China slams ‘unilateral’ US sanctions law targeting Russia, Iran

TEHRAN – The Chinese Ministry of Commerce has issued a sharp rebuke against Washington’s latest legislative maneuvers, condemning the newly enacted US law that seeks to tighten sanctions on Russia and broaden trade restrictions against Iran.

The legislation, signed by President Donald Trump late Friday, has been met with immediate disapproval from Beijing. A spokesperson for China’s Commerce Ministry stated on Saturday that China has “consistently opposed” the implementation of unilateral sanctions and the extraterritorial application of secondary sanctions, which critics argue violate the foundational principles of international relations.

In a formal statement, the spokesperson underscored that Beijing remains firmly against any coercive economic measures that lack authorization from the United Nations or any grounding in established international law.

The US law, which authorizes the imposition of tariffs on nations purchasing Russian petroleum products, has drawn scrutiny for its potential to destabilize global energy markets and disrupt diplomatic efforts. The measure, viewed by observers as a thinly veiled tool of economic warfare, threatens to impact several major economies, including China, India, and Turkey, as well as several European Union member states that continue to engage in energy trade with Russia.

“China will closely monitor Washington’s next steps,” the spokesperson said, emphasizing that Beijing “reserves the right to take all necessary measures to safeguard its sovereignty, development interests, and the legitimate rights and interests of its companies.”

Analysts observe that this latest aggressive move by the White House marks yet another chapter in Washington’s deteriorating approach to global diplomacy. By weaponizing the global financial system and dictating the economic policies of sovereign nations, the United States is further eroding the trust of its own allies and isolating itself from the emerging multipolar order.

Critics argue that such measures are not aimed at fostering international security, but are instead designed to maintain American hegemony at the expense of global economic stability. By targeting independent nations like Iran—a key partner in China’s global development initiatives—the US is signaling an intensified effort to obstruct the sovereign economic development of the Global South.

The statement further reiterated China’s commitment to the stability of global trade, urging the United States to abandon its policy of economic coercion in favor of dialogue and mutual consultation.

As Washington continues to utilize its domestic legislation to project power globally, Beijing’s response signals a hardening stance against what many international observers describe as an increasingly erratic and unilateralist US foreign policy.

Tags

• China
• Russia
• Iran

Bells return tomorrow, 277 desks won't

Iran remembers 277 students and 67 education staff killed in two wars, including 120 children in the Minab school attack.

TEHRAN – The sound of school bells and the cheerful voices of children once again filled classrooms across the country on Monday. Students resumed education after the US-Israeli war last year left a trail of damaged schools.

Behind the celebrations, however, were classrooms scarred by war and the painful memory of students and teachers whose lives were cut short in attacks on educational centers. For many, the start of the new academic year is therefore more than a return to school — it is a sign of hope, resilience and a determination to rebuild.

President Masoud Pezeshkian attended the opening ceremony at a girls’ elementary school in Tehran, where he rang the bell marking the start of the new school year. The ceremony came as schools across the country returned to classrooms after months in which the education system was forced to cope with the consequences of the war, damaged infrastructure and the loss of members of the school community.

The return to school has taken on a significance beyond the traditional start of an academic year. For students and teachers, the new school year begins with the memory of classmates and colleagues who will not return to their classrooms.

During the US-Israeli military strikes against Iran that began on February 28, schools and other civilian facilities were among the sites affected by attacks. According to the School Renovation, Development and Equipping Organization, 1,288 schools across the country were damaged, including 16 that sustained direct hits and required extensive reconstruction or rehabilitation.

Officials said reconstruction efforts were accelerated in the months following the conflict. By the eve of the new academic year, 1,272 damaged schools had reportedly been restored and returned to the education system, allowing them to reopen their doors to students.

Education Minister Alireza Kazemi said in an interview about three weeks ago that the education system has historically lost many students and teachers in wars. He said that during the two recent wars, 277 students and 67 education-sector staff were killed, while 178 students and 25 education-sector staff were wounded.

But in Minab, in southern Hormozgan Province, the return to school carries a much heavier meaning.

On February 28, Shajareh Tayyebeh Primary School in Minab was struck during the opening hours of the war. The attack killed more than 150 people, including about 120 children. The school was hit while classes were underway, turning a place intended for learning and safety into the site of one of the deadliest attacks on civilians.

The tragic event marked a war crime, an indiscriminate attack on children and civilians that shattered the dreams of 168 families amidst smoke and rubble.

The new academic year in the city has always been filled with excitement, busy roads, colorful uniforms and backpacks, the smell of new books, notebooks, pencils, and parents escorting their children to school. But this year, the atmosphere of the schools feels different.

This year, Mehr, the first month of autumn in the Iranian calendar, begins with a heavy heart, as the voices of many innocent students are missing from classrooms after they were killed in attacks by the aggressors.

What was targeted in Minab by the enemies was not merely the fragile bodies of students, but a generation that could have helped to build a brighter future for the country.

This academic year, the bells of the schools ring, echoing a heart-wrenching grief for bereaved families, the city, and the country. But it resonates with an eternal pledge that transcends mere mourning. The school bell has to ring to have a dynamic, vibrant, informed society. To avoid having a corroded society, the bells of the schools have to ring persistently without falling silent.

The schools will run to provide every individual and every single talent the opportunity to flourish and thrive. The schools will be a haven, resilient and secure against harms and crises. The schools will serve as centers for comprehensive development of individuals across moral, scientific, social, biological, artistic, and technological dimensions.

The schools will be the voice of the innocent children, safeguard the rights of students, and punish the aggressors, confirming that the banner of awareness,  knowledge, and the pursuit of justice will remain raised.

Tags

• Iran
• School
• Minab

Araghchi: Israel Hayom calls for US-Israel integration to make Washington pay for pressure on Israel

TEHRAN — Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has criticized growing Israeli influence over US policy toward Iran, pointing to an opinion article in Israel Hayom that calls for deeper US-Israeli integration so that Washington would face high costs if Israel were subjected to financial pressure.

Araghchi made the remarks in a post on X while reposting an excerpt from the article, “Israel must prepare for the possibility of financial warfare,” published by Israel Hayom on September 9.

“The Israel lobby is getting less shy about its grip on U.S. policy toward Iran,” Araghchi wrote. “In Miriam Adelson’s publication, the Lobby's loudspeaker says U.S. policy must ensure America pays a price for any slight against Israel.”

“High time for Washington to break free from these shackles,” he added.

The article, written by Mark Dubowitz, chief executive of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), argues that Israel should prepare for the possibility that financial pressure and sanctions mechanisms developed by Washington against Iran could eventually be directed against Israel.

Dubowitz argues that the financial sanctions architecture used against Iran could provide a model for pressure on Israel, saying that the process can begin with legal measures, expand to individuals and companies, and eventually reach wider sectors and financial institutions.

Against that backdrop, the article calls on Tel Aviv to diversify its economic relationships and reduce its exposure to potential financial pressure.

The section highlighted by Araghchi goes further, arguing that Israel and the United States should deepen their military, technological, intelligence and economic integration to such an extent that imposing financial harm on Israel would also impose a significant cost on Washington.

The article also argues that Israel should expand ties with additional markets and strengthen its alliances in order to reduce vulnerabilities to potential financial pressure.

For Araghchi, however, the passage represents evidence of the influence of the pro-Israel lobby on US policy toward Iran. By describing Israel Hayom as “Miriam Adelson’s publication” and “the Lobby's loudspeaker,” the Iranian foreign minister presented the article as an example of an effort to shape Washington's approach to Israel and Iran.

Tags

• Israel Hayom
• Abbas Araghchi
• Washington
• Israel

Ansarallah consolidates Red Sea control as Trump rejects MBS’ desperate appeals

 By staff writer

TEHRAN — The Saudi campaign of aggression in Yemen is unraveling on the western coast. In a lightning offensive that swept through the coastal plain, Yemeni forces under Ansarallah command have captured the port city of Mokha, Mayyun Island, and strategic highlands in Lahij province.

The proxy formations Riyadh spent a decade financing have abandoned their positions. Weapons depots and observation posts fell intact. Sanaa now holds the heights overlooking the Bab al-Mandab Strait.

The collapse removes the last significant Saudi buffer zone on the Red Sea. Retreating mercenaries abandoned their posts and shed their uniforms as the defensive lines broke.

According to recent local reports, Ansarallah fighters are pressing into the Kahboub mountain range. Securing these heights will permanently sever supply routes to Saudi-backed factions in the south and expose the remaining coalition strongholds.

Air strikes and deep retaliation

Riyadh has answered the ground defeat with a massive air campaign. Saudi warplanes carried out more than 760 airstrikes over recent weeks.

Using F-15 and Typhoon jets launched from Khamis Mushait and Taif, the bombardment hit telecommunications infrastructure and civilian neighborhoods in Taiz, al-Jawf, and Marib.

Sanaa established an immediate cost for the escalation. The Yemeni Armed Forces launched heavy retaliatory operations using ballistic missiles and drones against sensitive sites in Riyadh and Saudi Aramco facilities in Yanbu.

Videos showed fires burning near King Khalid International Airport.

Saudi authorities attempted to cover their vulnerability by falsely claiming Yemen targeted Mecca. Sanaa categorically dismissed the accusation as a fabrication meant to generate religious sympathy and distract from Saudi war crimes.

The economic bleeding in Saudi Arabia is accelerating. The Financial Times recently reported Saudi crude production dropped 23 percent to 6.2 million barrels per day in August.

Aramco exports have plummeted. Dozens of Saudi tankers have been rerouted away from Bab al-Mandab. Riyadh is reportedly begging countries it has long considered allies for interceptor missiles after depleting its stockpiles.

Washington leaves Riyadh stranded

Panic in Riyadh has translated into urgent appeals to the United States.

The New York Times (NYT) and Axios reported that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman called President Donald Trump multiple times, begging for American airstrikes against advancing Yemeni forces.

Trump ordered the Pentagon to prepare target lists. Aircraft were loaded with munitions, then he reversed the order, according to the NYT.

Trump’s inner circle and American commanders reportedly opposed opening a new front. The U.S. military is already stretched thin by its ongoing war with Iran.

The NYT report also claimed that the Trump administration recognized another brutal reality: the U.S. military’s bombing campaigns in 2025 failed to break Ansarallah, and there is no reason to assume it will succeed this time.

Yemeni official Mohamed al-Bukhaiti told the Associated Press that Sanaa conveyed to Washington that it would not target international shipping, confining its naval blockade strictly to the Saudi enemy for now.

Trump has backed down, at least for now, leaving Riyadh to fight its own war.

Additionally, Reuters reported that Trump offered no military pledge during a recent call with Saudi-backed figure Rashad al-Alimi.

‘We can reach anywhere Saudi officials might be taking shelter’

In a speech on Thursday, Ansarallah leader Abdulmalek Badreddin al-Houthi excoriated the complicity of the governments of Arab and Islamic countries in the Saudi-led aggression.

“The Arab and Islamic stance on the Saudi aggression on Yemen has been one of abandonment, except for the axis of jihad and resistance and some free people of the world,” he said.

He revealed that “delegations from the Saudi and British enemies” were traveling to Djibouti to tighten procedures and increase the suffering of the Yemeni people through economic strangulation.

He challenged the world’s “weeping entities” to accept the same restrictions Saudi Arabia has placed on Yemen’s imports, currency, and natural resources for over eleven years.

“In the de-escalation phase, the Saudi regime did not seriously move toward peace, but made it an opportunity to tighten its arbitrary measures and build takfiri military formations,” al-Houthi said.

Additionally, Yemen’s military leadership warned Riyadh that further aggression will be met with even more devastating retaliation.

In a joint message marking the twelfth anniversary of the September 21 Revolution, Defense Minister Major General Mohammed Nasser al-Atifi and Chief of Staff Major General Youssef Hassan al-Madani stated that “missiles and drones can strike any location deep inside Saudi territory, devastate the kingdom’s economy, and can reach anywhere Saudi officials might be taking shelter.”

The message emphasized that “the slightest folly you commit will come at a heavy price. Our armed forces have introduced effective measures to establish a new equation of deterrence.”

Tags

• Yemen
• Saudi Arabia
• Mohammed bin Salman (MbS)
• Bab-el-Mandeb Strait

Trump and the Decline of America’s Position in the International System

SCFR Online - Opinion: Two contrasting narratives of Trump's foreign policy – one "crisis as doctrine" and the other a "coherent doctrine" – present a complex picture of America's attempt to redefine its role in the international system.

Farhad Samiei – US affairs expert

Creating Crisis or a Coherent Doctrine?

Over the past 18 months, the process of the US withdrawal from dozens of international institutions, up to the launching of a war against Iran, has raised the question of whether Washington is building a new order or merely undermining the existing one. On one side of this debate lies the narrative of “crisis as doctrine,” according to which the rules-based order that had endured for about eighty years is coming to an end, and its replacement is not a new structure but chaos as an instrument of US foreign policy. The withdrawal from 66 international organizations, the closure of the US Agency for International Development (USAID), and budget cuts to some UN bodies are also interpreted within this framework.

On the other side, the “Trump doctrine” narrative attempts to attribute a common strategic logic to his actions, based on sovereignty, confrontation with China, burden-sharing with allies, and a revision of America’s role in the world. The difference between these two narratives is encapsulated in the question of whether Trump’s behavior is a set of ad hoc and contradictory decisions or governed by a coherent pattern.

Trump’s transactional and sometimes contradictory approach has reinforced the perception that his “doctrine” is nothing but crisis; however, recurring patterns in his foreign policy also indicate that Washington’s behavior cannot be dismissed as merely random. The common thread between these two narratives is that US foreign policy has introduced an unprecedented level of uncertainty and unpredictability into the international system.

Greenland; From Rhetoric to Action

The Greenland case is a clear example for measuring the gap between declared objectives, instruments, and the outcomes of Trump’s foreign policy. In March 2025, Trump promised Greenland’s citizens billions of dollars in investment to create jobs and wealth, while simultaneously threatening European countries opposed to US control over Greenland with 10 to 25 percent tariffs. This approach can be seen as part of a pattern of “coercive bargaining,” in which economic tariffs are transformed into a political lever.

However, the results of this approach diverged from the stated narrative. Denmark’s economic growth since before the COVID-19 pandemic has, on the whole, outpaced that of the United States; therefore, the country that Trump intended to make wealthier by annexing Greenland to the United States has itself had a more favorable economic performance than the United States. The threat to use force to seize Greenland also provoked a strong reaction from European allies and, instead of building trust, increased concerns about Washington’s policies. Trump ultimately backed away from the threat of using military force at the World Economic Forum in Davos. This pattern – aggressive threats, negative reactions, and then tactical retreat – has been repeated in various cases.

Allies; From Partnership to Dependency

Redefining America’s relationship with its allies has been a consistent theme of Trump’s foreign policy. His strategic documents emphasize “partnership, not dependency” and the end of taking US support for granted. The new National Defense Strategy also calls on allies to take control of their own security and prioritizes the defense of US territory and containing China. This approach is consistent with a doctrine in which the United States distances itself from the role of global policeman and seeks to share the security burden with allies.

However, the practical consequence of this policy has not necessarily been to strengthen alliances. America’s traditional allies have concluded that Washington’s foreign policy no longer guarantees their unconditional support, and accordingly, they are redefining their security strategies. The US withdrawal from international institutions and the weakening of multilateral frameworks have also prompted smaller and medium-sized countries to increase risk coverage, arm themselves, and make independent decisions.

The War against Iran; from Narrative to Field Reality

The war against Iran is also one of the most important testing grounds for Trump’s foreign policy. Fox News, months before the attack, promoted the narrative that if the United States did not decisively confront Iran’s leadership, Iran would acquire nuclear weapons. After the war began, the network also supported its continuation by emphasizing military successes and the promise of Iran’s imminent collapse. Laura Ingraham also described opposition to the war as “anti-American,” reducing the debate to a binary of good and evil.

However, the field reality diverged from this narrative. The main objective of the war, namely the overthrow of Iran’s system, was not achieved, while at the same time, strategic oil reserves and a portion of America’s missile defense systems were severely depleted. This gap between media narrative and war outcomes indicates that Trump’s foreign policy faces structural limitations in practice. Consequently, Trump neither fully controls the situation nor has lost control of it, but rather makes decisions in an environment of perpetual uncertainty.

An Emerging Doctrine or Sustained Chaos?

The answer to the dichotomy of “crisis as doctrine” versus “coherent doctrine” should be sought in the combination of these two narratives. On one hand, Trump’s foreign policy exhibits recurring patterns such as emphasis on sovereignty, coercive bargaining, reduced commitments to allies, and prioritization of competition with China; but on the other hand, these patterns lack the strategic coherence of a classical doctrine and are often accompanied by contradictory tactical decisions, sudden retreats, and a gap between rhetoric and action. Therefore, Trump is neither a strategist with a completely clear roadmap nor a mere chaos agent.

US security commitments to allies, withdrawal from some international institutions, and Washington’s increased focus on competition with China could reduce some of the indirect pressures on Iran; however, the approach based on coercive bargaining and unpredictable military threats complicates Tehran’s strategic calculations.

More importantly, the redefinition of America’s role in the world, whether called a “doctrine” or a “crisis,” implies the weakening of an order in which countries to some extent knew the rules of the game. The order now taking shape still lacks clear and established rules and mechanisms for interaction among great powers and emerging powers. In such circumstances, the ability of countries to adapt to the new environment, maintain strategic autonomy, and capitalize on opportunities arising from the redistribution of power will require more than ever precise calculation and strategic acumen.

Why America’s economic terrorism operation against Iran is doomed to failure?

SCFR Online - Opinion: The new US sanctions against Iran, despite extensive propaganda, face serious obstacles to success due to the ineffectiveness of sanctions tools and opposition from some of Tehran's trading partners.

Hamid Khoshayand – Expert on regional affairs

The US Secretary of the Treasury has unveiled a new sanctions package under the title “Economic Exclusion Operation,” calling it “the largest organized financial assault against an enemy in history.” This action, framed with rhetoric such as “economic suffocation” and “economic D-Day,” is announced six months after the end of the US military conflict against  Iran, following Washington’s failure to advance its military objectives in Iran.

The question arises: can America’s new campaign, which is in fact a reproduction of the same “maximum pressure” policy with new media hype, succeed? Field realities and international positions indicate that this operation not only offers no new initiative but also faces major structural, political, and legal obstacles that make its failure likely.

Reproduction of failed policies

The United States has announced that the new sanctions target five vital sectors – digital assets, technology, gold, aviation, and shipping – and that any entity or country engaging in economic interaction with Iran will be subject to secondary penalties and expulsion from the dollar-based system. However, many, even in the United States, believe that these measures are nothing but the same old tools.

Robert Kagan, a US foreign policy expert, stated in an interview with CNN: “Many of the actions the Secretary of the Treasury spoke about today are the same types of sanctions that have been around for years.” In other words, the US sanctions regime has reached a saturation point, leaving little room for new sanctions. The repetition of names of individuals and companies in statements also indicates Washington’s inability to find new areas for pressure.

Paul Krugman, economist and Nobel Prize laureate in economics, also believes: “The economic campaign will fail just as the military campaign failed.”

Robert Malley, former member of the US nuclear negotiating team, said: “Can more pressure make Iran surrender and retreat from positions that they consider vital and non-negotiable? Certainly not.”

Chris Murphy, a US Senator, also described the “economic D-Day” rhetoric as “desperate window-dressing” to conceal Washington’s military failures and emphasized: “Iran now controls the Strait of Hormuz, and after the US fired ‘everything,’ it still holds all the leverage.”

Peter Schiff, a prominent American investor and financial analyst, also stated: “The economic exclusion operation will not only fail, but the economic noose that is really being tightened may ultimately be the same noose wrapped around our own necks.”

Explicit opposition from China, Russia, and other countries

The opposition of major powers and some of Iran’s trading partners is a significant obstacle to the success of the new US economic campaign against Iran. China has explicitly stated that it will not cooperate with unilateral sanctions. China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs also called this action “lacking a basis in international law and Security Council authorization” and emphasized that it will continue its economic interactions with Iran. Beijing even issued a resolution in May 2026 prohibiting Chinese companies from complying with US sanctions against Iran.

Russia, which itself is subject to extensive Western sanctions, not only does not cooperate with this operation but has expanded its economic and military cooperation with Tehran. Alexei Pushkov, a Russian senator, described this US action as “a confrontation between independent countries and Washington’s hegemony.”

Countries such as Qatar, Oman, and even some European Union members have also expressed concern over unilateral US sanctions, emphasizing that such actions jeopardize global economic stability.

Furthermore, Iran has 15 direct neighbors, a capacity that provides the country with diverse economic and logistical routes capable of rendering even the harshest sanctions a low impact tool.

Psychological operation for domestic exploitation

The timing of this package’s announcement, coinciding with the approach of the midterm congressional elections and efforts to control energy prices in global markets, indicates that this action is less a strategic initiative and more a tactic to disrupt Iran’s economic environment and a psychological-media operation to cover up the US administration’s failures. The fact that Trump immediately after unveiling his new economic campaign wrote on Truth Social that “Iran is completely collapsing” reveals the behind-the-scenes dimensions of this campaign, which are inconsistent with field realities.

Therefore, the new US sanctions not only lack legal backing but could also serve as a basis for legal action against Washington in international legal forums. Iranian officials have also repeatedly emphasized that these sanctions target the livelihoods and health of ordinary people.

The so-called American “economic exclusion” operation is more a media measure for managing domestic public opinion, relatively controlling the energy market, and reducing Trump’s electoral concerns on the eve of the midterm congressional elections than an effective strategic initiative. This campaign faces three fundamental obstacles: the saturation of US sanctions tools, opposition from China, Russia, and other Iranian partners, and Washington’s inability or unwillingness to enter into direct economic confrontation with Beijing.

The new sanctions not only lack the capacity to change Iran’s political behavior but could also lead to the strengthening of the resistance economy, the expansion of regional and non-Western cooperation, and the acceleration of the multipolarization of the global financial system. Moreover, unilateral US sanctions face legitimacy challenges from the perspective of international law and could provide grounds for legal pursuit against Washington, especially as their effects directly target the livelihoods and health of ordinary people.

Historical experience shows that excessive and unconventional use of sanctions tools ultimately exhausts the sanctioning power, because indiscriminate economic pressure, instead of subduing the target country, strengthens alternative routes and new coalitions. This truth stands before the eyes of the world; a country that endures against a full-scale war that could have destroyed even great powers in less than a week, and overcomes the enemy, will never yield or fail in the face of sanctions.

China’s Rejection of US Sanctions; Strengthening Iran’s Geopolitical Leverage

SCFR Online – Opinion: Concurrent with the official commencement of the United States' economic war against our country, focusing on sanctions instruments, isolation, and economic pressure, what has now become increasingly important is the lack of alignment of other major global powers, especially China, with this policy.

Dr. Mohammad Mehdi Mazaheri – University Professor

This country, which has now become an economic superpower in the world, is Iran’s primary economic partner and an effective member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the BRICS group, and as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, it has played a constructive, balanced, and responsible role toward Iran, at least during the recent war of aggression against our country. Since June 2025, when the United States and Israel carried out two illegal attacks against Iran, inflicting heavy damage on our country, China has supported Iran’s position in defending its national security and sovereignty. China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and its Permanent Representative to the United Nations have condemned the attacks on Iran as violations of international law, condemned the assassination of Iran’s leader, and called for an immediate halt to military operations and the resumption of dialogue. In its latest official position, Beijing has also explicitly and decisively rejected unilateral and extraterritorial US sanctions, declaring that its relations with Iran are defined entirely within the framework of international law and that China will fully support its legitimate interests in relation to Iran.

Despite these supportive positions and China’s legal stand, and the importance of this Asian power for Iran, especially during this period of war and economic sanctions, it is necessary to take a realistic and precise look at the various dimensions of the relationship in order to enhance the effectiveness of ties by understanding the objective and tangible conditions between the two countries in this era of pressure and sanctions.

Since April 2021, China has had a comprehensive strategic partnership with our country. According to the document published by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the 25-year comprehensive cooperation program has been formulated and approved in three dimensions: political-strategic, economic, and cultural:

Political and strategic: Strengthening bilateral cooperation in regional and international organizations and defense interactions.
Economic: Iran’s participation in the “Belt and Road Initiative,” Chinese investment in oil, gas, petrochemicals, renewable energy, and the development of transportation and transit infrastructure.
Cultural and social: Expanding academic, tourism, sports, and media exchanges.

If we set aside the third dimension for now due to wartime conditions, regarding the other two dimensions, it must be said: in the political-strategic sphere, China, as a permanent member of the Security Council and Iran’s economic partner, provides political support for Tehran’s positions in international forums. China’s recent position affirming the legal legitimacy of its relations with Iran will create an important legal-diplomatic shield against the new US sanctions; however, Beijing still maintains conservative calculations in practical dimensions such as using its veto power or defense-military cooperation, and Chinese officials have denied reports of arms sales and heavy defense equipment to Iran.

In the economic dimension as well, a recent report by the Research Center of the Iran Chamber of Commerce has indicated a gap between existing potential capacities and operational realities in Tehran-Beijing relations. Examination of official data on the volume of Chinese investment in Iran during the period 2005 to 2025 (four years of which fall after the signing of the comprehensive strategic cooperation document) shows that total direct Chinese investment in Iran during this 20-year period did not exceed $7.4 billion; whereas during the same two-decade period, Beijing injected hundreds of billions of dollars into the markets and economies of some regional countries such as Pakistan, Iraq, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia. The main factors for the failure to maximize Chinese investment, according to the report by the Iran Chamber of Commerce Research Center, include obstacles such as “international sanctions,” “domestic banking and financial challenges,” and “the absence of stable institutions and investment guarantees.”

During the war period as well, part of the priority of Beijing’s economic policies has been to support its domestic economy and protect the global energy market from severe shocks. In other words, China, which ranks second after the United States (19 million barrels per day) with a daily consumption of 16.37 million barrels per day, stands at the top of global crude oil consumers; at times following US and Israeli regime attacks on Iran and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, it managed the shock effect on the oil market by reducing direct imports and drawing from its strategic reserves. Although according to some analysts, these measures were fundamentally taken to protect China’s domestic economy, their side effect was to prevent a meteoric rise in oil prices, which helped Washington manage the economic consequences of the war.

Furthermore, this Eastern superpower, by launching a new shipping route through the Arctic Ocean, known as the “Ice Silk Road,” is seeking to create alternative routes and avoid the vulnerabilities of southern waterways. Although this route has its own seasonal and environmental limitations, it demonstrates Beijing’s effort to diversify its trade routes.

Nevertheless, Beijing’s recent emphasis on protecting its interests in Iran and its decisive rejection of US sanctions indicates that China well understands the geopolitical dimensions of Iran’s resilience against the United States. On the other hand, the Islamic Republic of Iran, by its steadfastness in self-defense and preventing an easy and swift American victory, has played a key role in undermining the credibility and hegemonic position of the United States and damaging its strategic military-economic reserves as China’s main rival superpower. Therefore, it is an undeniable geopolitical reality that as long as Iran in West Asia, as a strong weight, occupies a large portion of US military, arms, financial, and diplomatic focus, the United States lacks the ability to “fully concentrate on containing China in East Asia” and seriously pursuing the Taiwan issue.

Accordingly, and relying on China’s recent firm position in rejecting sanctions, it is necessary for Iran’s diplomatic apparatus to actively enter into negotiations with Beijing. China’s new position indicates that Iran’s bargaining space has been elevated; therefore, Iran should enter negotiations not as a “player under pressure” but as an “influencer in the regional balance.” Iran’s winning cards in these negotiations are not only “cheap oil” and “transit position,” but also its “capability to maintain the balance of power in the Middle East” and becoming a “strong lever in the hegemonic competition between China and the United States.”

Iran can convey to Beijing in negotiations that now that China has officially rejected the sanctions and emphasized the protection of its interests in Iran, it is expected that these political positions will translate into sustainable financial opportunities, infrastructure investments, and guaranteed energy purchases. Beijing should be made aware that the cost of maintaining a stable and strong Iran for China is far less than the cost Beijing would pay for directly confronting a United States unencumbered by Iran and the Middle East in the Pacific theater.

Of course, alongside the use of this card, the long-term strategy for securing maximum and effective Chinese cooperation within the framework of the comprehensive strategic partnership is to strive for restoring stability and sustainable security to the country, reforming banking structures and facilitating investment laws, developing and balancing trade-economic relations with East and West, and creating conditions in which presence in Iran’s market and geography becomes a “low-risk strategic necessity” for Beijing, rather than a “costly option against the United States.”

The Redefinition of European Security and the Erosion of NATO’s Umbrella in the Shadow of the Ukraine War

SCFR Online - Opinion: The Ukraine war, by exhausting US military capability on one hand and strengthening European defense capacity on the other, has altered the balance of power in the European continent, cast uncertainty over NATO's future, and is driving it toward a European NATO.

Nader Jahani – Expert on European affairs

The Shift in the Balance of Power in Europe

The Ukraine war, now over four and a half years old, has fundamentally transformed Europe’s security order. The most important development in this regard is the shift in Europe’s leadership axis from the east to the west of the continent. Germany, which at the beginning of the war was known for its hesitation and conservatism in sending weapons to Kyiv, has now become Ukraine’s main ally in Europe.

German Foreign Minister Johan Wadephul’s trip to Kyiv on August 22, 2026, his fourth since assuming office, demonstrated Berlin’s deep commitment to supporting Ukraine. With a commitment of 11.6 billion euros for 2027, Germany, alongside France and Britain, has formed the “leadership core” of the volunteer coalition supporting Ukraine.

This new position of Germany has come at a cost to Poland. Warsaw, which considered itself the frontline of Europe’s defense against Russia, has been excluded from the “leadership core” of the volunteer coalition. Disagreements over the transfer of Ukrainian drone technology, as well as historical disputes, have strained Warsaw-Kyiv relations. This fact indicates that the balance of power in Europe is shifting in Germany’s favor, and Poland, which for years considered itself a strategic ally of the United States in Eastern Europe, has in practice been marginalized.

Simultaneously, developments in the Arctic region also indicate a security rearrangement. With the accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO, seven out of the eight Arctic countries are now members of the alliance, and a format known as “Arctic 7” has been established for security cooperation. Interestingly, these cooperations are sometimes pursued without US presence and in response to Trump’s territorial ambitions regarding Greenland.

Beyond Capacity; the Challenging Erosion of NATO in the Era of Prolonged Wars

The concept of “beyond capacity,” which was previously discussed mostly in academic texts, has now become a tangible challenge for US and NATO military forces. A clear example of this situation is the US Navy, which has been placed under unprecedented pressure. The aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln has been deployed in the West Asia region for over 270 days, approximately nine months, while the standard US naval deployment is about seven months (210 days). This trend has not been an exception; out of eleven aircraft carrier missions since 2023, eight have remained at sea for eight months or more.

This situation has serious cascading consequences. The extension of missions means increased maintenance needs, which itself disrupts the preparation and deployment cycle of ships. As one analyst has likened it, this situation is like a driver who neglects periodic car servicing; the car works for a while, but sooner or later a heavier cost will be paid.

A significant portion of this pressure is a result of the US and Israeli regime war against Iran, but the Ukraine war has also had a fundamental share in this capability saturation. Analysts have warned that the reduction of US deterrence capability against China and Russia is one of the inevitable consequences of this situation.

In such circumstances, Europe can no longer reliably count on Washington’s security umbrella and is compelled to strengthen its own defense capability. Although the scenario of a Russian attack on NATO is not far-fetched, what is certain is that America’s ability to respond simultaneously to multiple major crises has faced serious limitations.

Future Scenarios; from Deadlock to a New Security Order

With the continuation of the deadlock in Ukraine, three scenarios for the future of Europe’s security order are conceivable. The first scenario is the continuation of the status quo with intensified transatlantic disagreements. The report of the “Anchorage” meeting between Putin and Trump revealed a deep rift between the United States and Europe on how to end the war.

While Europe seeks a military victory over Russia, Washington has no desire for direct and endless engagement and presents itself merely as a “mediator.” This divergence does not mean the immediate collapse of NATO, but it indicates that the Atlanticism of the twentieth century will not endure in its former form.

The second scenario is the intensification of European militarization without reliance on the United States. European countries are increasing their defense expenditures and seeking to develop independent offensive systems and deterrence against Russia. This approach, based on field experiences from Ukraine, emphasizes automated systems, layered defense, and the ability to “withstand an initial attack and then endure.”

However, this scenario faces a serious challenge: the illusion of victory with “wonder weapons” such as AI-powered drones may lead Ukraine toward collapse rather than victory. General Zaluzhnyi, former commander of Ukraine’s armed forces, has expressed doubts about the success of drone warfare and described it as very costly.

The third scenario is the formation of a new security order in Europe centered on Germany and France, with a gradual distancing from traditional NATO structures. In this scenario, Europe moves toward a “European NATO” in which defense cooperation is defined without or with minimal US involvement.

Such a development, although still in its early stages, aligns with current trends, including the gradual withdrawal of the United States from its role as the primary guarantor of European security. The important point is Moscow’s acceptance of the reality that no external power can impose a solution to the Ukraine war. This shared understanding of the nature of the deadlock could pave the way for a new security architecture in Europe; an architecture in which the dominant role of a hegemonic power no longer exists and the balance of power is redefined in a more complex and multi-layered manner.