
Why Iran War Hurts China More Than America
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
China's energy supply from the Middle East could face severe disruptions as the Israel-Iran conflict threatens to spill over into a wider regional war.
The industrial superpower's $19 trillion economy relies heavily on coal, natural gas and crude oil for manufacturing. China was the world's largest consumer of energy in 2024 and the second-largest consumer of oil behind the United States, according to the London-based Energy Institute.
Why It Matters
Israel has launched a week of airstrikes targeting sites in Iran, including facilities central to Tehran's nuclear program, but its energy export infrastructure has so far been spared. That could change as the war intensifies, and fears are growing that Iranian political leaders could respond to any U.S. military intervention by blockading the strategic Strait of Hormuz.
Officially, China imported no oil from Iran last year. However, energy researchers say Iranian oil delivered via unofficial channels, such as transshipment, largely end up in the country's smaller independent refineries. The U.S. has in the past sanctioned Chinese entities that allegedly assist in Iran's secret oil trade in defiance of Western restrictions.
Over 90 percent of Iran's sanctioned—and therefore cheaper—crude oil exports go to China, mostly via transshipment points such as Malaysia, said commodities analysts at Kpler. But Chinese energy imports are further exposed in or near the Persian Gulf, where six of its top 10 oil suppliers are found according to official data.
What To Know
While Beijing's top oil supplier in 2024 was neighboring Russia, shipments from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Qatar together accounted for over half of China's oil imports, according to Newsweek's analysis of available customs data.
The U.S. bought the bulk of its crude oil from Canada. Saudi Arabia and Iraq were among its top 10 suppliers but only accounted for around 8 percent of its imports.
Energy markets are jittery. U.S. President Donald Trump's call for Iran's "unconditioned surrender" sent up oil prices this week, but global costs would spike if Tehran follows through on its threat to close the Strait of Hormuz, which links the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman and the wider Indian Ocean region.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that up to 20 million barrels of crude oil each day flow through the waterway, which is just 21 miles wide at its narrowest point.
Oil prices are still on the rise as the Israel-Iran missile war enters its seventh day. West Texas Intermediate crude, a U.S. price measurement, topped $76 per barrel, a five-month high. The international standard Brent crude reached $77 per barrel, a four-month high.
A major conflict that cuts off supply lines from the region could result in a global economic shock that sends oil above $100 per barrel. Prices last reached that point after in March 2022, after Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
Officials in Beijing appear to be planning for the worst. China has been building up crude oil stockpiles by refining less than it buys and produces itself, according to Reuters. What's more, disruptions in the Middle East could directly benefit Russia, among the world's top energy exporters.
China's Foreign Ministry did not immediately respond to a written request for comment after hours.
What People Are Saying
Howard J. Shatz, a senior economist at the RAND Corporation, said in analysis published by the think tank this week: "Oil prices jumped with the start of Israel's action against Iran, suggesting that oil markets see increased risk, but it is too soon to reach a concrete judgment on global economic consequences.
"There will be two specific factors to watch to make a better judgment as to global economic consequences: first, whether Iran attacks Gulf Arab oil infrastructure, and second, whether passage through the Strait of Hormuz is blocked. If either or both happen, energy prices are likely to rise much further, raising the risk of a global recession. If neither happens, there will be heightened risk, but more modest energy price increases to which the world can probably adjust, although with a modest drag on growth."
Smoke billows after an Iranian missile struck an oil refinery in Haifa in northern Israel on June 16, 2025.
Smoke billows after an Iranian missile struck an oil refinery in Haifa in northern Israel on June 16, 2025.
Ariel Schalit/AP
What Happens Next
World leaders have moved to inject calm in the Middle East, the latest being Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin, who in a call on Thursday condemned Israel for escalating tensions by striking Iran.
"If the conflict escalates further, not only will the conflicting parties suffer greater losses, but regional countries will also suffer greatly," Xi said, according to China's official Xinhua news agency.
"The parties to the conflict, especially Israel, should cease fire as soon as possible to prevent the situation from escalating in turn and resolutely avoid the spillover of war," he added.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CBS News
23 minutes ago
- CBS News
What to know about the MOP and the B-2, the bunker-buster bomb and plane that could be used to strike Iran
B-2 Spirit Bombers: The planes that could be used to target Iran's Fordo nuclear site Israel's strikes against Iran have killed a number of its top nuclear scientists and battered its nuclear facilities, but complete destruction of Iran's ability to make weapons-grade uranium is believed to be out of reach — unless the U.S. agrees to help. At least one key uranium enrichment site, Fordo, has so far been unscathed. Located 300 feet beneath a mountain and protected by Russian-produced air defenses, Fordo is believed by military experts to be key to Iran's nuclear program. Nuclear non-proliferation experts say this is where Iran has tried to enrich uranium for weapons purposes and expand its stockpile of enriched uranium. Israel's best chance at destroying the facility at Fordo could lie with a U.S.-produced bomb that's so heavy that it can only be dropped by a U.S. plane. At a hearing Wednesday, Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire raised this with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. "It's being reported that the president is being asked to consider providing the bunker-buster bomb that is required to be carried only by the B-2 Bomber and would require a U.S. pilot," she said, asking Hegseth whether he had been asked to provide President Trump with options for striking the Middle East. He declined to answer. Mr. Trump is considering joining Israel's offensive against Iran, and approved attack plans Tuesday, but has not made a final decision, CBS News has reported. The White House said Thursday that the president would make a decision on whether to order a strike within the next two weeks. Sources told CBS News that the president had discussed the logistics of using bunker-buster bombs as he weighs whether to wade into the conflict between Iran and Israel. Massive Ordnance Penetrator bomb In this photo released by the U.S. Air Force on May 2, 2023, airmen look at a GBU-57, or the Massive Ordnance Penetrator bomb, at Whiteman Air Base in Missouri. U.S. Air Force via AP, File The bomb that Shaheen was referring to is the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, known as a MOP. It is designed to attack "deeply-buried facilities and hardened bunkers and tunnels," according to the Air Force. It's guided by military GPS and is meant to reach and destroy targets in well-protected facilities. The MOP measures about 20.5 feet in length and 31.5 inches in diameter, according to the Air Force. It weighs in at just under 30,000 pounds, including about 5,300 pounds of explosive material. The Air Force says that the MOP's explosive power is over 10 times that of its predecessor, the BLU-109. It's designed to penetrate up to 200 feet underground before exploding. The warhead is encased in a special high-performance steel alloy, which is meant to enable it to carry a large explosive payload while maintaining the penetrator case's integrity during impact, according to an Air Force fact sheet. Boeing developed the GBU-57, and as of 2015, the aerospace company had been contracted to produce 20 of them, according to the Air Force. Because of the GBU-57's weight — it's the heaviest bomb produced by the U.S. — the B-2 Spirit is currently the only aircraft in the Air Force that is equipped to carry and deploy it. B-2 Spirit A U.S. Air Force B-2 Spirit stealth bomber lands at RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire. Steve Parsons/PA Images via Getty Images One of the key attributes of the B-2 Spirit is its stealth — it's able to evade air defenses and reach heavily defended targets. It's aerodynamically efficient and its internal weapons bays can carry two of the GBU-57 bombs. Because of what the Air Force refers to as the plane's "low-observable technologies," the B-2 Spirit has a "high level of freedom of action at high altitudes." It's built with a combination of "reduced infrared, acoustic, electromagnetic, visual and radar signatures." This, along with composite materials, special coatings, wing design and other classified processes, make the B-2 difficult for even the most sophisticated defense systems to detect and track. Without refueling, its range is about 6,000 nautical miles. The B-2 took its first flight in 1989, in California, but now, Whiteman Air Force Base, in Missouri, is the only B-2 base. It's been used for airstrikes in the Kosovo War, in Afghanistan and in Iraq. The prime contractor for the B-2 is Northrop Grumman. For years, some lawmakers and defense experts have suggested that the U.S. provide Israel with GBU-57 bombs and jets capable of carrying them — but the idea is controversial, with critics arguing the move would be provocative.

Wall Street Journal
24 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Netanyahu Passes the Begin Test
The world owes a debt of gratitude to Israel's prime minister—not Benjamin Netanyahu but Menachem Begin, who conceived Israel's nuclear nonproliferation strategy. Begin served as Israel's first right-wing prime minister, from 1977 to 1983. Three years into his tenure, he learned that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was building a nuclear reactor. 'I am tormented by this,' Begin told Parliament. 'I see before my eyes my two young nephews murdered in the Holocaust, and all the children of Israel. Back then it was gas; now it's radioactive poison.'


The Intercept
25 minutes ago
- The Intercept
How Democratic Leaders Quietly Support Trump's March to War With Iran
Support Us © THE INTERCEPT ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Some Democrats are fighting to stop war with Iran, but party leaders are silently acquiescing or, worse, supporting an attack. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., conducts a news conference in the U.S. Capitol in Washington on May 20, 2025. Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call via Getty Images As President Donald Trump barrels toward a direct war with Iran, the most powerful Democrats in Congress are issuing statements that are at best tepid and confusing. At worst, they are cheering escalation. Even with some Democrats on Capitol Hill pushing for a War Powers Resolution and other legislation to stop Trump from attacking without congressional approval, the Democratic Party's most powerful politicians refuse to mount any meaningful opposition to a strike. Many outright favor direct U.S. involvement in yet another regime change war. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., the most powerful Democrat in the Senate, where he is the minority leader, presents himself as a major opponent of Trump. As recently as June 15, for example, he boasted about his participation in the No Kings Day mass protest against Trump. Yet when it comes to the prospect of a direct war with Iran, Schumer is not only supporting Trump, but less than three weeks ago was goading the administration to be 'tough' on Iran and not make any 'side deals' without Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's approval. — Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) June 2, 2025 'The United States' commitment to Israel's security and defense must be ironclad as they prepare for Iran's response,' he said in a follow-up statement released on June 13, after Israel attacked Iran. 'The Iranian regime's stated policy has long been to destroy Israel and Jewish communities around the world.' Schumer did include a perfunctory nod to talks — 'a strong, unrelenting diplomatic effort backed by meaningful leverage.' The 'meaningful leverage' in question, however, is bombing Iran — something Schumer tacitly supports. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., the most powerful Democrat in the House, responded to Israel's attack with a toothless statement that was vaguely supportive of war and packed with every pro-Israel cliche in the book. 'Our commitment to Israel's security is ironclad,' he said. 'It is clear that the Iranian regime poses a grave threat to the entire free world. There is no circumstance where Iran can be permitted to become a nuclear power.' Jeffries, too, mentioned diplomacy, but with no urgency. 'As soon as is practical, it is imperative to find a rigorous diplomatic path forward and avoid any situation where U.S. troops are put in harm's way,' he said. As with Schumer, 'diplomacy' is a box to be checked, a vague normative preference, but not a demand — and certainly not a requirement. A host of powerful Democrats issued strikingly similar statements. They repeatedly reinforced every premise of Trump's pending bombing campaign, namely the alleged imminent danger posed by Iran. This premise is undermined by U.S. intelligence assessments and leaks to both the Wall Street Journal and CNN, which suggest Iran hadn't decided to make a bomb and would be three years away from producing one if it did. If all of the statements look similar, it's because, according to DropSite and the American Prospect, many members of Congress are simply copy and pasting approved language from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, the flagship pro-Israel lobby group. These outlets found that, in statements on congressional websites and social media, nearly 30 members of Congress used nearly identical language about how they 'stand with Israel' and another 35 gave their unequivocal support in similar terms but without the magic words. Among the influential Democrats pledging their unflinching support for Israel was Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Like many others, Meeks hauled out a talking point about how 'Israel has a right to defend itself' — meant to front-run any discussion of Israeli aggression by asserting the premise that any and all military action is inherently defensive. It's a dubious premise in most contexts, but especially Orwellian in this one since Israel preemptively attacked Iran based on claims of an 'imminent threat' in direct contradiction of US intelligence. Even if one thinks Israel has a 'right to defend itself' in the abstract, under no neutral reading of international law is Israel doing so by bombing another country without legal basis to do so. The decidedly unhelpful approaches by powerful Democrats don't end there. Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, D-Fla., and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-NH, influential members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, respectively, both issued mealy-mouthed statements trying to split the baby between 'diplomacy' rhetoric and reinforcing every pretense for U.S. involvement in Israel's bombing of Iran. These non-positions — or worse, positions in favor of unprovoked, almost certainly illegal war — are notable precisely because there are some lawmakers who are at least trying to do something to stop a direct, all-out conflict between the U.S. and Iran. According to the latest count by Prem Thakker, 37 members of Congress have thrown their weight behind some kind of effort to stop war. These fall into two camps. The first is a resolution in both the House and Senate that invokes the 1973 War Powers Act, which says that only Congress can declare war, a principle that has been routinely violated by U.S. presidents. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., is leading this push in the Senate, where few cosponsors have signed on. (Someone with knowledge of the effort told us that the organizers aren't accepting co-sponsors in a bid to gain bipartisan support first.) Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky. and Ro Khanna, D-Calif., are leading the sister effort in the House, and it has 28 supporters total, including Reps. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. D-N.Y. A total of 27, or 12.7 percent, of House Democrats have lent the bill their support. There is another effort afoot, too: the No War Against Iran Act that was already in motion before Israel attacked Iran on June 13, though it was introduced after the attacks began. The Senate bill, spearheaded by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., would prevent federal funds from being used for a war that's not approved by Congress. Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisc., are among its eight Senate supporters. Democratic leaders, however, are leaving their colleagues out to dry. Schumer, for instance, declined to join Sanders's bill as a cosponsor — despite having cosponsored the same effort in 2020. This tacit and open support for Trump's war aren't limited to active leadership; the upper echelons of the party establishment have been noticeably silent. Democratic elites by and large agree with both Israel's unprovoked attacks on Iran and Trump's direct involvement. Presidents Joe Biden and Barack Obama haven't publicly opposed Trump's reckless threats and build-up to war with Iran. Obama, for example, has re-emerged into the spotlight — but made no mention of Iran or Trump's push for war during a public appearance this week. Former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton — despite frequently criticizing Trump for his military parade, detainment of a U.S. senator, and anti-abortion policies — hasn't spoken in opposition to a US war with Iran. And, likewise, 2024 Democratic nominee Kamala Harris, who has been speaking out against Trump, has yet to publicly criticize Trump's build up to bombing Iran. Surveying these responses — somewhere between muted disinterest and consent — there's only one plausible conclusion: Democratic elites by and large agree with both Israel's unprovoked attacks on Iran and Trump's direct involvement in this potentially catastrophic regime change war. It's unlikely most Democratic hawks will come out in open support of an attack that carries such political risks; like with Iraq 20 years ago, things could quickly go off the rails. Yet, even as party leaders seek to burnish their credentials as the 'resistance' to Trump, they're tacitly, and sometimes openly, giving Trump a green light to lurch America into yet another open-ended war of choice. Join The Conversation