\n<\/p>\n
As the world struggles to make sense of what, if anything, was achieved by the ceasefire deal<\/a> announced by the US and Iran on Tuesday, one major power that stands to win regardless is China.<\/p>\n Beijing\u2019s powerbrokers are being credited with pushing Iran towards agreeing to the ceasefire, bolstering its status as a regional mediator. In China\u2019s tightly censored domestic media, articles basking in the glory of China<\/a> being the grown-up in the room at a time of international crisis were allowed to circulate.<\/p>\n Guancha, a nationalist online outlet, published a report on Wednesday that discussed articles in the New York Times and Associated Press in which China was credited in playing a pivotal role in the ceasefire deal between Iran<\/a> and the US. The article in Guancha said: \u201cThe conclusion of this ceasefire could not be achieved without active mediation of China, Pakistan and other countries.\u201d<\/p>\n The US president, Donald Trump, told the Agence France-Presse news agency that he believed China had got Iran to agree to a ceasefire. This confirmed reports from Iranian<\/a> and Pakistani<\/a> officials that Beijing had played a crucial role in the 11th-hour negotiations in Islamabad.<\/p>\n Yet some analysts are sceptical about how influential China could actually have been in the late-night discussions.<\/p>\n The deal, as initially advertised by Tehran, is so advantageous to Iran that encouraging the regime to agree to it would have been like \u201cpushing an open door\u201d, according to one analyst.<\/p>\n Nicholas Lyall, a senior researcher at Trends, a research and advisory firm in Abu Dhabi, said: \u201cIn terms of whether China had to do much pushing of Iran for it to agree to the temporary ceasefire, and whether Iran was swayed by this reported Chinese effort, it\u2019s important to clarify what Iran has actually agreed to.\u201d<\/p>\n The 10 points on Iran\u2019s ceasefire plan<\/a>, which were initially touted by Trump as a \u201cworkable\u201d basis for negotiation, were \u201cmaximalist and represent all of Iran\u2019s pre-existing stated demands from previous weeks\u201d, Lyall said. \u201cThis all means Iran has made no real concessions in agreeing to begin talks, and is very legitimately able to present it as a genuine political win to any audience.<\/p>\n \u201cTherefore, any Chinese involvement in the process of Iran agreeing to talks is highly likely not as influential as some might assume, as it was largely pushing on an open door given apparent US acquiescence to those Iranian demands.\u201d<\/p>\n Officially, China has not confirmed or denied reports that it played an active role in the Islamabad negotiations. At a press conference on Wednesday, the foreign ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said only that China \u201chad been actively working to promote de-escalation and an end to all hostilities\u201d.<\/p>\n Still, Beijing will be happy to be credited with brokering a fragile peace agreement that appeared to pull the conflict in Iran back from the brink of a major escalation.<\/p>\n Before Trump\u2019s second term in the White House upended global stability and fractured regional alliances, China was building up a reputation as a mediator in the Middle East, most notably by brokering the surprise rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Iran in 2023<\/a>.<\/p>\n In 2024, leaders from rival Palestinian factions signed a \u201cBeijing declaration<\/a>\u201d after talks in China, in which they agreed to form a national unity government for Palestine at an unspecified point in the future.<\/p>\n More recently, officials from China and Pakistan \u2013 the country that has emerged as the more pivotal mediator in this conflict \u2013 published a five-point plan<\/a> aimed at bringing about a ceasefire and re-opening the strait of Hormuz.<\/p>\n All of these plans \u201care geared to build a global image of Chinese responsibility and moderation as opposed to being geared to actually solve the conflicts they pertain to\u201d, said Lyall.<\/p>\n William Yang, a senior analyst at the International Crisis Group, said: \u201cThere have been previous attempts where China claimed victory in some very easy cases. This time around, it\u2019s quite different because I think China does sense the continuous disruption will have a more direct impact on its core interests.\u201d<\/p>\n He added: \u201cUltimately, if China is able to ensure that it uses its influence and leverage over Iran to really help to facilitate any form of ceasefire, it would see that being in its interest to do so,\u201d but he said Beijing would be \u201ccautious\u201d about making public what kind of pressure was or was not exerted.<\/p>\n China\u2019s actual diplomatic sway in the region is limited, although it is growing. As the biggest buyer of Iranian oil, China is economically important to Tehran. But the two countries do not have a particularly deep <\/strong>diplomatic relationship.<\/p>\n Song Bo, a fellow at the Center for International Security and Strategy at Tsinghua University, said Iran was \u201coutside of the top 10\u201d of countries that were important to Beijing.<\/p>\n Analysts are even more sceptical of the idea that China might act as the guarantor of any ceasefire agreement in the Middle East.<\/p>\n On Wednesday, the Iranian envoy Abdolreza Rahmani Fazli said in Beijing that he hoped that \u201cbig countries like China and Russia\u201d would work together to help guarantee peace in the region. China and Russia did support Tehran by vetoing a UN security council resolution, proposed before the ceasefire, that aimed to force the re-opening of the strait of Hormuz. But actually committing resources to the conflict is a much bigger ask.<\/p>\n Song said: \u201cChina doesn\u2019t have a direct stake with any of the parties in the Middle East. Acting as a guarantor for a ceasefire would be an extremely high-cost diplomatic undertaking, and I don\u2019t think China would commit to that easily.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s just not realistic. Even if China were to act as a guarantor, it lacks the diplomatic or military leverage to actually influence or control the parties involved in the conflict.\u201d<\/p>\n Lyall said China did not have the capacity to verify whether the ceasefire terms were being adhered to, and was unlikely to be able to impose any meaningful penalty on a party that broke those terms.<\/p>\n The ceasefire deal is not just a public relations win for China. Although the country has large stockpiles of oil<\/a>, the risk of a global recession and soaring fossil fuel prices nevertheless poses a threat for the Chinese economy, which is heavily dependent on exports.<\/p>\n \u201cIf it is possible to manage this conflict, and through managing the conflict be able to push down some oil prices, then that is certainly still very important for China,\u201d said Song.<\/p>\n