The People’s Daily — the official newspaper of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party and the most authoritative vehicle for Beijing’s policy positions — recently published an editorial-length commentary condemning the US-Israeli military strikes against Iran. The piece, which carries the unmistakable imprimatur of the Party’s propaganda apparatus, constitutes one of the most explicit Chinese articulations to date of how Beijing interprets the unfolding crisis and, more broadly, of how it wishes to position itself within the resulting geopolitical realignment.
The Core Argument: International Law as a Red Line
The People’s Daily article is built around a single organising principle: that the US-Israeli strikes, conducted without the authorisation of the United Nations Security Council, represent a fundamental violation of international law and the norms governing interstate relations. The commentary traces the prohibition on the use of force back to the Kellogg-Briand Pact and its subsequent codification in the UN Charter, framing Washington’s actions not as an isolated policy failure but as a systemic assault on the post-1945 international legal architecture.
Notably, the People’s Daily cites IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi’s post-strike statement that no evidence has been found of a systematic Iranian nuclear weapons programme. This is deployed to undermine the stated American casus belli and to insinuate that the military action was driven by political rather than security considerations — a formulation that, while diplomatic in tone, is unmistakably accusatory.
Multilateral Chorus: Marshalling International Voices
A distinctive feature of the People’s Daily piece is its careful marshalling of international authority to reinforce Beijing’s position. The commentary cites UN Secretary-General António Guterres’s invocation of the Charter, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation’s statement opposing the use of force, and the League of Arab States’ call for de-escalation. This layered citation strategy serves a dual purpose: it universalises China’s stance by embedding it within a broader coalition of multilateral actors, and it implicitly positions Beijing as the defender of the rules-based order that Washington claims to champion but — in the People’s Daily’s framing — systematically violates.
The People’s Daily singles out the reported strike on an Iranian primary school as a moment that “profoundly shocked the global conscience.” The invocation of civilian casualties — and specifically of children — serves to heighten the moral indictment, while simultaneously raising the stakes around the Strait of Hormuz and the risk of wider regional conflagration. The commentary insists that the protection of civilians in armed conflict is a non-negotiable red line, and that the spillover of war serves no party’s interests.
Dialogue Over Force: The Diplomatic Track
The article devotes considerable space to lamenting the interruption of what it describes as recent diplomatic progress between Tehran and Washington. The People’s Daily calls for all relevant parties to return to dialogue and negotiation, for the IAEA to fulfil its mandate objectively and impartially, and for the Iranian nuclear issue to be brought back onto the track of peaceful settlement. The emphasis on diplomacy is consistent with Beijing’s longstanding rhetorical commitment to political solutions over military intervention — a principle it has applied, with varying degrees of conviction, from Syria to Ukraine.
The concluding passage of the People’s Daily piece is perhaps the most revealing. China declares itself a “responsible major country” that will continue to work with the international community to promote peace and de-escalation in the Middle East. This self-designation is a staple of Chinese diplomatic discourse, designed to contrast Beijing’s ostensible commitment to multilateralism with what it portrays as Washington’s unilateral coercive behaviour. The phrase “might should never prevail over justice” — the article’s rhetorical climax — encapsulates the broader Chinese narrative: that the US-led international order is not rules-based but power-based, and that China stands on the side of law, equity, and sovereign equality.
The People’s Daily commentary is an exercise in strategic communication, not analytical inquiry. Its purpose is not to explain the crisis but to frame it — and to frame China’s role within it. Several features are worth noting.
First, the piece is carefully calibrated to avoid any direct criticism of Israel as a state. The consistent formulation is “the United States and Israel,” with Washington invariably the leading actor. This reflects Beijing’s longstanding approach of maintaining working relations with Tel Aviv while opposing its military actions in coalition with the US.
Second, the article makes no mention of Iran’s regional proxy network, the IRGC’s extraterritorial operations, or Tehran’s documented missile proliferation to non-state actors. The framing presents Iran as a passive victim of aggression — a sovereign state attacked without cause — rather than as an actor with its own coercive instruments and destabilising activities. This selective narration is consistent with the broader Chinese and Russian approach to the crisis, but it limits the article’s analytical utility.
Third, the invocation of the UN Charter and the Kellogg-Briand Pact is rhetorically potent but also exposes a certain tension in Beijing’s position. China’s own actions in the South China Sea, its military pressure on Taiwan, and its treatment of Uyghurs in Xinjiang have all been characterised by critics as violations of the same international norms it now invokes against Washington. The People’s Daily, predictably, does not address this tension.
Nevertheless, the article is valuable as a primary source for understanding how Beijing is positioning itself as the crisis unfolds: as the champion of the UN-centred international order, as the voice of the Global South, and as a counterweight to what it frames as American lawlessness. Whether this positioning translates into material diplomatic initiative — or remains at the level of rhetorical posture — will be the critical question in the weeks ahead.
Photo: Gemini