A Chinese commentary published during the Lunar New Year warns that a large-scale war between the United States, Israel and Iran may be closer than many assume. The piece frames the threat as sudden and unexpected, arguing that diplomacy and battlefields are sometimes separated by little more than a single miscalculation or impulse.
The essay says Washington and Jerusalem have increasingly prepared for coordinated military action after talks with Tehran reached an impasse. It cites reporting that American leaders have refused to schedule another negotiating round while weighing “major military options,” and relays Israeli media assessments that a sustained campaign — not a brief strike — could begin imminently.
On the ground, the commentary describes an already elevated posture: Israel has raised readiness across frontline commands and emergency services, hospitals have been warned to prepare for casualties, and U.S. air assets and refuellers are said to be moving toward the Middle East after transits through Europe. The piece highlights a recent remark by the U.S. president that Diego Garcia could be used against Iranian targets, and treats that remark as evidence of serious planning.
Tehran’s response is presented as reciprocal escalation rather than conciliation. The commentary quotes Supreme Leader statements that call U.S. carriers “dangerous” while warning Iran’s missile arsenal is capable of sinking them, and lists Iranian preparations that include deploying forces in the Strait of Hormuz, dispersing command structures to survive decapitation strikes, hardening nuclear facilities and encouraging proxy actors such as Hezbollah and the Houthis to strike U.S. or Israeli interests.
At the heart of the analysis is the assertion that current talks are unlikely to bridge a fundamental divide: the United States demands a sweeping rollback of Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities and a crippling of the Revolutionary Guard, while Tehran fears that any concession will be the first step toward regime change and a loss of control over its oil. The commentary argues that these positions are asymmetrical and mutually incompatible — conditions that, in its view, make confrontation more likely than compromise.
The stakes extend well beyond Tehran and Jerusalem. A sustained U.S.–Israeli campaign would risk dragging proxies into open combat, disrupting global energy supplies by imperiling shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, and provoking retaliatory strikes on U.S. bases and allied infrastructure across the region. For markets and maritime trade the immediate consequences could include higher oil prices, insurance costs and rerouted shipping lanes.
For Beijing the piece reads as both a warning and a reminder of strategic vulnerability. China imports a large share of its oil through the Gulf and depends on secure maritime routes for trade and investment tied to the Belt and Road. A widening war would force China to weigh its diplomatic posture, protect citizens and commercial interests abroad, and navigate intensifying U.S.–Iran–Israel tensions without becoming entangled militarily.
The essay concludes with a bleak but familiar observation: peace is not the default of international life. It urges Chinese readers to cherish stability at home and to appreciate the value of a powerful, peaceful China in a turbulent world. Whether the threatened campaign unfolds within days or months, the author warns, will depend on political calculations in Washington and Jerusalem — and on how Tehran and its regional allies respond to pressure.
The immediacy of the warnings in the Chinese commentary reflects wider anxiety across capitals: the risks of miscalculation are high, and the regional and global costs of escalation would be substantial. Diplomacy remains a possible alternative, but the piece makes clear that current bargaining positions and displays of force have increased the probability of a violent outcome.