the declared military objectives against Iran. His attempt to boost his domestic standing through a successful foreign war has backfired. After this unsuccessful, even disastrous, war, the US will understand even more clearly that going to war with Iran is unwise.

Moreover, Israel’s influence on US policy toward Iran will decline after this war. In fact, as the war falters, discontent and even anger within the US regarding “attacking Iran for Israel’s interests” has become increasingly apparent. This has had a significant negative impact on President Trump’s public image. Coupled with the US’s increasing reflection on its relationship with Israel in recent years, it can be confidently asserted that the declining influence of the US-Israel “special relationship” on Washington’s policy will become even more firmly established.

However, it cannot be denied that the two military strikes suffered by Iran during negotiations with the US within the past eight months have led to extremely low levels of trust in the US. In fact, after the “12-day war” in June last year, Iran had already been simultaneously advancing diplomacy and military preparations. This is the fundamental reason why Iran was able to quickly retaliate and respond in an orderly manner after suffering another military strike from the US and Israel at the end of February this year.

Therefore, if the US attempts to use this two-week ceasefire to actively prepare for war, the outcome is likely to remain unfavourable for President Trump. Ultimately, the US lacks sufficient justification for war against Iran, while Iran is fighting a just war of self-defence. If the US insists on continuing the war, it will inevitably encounter a stronger Iranian counterattack, as well as stronger criticism and resistance from the international community.

It is certainly a good thing that the US and Iran agreed to come to the negotiating table, but even if they reach a peace agreement, it will not be the end of this war. Equally important for West Asia and the Middle East is a reduction in the intensity of the confrontation between Israel and Iran. Without a detente between these two countries, peace in the region is unlikely. Moreover, Israel was one of the instigators of this war in the first place.

A general consensus has largely formed within the US that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was a key driving force behind President Trump’s decision to launch a military strike against Iran. Now that the US and Iran are about to begin negotiations, whether President Trump can effectively restrain Netanyahu and whether the US can prevent Israel from launching attacks or sabotage against Iran are crucial factors in whether the US and Iran can reach a peace agreement. After all, for decades, Israel has been a stumbling block to the easing of US-Iran relations.

Despite widespread scepticism about the ceasefire and the prospects of an agreement between the US and Iran, the international community must cherish this hard-won opportunity. Pakistan deserves praise for its significant contribution to achieving this two-week ceasefire. In recent years, this South Asian Muslim nation has increasingly interacted with the Middle East, and at a time when the Middle East conflict situation is extremely dangerous, Pakistan and other countries have made arduous efforts to ease tensions.

On 8 April, President Trump specifically mentioned China’s contribution, saying that China persuaded Iran to accept a ceasefire at the last minute. Since the outbreak of this war, China’s position has been consistent: an immediate ceasefire and a diplomatic solution to the differences.

I believe China’s efforts to end this war extend beyond this. Shortly after the US and Israel launched their military strikes against Iran, China dispatched a special envoy to the war-torn Middle East to engage in intensive communication with various parties. In relevant votes at the UN Security Council, China also adopted a stance based on international law and fairness and justice.

I believe that China will certainly not be absent when needed in the upcoming US-Iran Islamabad negotiations. In fact, personally, I have always believed that China can act as a mediator in this conflict, but I am not sure whether the US is willing to accept it playing such a role.

Related: Ceasefire or not, Asia can’t go back to business as usual | The rise of Pakistan in the emerging diplomacy over Iran