Chinese staffers adjust a US flag before the opening session of trade negotiations between US and Chinese trade representatives at the Diaoyutai State Guesthouse in Beijing, China, February 14, 2019 (AP).

In a new piece for Foreign Policy, Stephan Walt, the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University, discussed the role of the People’s Republic of China’s role in the agreement reached between the Saudi Arabia and Iran, as well as the “world order”.

The agreement between two key countries did not come out of the blue, but was rather a well-planned and implemented strategy on China’s behalf. The professor argued that “if the agreement sticks, it’s a pretty big deal.”

Significantly, Walt said the agreement must sound the alarm for US President Joe Biden’s administration and the entire US foreign-policy establishment. The professor argued that the agreement not only “exposes the self-imposed handicaps that have long crippled U.S. Middle East policy,” but also “highlights how China is attempting to present itself as a force for peace in the world.” According to Walt, the US has “abandoned” this role “in recent years”.

The China strategy

In the Foreign Policy piece, Walt says that China had done what any “great power” should do to “maximize its leverage.” Simply, Walt said a great power would, “make it clear that you’re willing to work with others if they are willing to work with you, and your ties with others remind them that you have other options, too.”

In that vein, Walt said China took advantage of previous efforts exerted by Iraq and Oman to decrease tensions between Saudi Arabia and Iran and used its leverage, as a key economic partner of both countries using its “cordial, business-like ties.” It is worth noting that Walt also argued that China made sure that Saudi Arabia and Iran, both, knew that China had other options too, by making clear their similar “cordial, business-like ties” with other countries in the region such as Egypt, Syria, and “Israel”.

Flawed US foreign policy in the Middle East

The Harvard professor drew a parallel to the above strategy in the region and explained that the US, in contrast to China, tied itself to “some” Middle East countries through “special relationships,” while lacking any relations with others, some of whom are significant, such as Iran. As a result of this policy which fails to show that the US “had other options” too, the countries the US maintains a “special relationship with” have found it beneficial to take US support for granted. Walt made it clear that the countries in question included but were not limited to, Saudi Arabia, “Israel”, and Egypt.

When it came to Iran, Walt criticized US foreign policy even further by arguing that its “futile efforts to isolate and topple Tehran have left Washington with essentially zero capacity to shape Iran’s perceptions, actions, or diplomatic trajectory”

According to Walt, China’s advancement in the region has been the result of the US’ failure to prove it can “advance peace or justice in the region.”

Sino-American rivalry: foreign policy

The international relations expert wrote, regarding the Sino-American rivalry, that China sought to alter the US’ hegemonic policy-making strategy wherein he said that since 1945, Americans had become “accustomed to assuming that most states will follow our lead, even when they have reservations about what we are doing.” Walt said that China will succeed by proving to be a “more likely source for peace and stability.”

It is worth noting that Walt based his argument on the idea that peace is a globally-desired goal and that most countries “don’t want outsiders getting in their business and telling them what to do.”

While that was considered the goal of most countries, the US, for the past 30 years, said Walt, attempted to force, one way or another, all non-liberal states to “embrace a set of liberal principles and join various US-led institutions.”

This made the US policy, in Walt’s opinion, grounded in a “revisionist” definition of “world order”. Washington, the professor noted wanted to ideally “gradually guide the entire world toward a prosperous and peaceful liberal future,” through various tools such as “military force” and toppling governments. The result of these practices, admitted Walt, were “costly occupations, failed states, new terrorist movements, increased cooperation among autocrats, and humanitarian disasters.”

It is worth noting that the professor argued that US goals, while they have been well-intentioned, such as the joining of Ukraine to NATO, ended up being “ill-considered,” reaching results that “were mostly disastrous.”

China, on the other hand, argued Walt, had not engaged in a war since 1979, however, he also said it must not be assumed that “China would never use force to alter the status quo if its leaders felt the odds of success were high enough.” He argued that Beijing's lack of engagement in wars and its insistence on a non-interference policy and commitment to national sovereignty stemmed from its “self-serving” need to “deflect” criticism.

Sino-American rivalry as perceived by the world

Lastly, Walt based his argument regarding global decisions vis-a-vis the Sino-American rivalry on the ground that “most countries around the world understand that war is mostly bad for business and frequently affects their own interests adversely,” thus meaning these countries would rather avoid a clash of Titans.

Officials within the Israeli occupation, worried about #Iran gaining further ground in the international arena, are pointing fingers at the occupation's current government as domestic opposition is growing in light of the various crises "Israel" is facing. pic.twitter.com/colDsuRtXc
— Al Mayadeen English (@MayadeenEnglish) March 10, 2023

In that sense, Walt explained that a large number of states would much rather ally themselves with a major power that can prove its intention to “promote peace, stability, and order.” In doing so, most states will inevitably “distance themselves” from any power that disrupts such peace.

“If others see you as part of the problem rather than as part of the solution, your diplomatic position is likely to erode,” said Walt.

Lessons for Biden

The Biden administration, as well as the entire US foreign-policy institution, must seek to decrease tensions, prevent war and promote peace rather than evaluate US foreign policy by “how many wars we win, how many terrorists we kill, or how many countries we convert.”

“If the United States allows China to establish a reputation for being a reliable peacemaker, as a great power that is willing to live and let live in its relations with others, convincing others to line up with us will become increasingly difficult,” concluded Walt.

In short, the US must, rather than decry the Saud Arabia-Iran agreement, prove its capacity to do better in promoting peace than China can in order to maintain its global hegemonic title as a peace guarantor.

US between Moscow approval and Iranian steadfastness amid Sino rivalry

In a related context, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said on Monday that Moscow welcomes the steps taken by Iran and Saudi Arabia to restore diplomatic relations and reduce tensions.

"We welcome any steps that can and will contribute to lowering the level of tension and optimizing dialogue in the region, a very unstable region. Especially when it comes to such key regional players as Saudi Arabia and Iran," Peskov said.

Earlier to that, Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi, the advisor to the Iranian leader for military affairs, described the Iranian-Saudi agreement as "a political earthquake" that signals "the end of US hegemony in the region."

“In my opinion, the agreement is in the interests of the two countries and the Western Asia region," he said.

Elsewhere in his remarks, he acknowledged that “the Chinese have decided to become the world’s first economy by 2030," affirming that the agreement between Iran and Saudi Arabia, under Chinese meditation, "dealt the second biggest blow to the US by China."