Iran-Saudi Arabia Reconciliation| Research Paper | Security Lense | 30-April-2025
This research analyzes China’s role in resolving the 2023 dispute between Iran and Saudi Arabia, discussing what the outcome means for conflict resolution theories and methods in today’s multipolar environment. Rather than following Western patterns, China managed to bring about peace between the two by combining economics, strategic neutrality and quiet diplomatic action.
By adopting a qualitative case study methodology, this paper highlights why China, as the biggest trade partner with the US and having a neutral stance, was able to resolve issues that traditional mediators failed to tackle. The research challenges previous assumptions about mediation by proving that interest-based, informal approaches work well in difficult conflicts. Besides, the case reveals China’s growing presence in Middle Eastern security affairs and the opportunity for economic cooperation to bring about positive diplomatic outcomes.
This study helps understand mediation in conflicts where sides are not equal and provides practical ideas for alternative models of handling international conflicts outside the traditional West-centered approaches. Problems with enduring conflicts and the intentions behind China’s strategies are also analyzed in depth.
Research Background
The reconciliation arranged by China between Iran and Saudi Arabia last March demonstrates that Western-led conflict resolution models are being challenged. The fact that a rising power was able to settle intractable conflicts by encouraging economic cooperation shows that conventional thinking about diplomacy may not be correct.
The research aims to thoroughly study this unique case to find out its immediate international effects and what it adds to our understanding of international mediation. To better understand how alternative methods for resolving conflicts work in a more multipolar world, this study will examine China’s unique way of doing things: using low-profile diplomacy, giving economic incentives and avoiding ideological commitments.
Most research on international mediation looks at Western-led methods, including those run by the United Nations or based on diplomacy by liberal great powers. Involvement in the Iran-Saudi conflict by China signals a new method of mediation that is based on money and neutrality, not security.
This research aims to fill this gap by discussing how China’s role as biggest trade partner allowed it to stay clear of confrontations over ideological issues between the two countries. The research will use theories from mediation, economic and power transition fields to examine how changes in the international order give rise to new opportunities for different types of mediators.
The research methodology combines case studies of key diplomatic events from 2021 to 2023 with a comparison of previous mediation efforts by Oman and Iraq. By analyzing joint trilateral statements, official statements from the media and diplomatic cables, the reconstruction of China’s mediation strategy can be carried out.
Semi-structured interviews with regional policy specialists and Track II diplomats will be used to assess what happens behind the scenes during the negotiations whenever possible. Having this empirical base allows us to examine how stable are these agreements, since they are made through economic means instead of established conflict resolution processes.
The study is anticipated to offer three important contributions. It provides new knowledge for conflict resolution studies by examining liberal institutionalist theories and suggesting a different way to study mediation in situations where one side has more power. Empirically, it provides the first detailed look at China’s role in security matters in the Middle East which is missing from current studies.
In practice, the results will offer guidance to policymakers about the potential advantages and disadvantages of economic-incentivized diplomacy in places where traditional mediators lack legitimacy. The findings can be applied to understanding how China is helping to change the rules of global governance which may have relevance for other long-running disputes such as those in the Koreas and the South China Sea.
Ethics is always at the forefront of research and researchers will always keep private interview data secure by obeying GDPR and the rules established by the review board. This study covers three months, starting with archival study and analysis of primary resources. By connecting theory and practice, this research hopes to clarify China’s role in mediation and encourage new discussions on conflict resolution in the modern era.
Introduction
One of the biggest problems in Middle East politics at present is the rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia due to many disagreements about religion, strategy and history. After the 1979 revolution turned Iran into an Islamic state, the country’s connection with Saudi Arabia has mainly revolved around different ideologies, deeper division between groups and fighting through proxies elsewhere.
The fighting brought a big change to the region because it pitted Iran, Hezbollah and the Houthis against Saudi Arabia and its Sunni allies, sometimes with the support of Western nations. People frequently see the sectarian side as a problem between Shi’ites and Sunnis, but it’s more detailed; Iranian support for fighting Western influence clashes with the Saudi Arabian model of being a monarchy and the guardian of Islamic holy places.
The removal of the Sunni-led regime in Iraq after its capture by the U.S. in 2003 meant that Iran’s allies, who were Shi’a, could raise their influence. Since Saudi Arabia believed Iran was threatening its very existence through its growing role in both Baghdad and Beirut, it became more open about its confrontations with Iran. The relationship hit a key turning point in 2016, when Saudi Arabia’s execution of Shi’a cleric Nimr al-Nimr led to protests in Iran and led to relations being broken off.
At their lowest point, the two nations exchanged indirect and direct attacks, most destructively in Yemen, where a Saudi-led coalition sided against Houthi rebels who were aided by Iran, resulting in one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises. When Oman, Iraq and Pakistan took part in regional mediation at this time, their efforts did not go far, as these approaches showed their shortcomings in handling this urgent dispute.
The reason the situation remains unresolved is due to its mixed challenges of belief, global politics and security. For Riyadh, Iran’s nuclear research and missile work plus its help to regional groups were unacceptable risks. In addition, Iran interpreted Saudi Arabia’s relationship with the United States and its acceptance of Israel as efforts to break up the Islamic Republic’s influence.
Since both nations thought the other was threatening, everything they did to stay safe seemed like a threat to the other which led to higher tensions. Because communication was difficult, mistrust spread and led to many misunderstandings and mistakes.
In the period 2021-2023, China tried to help settle the issue which was unlike what had been done in the past. Unlike Western nations, who mainly interacted with the region through deals on the Iran nuclear program or joint measures against terrorism, China established ties mainly by means of trade.
Because China is Iran’s and Saudi Arabia’s biggest trade partner and has built most of the BRI’s regional projects, it had advantaged that other mediator did not. Beijing managed to be seen as a reliable peace broker by keeping away from regional fights and focusing on development which Western and regional mediators had not achieved.
The way China mediates success challenges the main ideas in conflict resolution research. Experts in liberal institutionalism often point out that having neutral mediators, matching norms or systems in place helps lead to peace. Unlike the US and NATO, China’s method proves that economic interdependence and compromise on interests, rather than similar values or guarantees, can bring success.
In this way, the case supports new critiques of Western-centric conflict approaches and shows how the rise of new powers is transforming the way global peacemaking works during this period of change. The analysis looks at this phenomenon through a number of theories and evaluates what it means for the stability in the region and for international relations theory in general.
Initially, the study explains the historical and theoretical aspects of the conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Second, it examines the methods China applied as a mediator. It also reviews how the Iran-Saudi agreement has worked out so far and looks at the chances that these results will be kept in the long term.
Finally, the study considers the broader significance of these efforts for conflict resolution in a world where more countries have influence. By using this framework, the research shows how Middle Eastern diplomacy changed and what new methods were used to handle conflicts in the first two decades of the 21st century.
China’s Interest-Based Mediation between Iran-Saudi Arabia: A New Diplomatic Paradigm
China’s attempt to help settle the dispute between Iran and Saudi Arabia represents an original strategy, as it focuses on interest, not on normative uniformity or pledges of military backup. The strategy was based on three closely related elements: economic influence, neutral foreign policy and dealing with nations based on short-term objectives.
With China serving as its biggest trade partner and main investor in the BRI, Sri Lanka was motivated to cooperate because of China’s economic strength. By linking reconciliation to ensuring security for the BRI in the Middle East and safeguarding projects worth 65 billion in Saudi Arabia and 400 billion in Iran, China converted its trade deals into diplomatic tools. Both countries found themselves in a special situation where further fighting could cost them a valuable economic partner.
The positive result was due in large part to China’s strategic decision to stay neutral. Compared to the West, China continued to have economic and diplomatic ties with rivals and refrained from joining their struggles over ideology. Beijing hosted the talks which helped make it a politically neutral location far removed from the Middle East.
China chose not to discuss human rights or democracy, as the West did, but rather helped Afghanistan right away by restarting its embassy and trading activities. China was considered a helpful partner in deals by both regimes, so they found the pragmatic approach appealing.
When seeing this strategy in practice, it appeared that China chose secret diplomacy by elites instead of relying on popular opposition or unified actions. For two years, (2021–2023), talks were kept discreet, while the public did not hear much until the deal was signed, a very different approach than the well-known Western efforts for the JCPOA.
Because the negotiations were private, neither regime had to worry about its domestic stature, since the outcomes seemed positive for everyone. Yet, the strategy showed limits because it did not include ways to check progress; China helped get the agreement signed, but let the parties handle the implementation, reflecting its preference for a hands-off style of handling conflicts long after negotiations.
According to the theoretical view, China has created a special form of mediation that focuses on economic solutions rather than normative or security ones. It is most effective when mediators can capitalize on different levels of economic dependency among the conflicting parties and when the parties put greater value on their independence than on liberal peacebuilding.
Still, China’s ability to repeat this policy may be limited to situations where its economic involvement is similar and where both sides believe they will gain from reducing tensions. Emphasizing deals among leaders, rather than resolving issues for all, means the agreements could go away if other players are not involved, a situation that still affects the way the Iran-Saudi Arabia détente is being carried out.
The Trilateral Joint Statement between Iran-Saudi Arabia
This March 10, 2023, joint statement by China, Iran-Saudi Arabia is a major step forward in Middle Eastern diplomacy and demonstrates China’s unique style of addressing conflicts. Multiple rounds of secret talks in Beijing led to the agreement and China helped restore relations between the Saudi and Iranian governments after seven years without ties.
Its significance comes from its immediate results and from presenting a type of conflict resolution that stresses practical concerns, united nations by building confidence and relies on bilateral processes rather than multilateral institutions.
Basically, the joint statement created a way for both countries to establish normal relations using three main and supporting areas. First, it required both countries to restore full diplomatic relations within two months and reopen their embassies and consulates, also reviving a 2001 agreement for security cooperation. The provision dealt with the main sign of the rift and established agencies for future talks.
The agreement also made sure that each country would not interfere in the other’s domestic matters, a point negotiated to prevent Yemen, Lebanon and Iraq from becoming arenas for proxy wars without either nation abandoning its allies. Besides, the text suggested more joint cooperation on economic and technical issues, hinting at China’s important role as a trading partner and leader in major infrastructure projects through the Belt and Road Initiative.
Importance of Political Will
Because Iran-Saudi Arabia both agreed to settle their differences, China’s efforts to mediate saw success, as there was no other force capable of achieving this result. The fact that Yemen faced a costly stalemate, that Saudi Arabia aims to diversify its economy and that U.S. security commitments were doubted, gave Saudi Arabia plenty of reasons to address regional tensions.
Healthy relations with the region were needed by Iran, since they were dealing with financial pressures from sanctions and turmoil at home. Both systems considered Chinese mediation a means to get useful results without seeming to surrender their key beliefs to the West.
Whether the agreement endures will be based on if these parties’ interests remain in line, since China’s approach is only able to help, not make the political decisions for conflicting parties. It proves that, even with the most skilled mediators, it is ultimately up to the combatants to decide they gain more from peace than from more fighting.
Outcomes & Implications
China helped Iran and Saudi Arabia set aside their differences, leading to a decline in regional tensions and new negotiations to end the war in Yemen. This achievement brings immediate change and also supports China’s increasing role in security in both the Global South and the Middle East, providing these countries with ways to break free from U.S. influence in world matters.
Basically, the study proves that creating peace between rivals requires fair trade and being neutral, not by having democracies or fighting for them and this can help solve other challenging conflicts worldwide.
Criticisms & Challenges
Even though China played a key role in the diplomatic breakthrough, its strategy has some weaknesses such as launching little action to address ongoing tensions and not using clear methods to guarantee continued obedience to the deal.
Experts have also wondered if China tried to help both sides or if the agreement was more about China taking advantage of the situation to advance its regional importance by weakening the U.S.’s influence. Because conflict resolution mainly depends on economic approaches, the model leaves open the possibility that China’s peaceful influence could diminish when its strength relative to the other party falls, potentially allowing disagreements to escalate.
Conclusion
In this case, China got involved differently from Western countries which demonstrates that using interests can resolve tough situations. Thanks to economic ties, not actively picking sides and quiet talks, Beijing managed to bring about a result that past efforts had not achieved. Here, we see that rising powers are shaping the security landscape and this shows that big changes in mediation are not driven only by liberal systems or common values. It proves that small but practical steps can bring temporary relief in seriously conflicted cases.
Even so, whether this calm will last over the long run is unclear, as the Chinese model has few strong enforcement methods and depends on both sides maintaining their political support. Even though mediation is important for China’s role on the world stage, it can be done successfully only when Beijing holds significant power economically. This case prompts further study on how alternative mediation models, putting more emphasis on sovereignty and economics, could change approaches to conflict resolution in a multilateral world. It results in considering who has the power to bring peace to countries with complicated political issues.
[1] https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/English-PDF-1.pdf
[2] Sectarian politics in the Gulf: from the Iraq war to the Arab uprisings by Wehrey, Frederic M
[3] Matthiesen T. The Other Saudis: Shiism, Dissent and Sectarianism. Cambridge University Press; 2014.
[4] International Conflict Mediation New Approaches and Findings, 1st Edition Edited by Jacob Bercovitch, Scott Sigmund Gartner.
[5] “China’s Belt and Road Initiative in the Global Economy, Volume 1: Business and Economic Perspectives.” Edited by Yuan Li and Markus Taube. Palgrave Macmillan, 2023.
[6] Jisi, Wang. “China’s Search for a Grand Strategy: A Rising Great Power Finds Its Way.” Foreign Affairs 90, no. 2 (2011): 68–79. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25800458.
[7] David M. Lampton, “Rivers of Iron: Railroads and Chinese Power in Southeast Asia (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2020), 210–215.
[8] “Joint Statement of the People’s Republic of China, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and the Islamic Republic of Iran,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, March 10, 2023,
[9] Jonathan Fulton, “China’s Changing Role in Middle East Security,” International Affairs 99, no. 3 (2023): 1021–1038, https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiad008.
Connect with Security Lense
Leave a Reply