China has urged the United States and Iran to return to the negotiating table after Washington launched an operation to close the Strait of Hormuz on Monday and threatened to impose 50% tariffs on countries providing weapons to Tehran.

US President Donald Trump, on April 12, threatened to impose a 50% tariff on China following reports that Beijing was preparing to deliver air defense systems to Iran, signaling a broader effort to deter external support for Tehran and potentially to expand pressure on other trading partners. 

Chinese commentators said Washington is attempting to exert “extreme pressure” on Beijing in a bid to force it to push Iran toward concessions aligned with US demands. They argued that after failing to secure breakthroughs on the battlefield or at the negotiating table, the US is increasingly turning to trade measures and tariff threats to gain leverage.

“Trump has changed his tactics. The White House wants to combine military pressure with Israel and use tariffs to cut off Iran’s external ‘lifelines’,” a Henan-based columnist writing under the pen name “Da Bao” says, referring to Iran’s “lifelines” as its income from crude oil shipment to China. 

“The US is warning China not to send military equipment to Iran. Its goal is not to enforce rules, but to set a precedent for it to weaponize tariffs in military conflicts,” he says. “But what does it mean by ‘military’? Drone components, semiconductors and maintenance services? Today, it refers to ‘weapons,’ but tomorrow it could be ‘technology’ and ‘financing.’ This is an extension of political coercion.”

He says using tariffs as a strategic weapon in a hot war reflects declining US capacity to mobilize allies and build consensus, as well as Washington’s growing difficulty in resolving issues through targeted measures.

“Trump threatened a 50% tariff on China based on speculation that Beijing is helping Iran, but there is no evidence China has supplied it with weapons,” says Ming Yue, a Hebei-based writer. “China is Iran’s second-largest source of imports, with the two countries’ bilateral trade totaling US$9.96 billion last year. Chinese shipments included machinery and electrical goods, auto parts, textiles and metal products, not tanks, missiles and ammunition.”

She adds that some US media and officials are framing this large volume of legitimate economic activity as military support, using it as a pretext to cast China in a negative light and heighten tensions in line with domestic political and electoral agendas.

“China has already diversified its exports toward the European Union and ASEAN, so additional US tariffs will have a limited impact. In practice, the costs of tariffs are likely to be passed on to US consumers and businesses, while American firms with exposure to China, such as Apple and Tesla, could also see disruptions to production and revenue,” she says.

She says the public has gotten used to “TACO,”  or Trump Always Chickens Out, where threats are escalated and then partly rolled back.

Sacrificing Hezbollah

In early April, Trump warned of potential military strikes against Iran and said the country would be pushed back to the “Stone Age” if it failed to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. In the last 1.5 hours before the deadline set by Trump on April 7, the US, Iran and Israel reached a two-week provisional ceasefire.  

The agreement, set to expire on April 21, had raised hopes of de-escalation in the region. 

However, on April 8, Israel launched large-scale airstrikes across Beirut, the Bekaa Valley and southern regions of Lebanon. The strikes were reportedly aimed at eliminating Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem but instead killed his nephew and personal secretary, Ali Yusuf Harshi.  

On April 11, US Vice President JD Vance met with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi to seek a long-term ceasefire agreement during negotiations in Islamabad, Pakistan.

The US side demanded that Tehran give up its stockpile of highly enriched uranium and halt nuclear weapons-related capabilities, while Iranian negotiators rejected the proposal. Iranian officials also refused Washington’s proposal to jointly manage the Strait of Hormuz. They said the ceasefire deal must cover Lebanon, but Israel kept hunting Hezbollah’s leaders.

The US-Iran talks, which lasted about 21 hours, ended without agreement.

Some Chinese commentators said that if Tehran had known Israel would attack Lebanon, it would not have accepted a 14-day ceasefire. They see it as a trap jointly set by the US and Israel to reset pressure on Iran while preserving military leverage.

A Guangdong-based writer using the pen name “Lao Ge” cites the wisdom of The Commentary of Zuo, an ancient Chinese narrative history about the State of Lu (currently Shandong province) from 722 to 481 BCE, saying that an army must “press the advantage once, or it will become weaker the second time and exhausted the third” during a war.

He says the provisional ceasefire is “a carefully designed trap” and that the two-week pause could mark not a respite for Iran but the beginning of a strategic setback. He outlines three risks:

• Loss of momentum: Iran’s wartime mobilization weakens once the ceasefire takes effect. Public mood shifts from urgency to relief, reducing deterrence and resolve.
• Pressure on allies: While Iran pauses, Israel continues striking Hezbollah in Lebanon. If Iran intervenes, it risks breaking the ceasefire; if it does not, Hezbollah could be steadily weakened.
• Loss of leverage: Reopening the Strait of Hormuz removes Iran’s strongest bargaining chip, stabilizes global oil markets and gives the US time to reinforce military assets in the region.

He says that, looking back, Tehran may have been better served by maintaining pressure despite US threats on April 7 and having some power plants destroyed, rather than losing its allies in Lebanon.

“The Strait of Hormuz is a decisive issue in the success or failure of current US-Iran negotiations,” said Qin Tian, deputy director of the Institute of Middle East Studies at the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations (CICIR).

“For Iran, the Strait is one of the most effective tools in its confrontation with the US and Israel, and a key asset in its national security toolkit,” he said. “Tehran should use this leverage to secure sufficient concessions.”

He said the competition between the US and Iran over control of the Strait of Hormuz will intensify further.

Beijing’s responses

On Monday, the US moved to enforce the blockade through naval operations in the Gulf of Oman, targeting vessels linked to Iranian trade while allowing neutral shipping to pass. US Central Command warned that ships breaching the restricted zone could be intercepted, highlighting the scale of the operation.

The US said its forces have also begun mine-clearing efforts in and around the Strait of Hormuz after reports that Iranian forces deployed naval mines, disrupting a significant share of global oil flows. US officials said reopening shipping lanes could be slow and carry operational risks.

Guo Jiakun, a spokesperson for China’s Foreign Ministry, said the Strait of Hormuz is an important international route for goods and energy trade, and that keeping the area safe, stable and open serves the common interests of the international community.

“The root cause of the disruption at the Strait of Hormuz is the military conflict. To solve the issue, the conflict must stop as soon as possible. All parties need to remain calm and exercise restraint,” he said. “China will continue playing a constructive role.”

Chinese Defense Minister Admiral Dong Jun warned Washington against imposing a blockade on the Strait of Hormuz and cautioned it not to interfere in China’s bilateral ties with Iran.

“China has trade and energy agreements with Iran, and we expect others not to interfere in our affairs,” he said, adding that the Strait of Hormuz remains open to Chinese shipping.

Read: China imports US oil for Asian fuel markets amid Hormuz crisis

Follow Jeff Pao on X at @jeffpao3