An Isolated Iran Finds China’s Friendship Has Limits
Why Beijing’s Strategic Support for Tehran Stops Short of Full Commitment
When strategic alliances are tested amid sanctions, unrest, and shifting global priorities
For decades, Iran has positioned itself as a key geopolitical player in West Asia, often standing at odds with the United States and Western powers. Over that time, China has emerged as Tehran’s most important ally — economically, diplomatically, and rhetorically. Yet, as Iran faces widespread protests, economic collapse, and mounting external pressure, its relationship with Beijing is revealing cracks. What Iran once saw as a dependable lifeline is increasingly perceived as limited and transactional, with Beijing’s restraint reshaping Tehran’s strategic calculus. �
mint
Longstanding Ties With China
Iran and China have nurtured a relationship rooted in economic cooperation and strategic alignment. A comprehensive 25-year cooperation agreement signed in 2021 envisioned a future where Beijing would invest in Iran’s economy in exchange for discounted oil and broader regional cooperation — a deal Tehran hoped would blunt the effects of sanctions and isolation. �
Wikipedia
Beijing remains Iran’s largest trading partner, importing a significant share of Iranian crude oil and exporting machinery, metals, and consumer goods. Despite intense sanctions from the West, particularly the U.S., Chinese refiners continue to purchase Iranian crude, often using ship-to-ship transfers or alternative banking methods to evade restrictions. This trade provides vital revenue for Iran’s energy sector — but it has not been enough to overcome the country’s mounting economic woes. �
Reuters
Protests and Pressure: A Turning Point
Throughout late 2025 and into 2026, Iran has faced intense internal unrest, with mass demonstrations against economic hardship and political repression. State crackdowns have produced hundreds of deaths and thousands of arrests. In this context, Iranian leaders expected unwavering support from Beijing. However, China’s reaction has been cautious — mainly limited to formal condemnations of Western sanctions and calls for stability rather than direct action to support Tehran’s government. �
wsj.com
When asked about U.S. threats of new tariffs on nations doing business with Iran, China denounced unilateral sanctions, yet stopped short of offering concrete economic or political backing that could lessen Tehran’s pain. Chinese officials have framed their statements as support for “national stability” rather than an endorsement of the Iranian government’s repressive tactics. �
mint
Strategic Support — But Within Limits
China has indeed cooperated with Iran in ways that signal partnership. Naval drills and military exercises involving Iran, China, and Russia took place in South African waters under the expanded BRICS framework, illustrating joint interests in geopolitical alignment. However, such displays have mostly been symbolic — aimed more at affirming shared opposition to U.S. dominance than providing actionable military or economic support to Tehran during crisis moments. �
Reuters +1
Beijing’s concern is twofold: it wants to maintain robust trade with Tehran, especially in energy, while avoiding actions that could trigger secondary sanctions from the U.S. and the EU. Chinese state-owned enterprises, wary of punitive measures, have limited their direct engagement, leaving smaller private refiners to shoulder most of the Iranian oil imports. �
Reuters
This balancing act reveals the transactional nature of the friendship: China supports Iran when it aligns with broader policy goals but balks at deep commitments that could jeopardize its global economic interests.
Mutual Interests — But Unequal Benefits
Iran’s leadership has repeatedly affirmed its desire to deepen cooperation with China, emphasizing shared interests and historic ties. Iranian officials stress the long-term potential of the comprehensive strategic partnership and remain committed to expanding trade, cultural ties, and political collaboration. �
Tehran Times
Yet analysts point out that the relationship is far from equal. For Beijing, Iran is a source of discounted energy and a partner to counterbalance Western influence — but not a priority comparable to China’s economic ties with Europe or Southeast Asia. Critics note that even within regional conflicts, such as tensions with Israel or U.S. threats, China has seldom gone beyond verbal support or diplomatic caution. �
mint
Moreover, internal Iranian scholars have noted that the implementation of the ambitious 25-year cooperation agreement has been slower than expected, with Tehran failing to fully utilize the available credit and investment frameworks offered by Beijing — a sign of deeper structural and administrative challenges within Iran. �
Tehran Times
What This Means for Iran’s Future
Iran’s experience underscores the broader lesson of geopolitics: friendship between nations is often guided by interests, not ideology. Beijing’s approach to Tehran — supporting when convenient, cautious when costly — highlights that China’s strategic calculations prioritize national benefit over unconditional loyalty.
For Iran, this reality comes at a critical juncture. With protests continuing, economic decline deepening, and Western pressure intensifying, Tehran must reassess how it leverages international partnerships. Further reliance on China may yield economic relief, but without broader political support or structural reform, Iran’s isolation could deepen.
Conclusion
China’s relationship with Iran remains an important pillar of Tehran’s foreign policy, but it is not an unfailing lifeline. The limits of China’s friendship — especially during times of crisis — reveal the pragmatic underpinnings of global alliances today. For Iran, the world’s shifting geopolitical landscape means that even its closest partners may only go so far in offering support.
About the Creator
Fiaz Ahmed Brohi
I am a passionate writer with a love for exploring and creating content on trending topics. Always curious, always sharing stories that engage and inspire.
Keep reading
More stories from Fiaz Ahmed Brohi and writers in The Swamp and other communities.
How the UK Ended Up Building the World’s Most Expensive Railway
When people talk about ambitious infrastructure projects, the United Kingdom’s new high-speed rail network often tops the list—not for speed, but for cost. What began as a bold vision to modernize the nation’s rail system has become controversial for its massive price tag, complex delays, and shifting political support. Today, as the UK builds what critics have dubbed the world’s most expensive railway, it’s worth asking: how did the UK get here? The Vision: A Modern Railway for the 21st Century The story begins in the early 2000s, when Britain’s rail network was facing growing pains. Congestion on the West Coast Main Line and other key routes was worsening, freight capacity was limited, and there was little room for growth. Passengers faced overcrowded trains and slow journey times, especially compared with high-speed services in France, Spain, and Japan. The idea of a high-speed rail link between major cities wasn’t new, but it gained real momentum after the success of continental projects like France’s TGVs. A national network promised faster journeys, increased capacity, and economic growth outside the capital—especially in regions long waiting for infrastructure investment. HS2: Promise and Purpose The centerpiece of the UK’s grand plan became High Speed 2 (HS2), intended to connect London with Birmingham, Manchester, and eventually Leeds. Promoters said trains would cut travel times in half, boost regional economies, and take pressure off crowded commuter lines. HS2 was pitched as more than just a railway: a catalyst for regional development a greener alternative to domestic flights a long-term investment in the UK’s economic future The plan certainly struck a chord. In theory, a high-speed network could transform connectivity across Britain—reducing travel times, encouraging investment outside London, and knitting together major cities in a modern transport web. Why the Costs Ballooned But ambitious infrastructure rarely comes cheap, and HS2’s projected price tag has grown dramatically. Several key factors contributed: 1. Changing Scope and Political Shifts HS2 didn’t emerge fully formed. Its route, phases, and design changed multiple times as governments of different political stripes revised priorities. These revisions added design complexity and contractual overhead, meaning early cost estimates quickly proved optimistic. 2. Construction Complexity Unlike flat plains where high-speed rail thrives, much of the UK is built up, with dense urban areas, protected landscapes, and ancient infrastructure. Building through these environments requires thousands of bridges, tunnels, and engineered embankments, each one adding millions to the tally. 3. Inflation and Supply Costs Rising inflation, especially in the wake of global supply chain disruptions and pandemic recovery spending, boosted material and labor costs. What might have been affordable a decade ago became significantly more expensive mid-project. 4. Contract and Project Management Challenges HS2’s scale required complex contracting across multiple regions and suppliers. Coordinating these elements proved difficult, and disagreements over timelines and specifications led to disputes, delays, and cost escalation. 5. Political Controversy and Delays HS2 has never lacked critics. Community groups, environmental activists, and political opponents argued that costs outweighed benefits—citing damage to woodlands, uncertain economic impacts, and questions over whether better upgrades to existing lines might be smarter. Prolonged debate and legal challenges delayed progress and, in turn, drove costs up further. Comparing Costs: Not Just Construction When analysts describe HS2 as the world’s most expensive railway, they are not just talking about track miles. The total figure includes: land acquisition in high-value areas environmental mitigation and restoration compensation for affected homeowners and businesses the technological systems that support high-speed safety and operations High-speed rail is expensive everywhere—but HS2’s integrated approach to social and environmental issues adds layers of cost that projects in other countries sometimes ignore. Has It Been Worth It? Supporters of HS2 argue that cost alone doesn’t capture the long-term value: faster connections create economic opportunities jobs are generated in construction and related industries rail shifts travelers from cars and planes, reducing emissions Early sections of the project are on track to open sooner than later, offering a hint of the benefits to come. Yet sceptics point out that the business case depends on sufficiently high passenger numbers, sustained economic growth outside London, and timely completion of later phases. The Broader Legacy Whatever HS2’s final cost and impact, the project has already reshaped how Britain thinks about infrastructure. It sparked: debates about regional inequality discussions about public investment versus austerity renewed focus on how to build large-scale projects responsibly HS2 is forcing policymakers to ask tough questions about how the UK balances cost, community impact, climate goals, and economic ambition. Conclusion: A Pricey Path Forward The UK’s journey to build the world’s most expensive railway reflects both the promise and pitfalls of modern infrastructure. What started as a bold answer to a crowded rail network has become a symbol of complexity in the age of political polarization, regional demands, and rising costs. As the first trains begin service in the coming years, HS2 will finally put its benefits to the test. But the lessons learned—about planning, priorities, and public support—will continue to shape Britain’s transport policy for generations.
By Fiaz Ahmed Brohi4 days ago in The Swamp
Trump’s Actions May Be Illegal — But His Greed Might Be the Only Thing Holding Him Back
In American politics, few figures provoke as much controversy, outrage, and relentless fascination as Donald Trump. Years after entering the political arena, he remains a dominant force not only in elections and headlines, but also in courtrooms and public debate. Legal scholars, journalists, and watchdog groups have repeatedly argued that many of Trump’s actions — both during his presidency and after — crossed clear legal and ethical lines. From election interference claims to allegations of abusing executive power, mishandling classified information, and entangling public office with private business interests, the accusations against Trump are neither isolated nor trivial. They form a pattern that critics say reveals a leader willing to push, bend, or outright ignore the law when it suits him. And yet, paradoxically, Trump has not gone as far as many of his harshest critics once feared. The reason may not be respect for democratic norms or fear of legal accountability — but something far more personal: his own greed. This is not a defense of Trump’s conduct. Rather, it is an attempt to understand a reality that even some of his opponents quietly acknowledge. Trump’s obsession with personal wealth, brand image, and financial survival may sometimes limit how far he is willing to go, even when legality appears optional. A Pattern of Questionable Legality Trump’s political career has been accompanied by an almost constant cloud of legal scrutiny. Investigations have examined campaign finance violations, obstruction of justice, business fraud, election interference, and misuse of power. Unlike many politicians who rely on subtlety or plausible deniability, Trump often operates in full public view, openly testing the boundaries of what he can get away with. His response to legal challenges is also strikingly consistent. He rarely engages with the substance of allegations. Instead, he frames investigations as politically motivated “witch hunts” and portrays prosecutors, judges, and journalists as enemies of the people. This narrative has proven effective with his base, many of whom see legal accountability not as justice, but as persecution. The brazenness of this strategy has led critics to argue that Trump believes himself above the law. And yet, despite his rhetoric, he has repeatedly stopped short of actions that would create immediate, irreversible consequences. The question is why. The Central Role of Money and Brand To understand Trump’s restraint, one must understand how he sees himself. Trump has never primarily viewed himself as a public servant or ideological leader. His core identity is that of a businessman and brand. Trump’s wealth — or at least the perception of it — is central to his political power. His properties, licensing deals, fundraising apparatus, and media presence all depend on the image of success. Politics, for Trump, has never been separate from profit. It is another platform for monetization and self-promotion. Unlike leaders driven by ideology, nationalism, or historical legacy, Trump’s decisions often reflect a simple cost-benefit calculation. Actions that threaten his brand value, fundraising ability, or business empire are approached with caution. Actions that energize supporters without endangering his financial interests are embraced enthusiastically. This explains a recurring pattern: Trump escalates rhetorically, but hesitates operationally. He may use inflammatory language, encourage outrage, or flirt with extreme ideas, but often stops short of moves that would directly and permanently damage his wealth. Greed as a Limiting Force Greed is typically viewed as a corrupting influence, and in many ways, it is. But in Trump’s case, it also functions as a brake. Absolute power, while tempting, carries real risks — sanctions, asset seizures, international isolation, and loss of market confidence. Trump may dismiss institutions publicly, but he understands markets instinctively. He knows investors flee chaos, lenders demand predictability, and brands collapse under prolonged legal uncertainty. Even when he attacks courts or regulators in speeches, his actual behavior often reveals caution: delays, negotiations, settlements, and procedural maneuvering rather than outright defiance. This suggests that Trump’s greatest fear is not prison, but bankruptcy. Having faced financial collapse multiple times in the past, he appears determined never to experience it again. His greed does not eliminate risk-taking, but it shapes where he draws the line. Why This Is Not Reassuring It would be a profound mistake to find comfort in the idea that greed will protect democracy. Self-interest is not a moral safeguard; it is an unreliable and fragile one. Trump’s restraint is situational, not principled. When personal profit and political power align, the danger increases dramatically. Relying on greed rather than law also sets a dangerous precedent. Democracy should not depend on whether a powerful individual calculates that illegal actions are “bad for business.” That logic leaves institutions vulnerable to leaders with fewer assets to lose, greater tolerance for chaos, or ideological motivations stronger than personal wealth. In Trump’s case, the line is not legality — it is profitability. The Legal System Still Matters Despite its flaws and delays, the legal system has not been irrelevant in Trump’s story. Courts have imposed fines, restricted business practices, and upheld investigations despite intense political pressure. These outcomes matter, not just symbolically, but financially. Every legal loss chips away at Trump’s carefully constructed image as a “winner,” an image that underpins his fundraising and influence. Ironically, his obsession with money also makes him vulnerable. Legal accountability threatens the very thing he values most. A Calculated Balance Trump operates within a narrow corridor: push boundaries enough to energize supporters, but not so far that financial consequences become catastrophic. This balancing act explains why aggressive speeches are often followed by procedural stalling, appeals, and strategic retreats. It also explains why Trump attacks institutions rhetorically while continuing to rely on them practically. Banks, courts, and markets are not enemies he can afford to lose entirely. Conclusion Donald Trump’s legacy will likely be defined by how often he tested the limits of the law — and how inconsistently those limits restrained him. Yet one constant remains unmistakable: his devotion to personal profit. That devotion may sometimes hold him in check — not because he respects democracy, but because he values his wealth. Democracy deserves stronger guardians than greed. But for now, it remains an uncomfortable part of the equation in understanding Trump’s behavior and the risks he poses to American political life.
By Muhammad Hassan7 days ago in The Swamp
Miss Persephone's Manual to a Seemingly Ordinary Life
Miss Persephone was found at the dining table, her blue eyes swollen, her tears arriving and retreating like the tides of the ocean. Earlier that day, her family had visited her in the retirement home where she had lived for eight years. It was her eightieth birthday.
By Imola Tóth3 days ago in Fiction
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.