Why US and China Middle East diplomacy failed to prevent war

Tehran, Tel Aviv, and cities across the Middle East are under fire. But these missile barrages didn’t erupt from a vacuum—they represent the boiling point of long-simmering hostilities. For years, Israel and Iran waged a cold war in the shadows: assassinations, cyber sabotage, proxy militias stretching from Syria to the Red Sea. The gloves are now off.

Moments of apparent diplomatic progress preceded this descent. The 2020 Abraham Accords realigned the region, as Israel and several Arab states formalized ties. That shift marginalized the Palestinian question and left Iran increasingly isolated. Western powers, especially the US, lauded the moment as a turning point. Then came China’s diplomatic surprise: a 2023 détente between Saudi Arabia and Iran, marking Beijing’s bold entry into the Middle East peace arena. And yet, the region is once again engulfed in war. The real question isn’t just how this happened—but why neither of the world’s superpowers could stop it.

1. America’s Shrinking Footprint

For decades, Washington played the part of regional anchor—sometimes stabilizer, often enforcer. But much of that stability was purchased through brute force, arms deals, and alliances rooted more in convenience than trust. That model has unraveled.

As strategic priorities shifted eastward, US engagement in the Middle East faded. The Obama-era pivot to Asia and Biden’s cautious approach to foreign entanglements signaled a clear message: the region was no longer center stage. The 2021 withdrawal from Afghanistan only cemented the impression. In its absence, traditional allies such as Israel and Saudi Arabia were left to recalibrate—and adversaries like Iran seized the opportunity to test limits.

Then came Washington’s wavering Iran policy. By abandoning the nuclear deal (JCPOA), the Trump administration dismantled a key diplomatic framework. Biden’s subsequent failure to restore it left Iran unchecked. Without inspections or constraints, Tehran accelerated its enrichment program while deepening its regional footprint through Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Shi’a militias.

Calls for restraint from the Biden administration ring hollow in this context. They offer posture, not deterrence. Strategic ambiguity has given way to perceived impotence—allowing Israel to strike preemptively and Iran to respond in kind.

2. China’s Symbolic Diplomacy Falls Short

When China brokered a deal between Riyadh and Tehran in early 2023, observers heralded it as a paradigm shift. For the first time, Beijing stepped into a space long dominated by US diplomacy. The optics were impressive. The substance? Much less so. The agreement restored diplomatic ties and encouraged trade but skirted around the core security issues. It offered no blueprint for restraining Iran’s proxies or addressing Israel’s red lines on nuclear proliferation. Most critically, it excluded Israel altogether—despite its centrality to the region’s security calculus.

Beijing’s tools for peace are limited by design. It doesn’t field regional troops, offer security guarantees, or participate in collective defense frameworks. Its influence is economic, not coercive. In peacetime, that neutrality earns China trust. In wartime, it renders Beijing irrelevant.

And while China’s Belt and Road Initiative is reshaping infrastructure and commerce across the Middle East, it hasn’t translated into political leverage. As conflict erupted, Beijing offered statements urging calm—but no mediation, no pressure, no enforcement. A diplomatic actor unwilling to risk its chips is simply a spectator.

3. The Era of Regional Freelancers

Look beyond Washington and Beijing, and a more telling story emerges: the region’s own power centers are increasingly charting their own course. Israel’s aerial campaign inside Iranian territory marks a major doctrinal shift. For years, it operated mostly through deniable means—targeted hits in Syria, cyber sabotage, low-profile ops. Now, it’s striking Iranian soil directly, signaling a strategic bet: better to degrade Iran’s capabilities today than risk facing a nuclear-armed adversary tomorrow.

Iran’s response reveals its own calculus. Tehran appears confident that the global appetite for another Middle Eastern war is nil. Through ballistic missile volleys and mobilized proxies—from Hezbollah to the Houthis—it is testing how far it can go before triggering a wider confrontation. So far, the answer appears to be: further than many expected.

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia and the UAE are playing their cards with studied ambiguity. These Gulf powers are deepening energy ties with China, maintaining security arrangements with the US, and quietly engaging with Iran. By spreading their bets, they reduce dependency—but also erode the coherence of any external security architecture. What emerges is a Middle East where no single power calls the shots—and where collective action has become nearly impossible.

4. Global Ripples of a Regional War

One of the first global casualties of this conflict has been market stability. The threat to energy infrastructure and shipping chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz—through which one-fifth of the world’s oil passes—has already driven up crude prices. Even though no major facilities have been disabled yet, the possibility alone has spooked investors and inflated risk premiums.

Wider markets are also reacting with alarm. Commercial airspace over parts of the region is restricted. Tourism is drying up. Corporations are rethinking logistics hubs in the Gulf. When war clouds gather, the impact isn’t just felt in headlines—it creeps into supply chains, inflation expectations, and consumer confidence.

Diplomatically, the picture is even more fractured. Washington appears trapped in a holding pattern: condemning violence without reasserting control. China, for all its ambitions, is proving unwilling to step up. Both have learned the same lesson, albeit from different angles: influence without enforcement is a mirage.

For the people living through this—especially in Israel and Iran—this war is not abstract. It is loss, destruction, and fear. While states posture and superpowers hedge, civilians bear the cost.

This latest war is less a surprise than a verdict. It confirms what many have quietly feared: that the global architecture meant to preserve peace in the Middle East is no longer functional. The US has withdrawn from its role as enforcer without building a replacement. China has entered the arena as a symbolic player, but not a strategic one.

In their absence, local actors are filling the void with their own logic—one rooted not in compromise, but in preemption and survival. Israel is acting because it no longer believes anyone else will. Iran is retaliating because it no longer fears meaningful consequences.

The region has entered a post-American, post-unipolar phase. The danger now is not just escalation, but normalization of this cycle. Without a new framework for deterrence—one that aligns regional security needs with great power diplomacy—conflict may become the default. Peace, for now, is not just elusive. It is structurally out of reach.