U.S. Intelligence Shows China Taking a More Active Role in Iran War
China may have shipped missiles to Iran, and Beijing is allowing some companies to sell Tehran supplies that can be used in military production, American officials said.
Mark MazzettiEric Schmitt and Julian E. Barnes
(Reporting from Washington)
American intelligence agencies have obtained information that China in recent weeks may have sent a shipment of shoulder-fired missiles to Iran for its conflict with the United States and Israel, according to U.S. officials.
The officials said that the intelligence is not definitive that the shipment has been sent, and that there is no evidence that the Chinese missiles have yet been used against American or Israeli forces during the conflict.
But even a debate in Beijing over sending missiles to Iran suggests the degree that China sees itself as having a stake in the conflict. Intelligence agencies have assessed that China is secretly taking an active stance in the war, allowing some companies to ship chemicals, fuel and components that can be used in military production to Iran for the war.
Shoulder fired missiles, known as MANPADS, are capable of shooting down low-flying aircraft.
China has long been reluctant to send finished military equipment to Iran, but some officials in the government want Beijing to allow its companies to directly supply the Iranian security forces during the conflict with the United States.
If the Chinese government did allow the shipment of missiles, it would be a significant escalation and an indication that at least some of China’s leaders are working actively to bring about an American military defeat in a war that has engulfed the Middle East.
The intelligence about possible Chinese support to Iran comes as American intelligence agencies have seen evidence that Russia has provided the Iranian military with specific satellite intelligence to help Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps target American ships, along with military and diplomatic installations throughout the Middle East.
Taken together, the military support to Iran shows how America’s powerful adversaries have seen an opportunity to raise the costs for the United States for launching the war and to potentially bog down the American military in the conflict.
Chinese support to Iran comes at a delicate moment in US-China relations. President Trump is planning next month to travel to China to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping, a summit that is expected to focus on a range of trade, technology and military issues. The summit was originally scheduled for March, but was delayed because of the Iran war.
American intelligence agencies have been carefully tracking what support Russia and China have provided to Iran during the war. American officials have seen Russia as more eager to help, sending food aid, nonlethal military supplies and satellite imagery to Tehran. But Moscow appears to have ruled out providing any offensive or defensive military equipment, for fear of provoking the United States.
Chinese officials overall have been eager to protect, at least publicly, their image as a neutral party. Former officials say that Iran is reliant on China for parts that go into its missiles and drones, but Beijing is able to argue that those components, however crucial, can be used to manufacture more than just weaponry. China also provided some intelligence and supplied dual-use parts to Iran, much as they provided to Russia during its war with Ukraine.
A CNN report on Saturday said that China was preparing to send a shipment of shoulder-fired missiles to Iran in the coming weeks.
A spokesman for China’s embassy to the United States strongly denied his government had shipped missiles to Iran during the war.
“China has never provided weapons to any party in the conflict; the information in question is untrue,” said Liu Pengyu, the spokesman. “As a responsible major country, China consistently fulfills its international obligations. We urge the U.S. side to refrain from making baseless allegations, maliciously drawing connections, and engaging in sensationalism; we hope that relevant parties will do more to help de-escalate tensions.”
China is heavily dependent on oil that passes through the Strait of Hormuz, and is anxious not to do anything that extends the war, according to American officials. At the same time, at least some Chinese officials are interested in supporting Tehran in a war that is seen as weakening American standing and strength.
China is Iran’s largest trading partner, and the largest purchaser of Iranian oil. According to a report by the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, a group founded by Congress to examine America’s bilateral ties to China, “Chinese purchases account for roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported oil, providing tens of billions of dollars in annual revenue that supports Iran’s government budget and military activities.”
Still, China experts have noted that China’s public rhetoric during the Iran war has been mostly neutral, possibly because of the deep economic ties that China has with Arab nations in the Persian Gulf which have been under attack by Iran during the conflict.
“If anything, they are siding rhetorically more so with their Gulf partners than with Iran,” said Henrietta Levin of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “The economic, the technological relationship, the energy relationship with the Gulf is in many ways more strategically significant for China than anything it has with Iran.” *NYT*
================================================================================================
Anton Troianovski contributed reporting from Washington.
Mark Mazzetti is an investigative reporter based in Washington, D.C., focusing on national security, intelligence, and foreign affairs. He has written a book about the C.I.A.
Eric Schmitt is a national security correspondent for The Times. He has reported on U.S. military affairs and counterterrorism for more than three decades.
Julian E. Barnes covers the U.S. intelligence agencies and international security matters for The Times. He has written about security issues for more than two decades.