Criticism portraying China as "passive" in global crises, particularly in the context of the United States-Israel-Iran conflict, overlooks a key dimension of its strategic thinking. The issue is not inaction, but rather how, when, and within which boundaries action should take place.

Recent statements by China's Foreign Ministry have been explicit. Beijing has condemned the US-Israel strikes as violations of international law conducted without authorization by the United Nations, reaffirmed its support for Iran's sovereignty and territorial integrity, and emphasized that diplomacy, not war, should be the primary path forward.

It has focused on diplomatic engagement, regional coordination and efforts to contain escalation.

China and Pakistan have proposed a five-point initiative on Tuesday aimed at restoring peace and stability in the Gulf and Middle East, emphasizing immediate cessation of hostilities, the commencement of peace talks, civilian protection, the safeguarding of shipping lanes, and upholding the primacy of the United Nations Charter, as they stress diplomacy and multilateralism as the path forward.

This apparent contradiction — strong words but no military action — has led some observers to interpret China's position as passive.

However, a more accurate interpretation may be found in what can be described as a "red light theory" of governance. The principle suggests that progress is not simply about moving forward at maximum speed, but about understanding when to stop, when to wait and when to proceed with caution.

From this perspective, China's Iran policy can be seen as a calibrated approach. Beijing openly opposes the actions of the US and Israel and supports Iran's sovereignty.

At the same time, it avoids transforming this support into a military alliance that could further widen the conflict. In essence, China is signaling that even when conditions appear favorable, restraint remains a strategic choice.

What may look like passivity from the outside is, in fact, a form of disciplined and controlled engagement.

This approach also reflects a nuanced understanding of strategic loyalty. China's position implicitly challenges a common assumption in international politics: that partnership requires unconditional alignment.

Instead, Beijing appears to define loyalty within the boundaries of legitimacy. Supporting a partner does not necessarily mean assuming all its risks. Rather, it involves offering diplomatic and political backing while avoiding actions that could destabilize the broader system.

At a deeper level, this strategic posture resonates with elements of classical Chinese thought. In the Confucian tradition, yi (righteousness) emphasizes moral correctness, while li (order and propriety) defines the appropriate way of acting. In other words, being right is not sufficient; one must also act in the right way. China's emphasis on sovereignty, legal frameworks and diplomatic procedure reflects this intellectual lineage.

Similarly, the Daoist concept of wuwei — often misunderstood as inaction — can be interpreted as acting effectively without forcing outcomes that disrupt the natural balance. China's reliance on diplomacy, energy security considerations and regional stability mechanisms rather than direct military intervention can be seen as a modern geopolitical expression of this principle.

From a strategic perspective, this approach aligns with classical military thought. As Sun Tzu observed, the highest form of victory is achieved without fighting, while the worst strategy is to expand conflict impulsively. For China, the risks are not limited to Iran's position alone, but extend to the potential disruption of energy flows through the Strait of Hormuz, regional fragmentation and premature entanglement in great power confrontation.

In this context, labeling China's Iran policy as "passive" becomes an oversimplification. Beijing is neither disengaged nor indifferent. It is actively involved, but in a manner that prioritizes control, legality and long-term stability over immediate escalation.

China is not ignoring the intersection — it is approaching it with caution. It does not run the red light, but it does not abandon the road either. This form of strategic restraint may not satisfy those expecting more visible action, but it reflects a consistent and historically grounded approach to managing complex international crises.

The author is an associate professor at Harran University in Turkey.

The views don't necessarily reflect those of China Daily.

If you have a specific expertise, or would like to share your thought about our stories, then send us your writings at opinion@chinadaily.com.cn, and comment@chinadaily.com.cn.