An urgent need to de-escalate Israel-Iran conflict

Editor's note: Xu Ying, a special commentator on current affairs for CGTN, is a Beijing-based international affairs commentator. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

The Middle East is once again on the brink of a full-blown war. The current situation marks one of the most dangerous escalations in decades between Iran and Israel who are now engaged in direct and devastating military confrontation. This conflict is not only reshaping strategic realities across the region but also testing the capacity and credibility of global powers, institutions and norms to contain war and promote peace.

On June 13, Israel launched "Operation Rising Lion," a sweeping series of airstrikes using advanced F-35I fighter jets and precision-guided bunker-busting munitions. The attacks targeted Iran's nuclear facility, reportedly killing 14 scientists and crippling key components of its nuclear infrastructure.

Yet the operation went far beyond military objectives: Tehran's civilian broadcaster was bombed, hospitals struck and casualties among Iranian civilians exceeded 220, according to Al Jazeera. The deliberate scale and political messaging of the strikes suggest a strategy of overwhelming deterrence, meant to halt Iran's nuclear ambitions through direct coercion.

Iran's response came swiftly. On June 16, Iran launched more than 370 missiles and hundreds of drones toward Israel. Although Tel Aviv's air defenses, including the U.S.-supplied Arrow-3 system, intercepted many of the incoming threats, at least 24 Israelis were killed, hundreds wounded and critical infrastructure was damaged.

The consequences are reverberating far beyond the immediate battlefields. International oil prices surged past $112 per barrel after a 15 percent drop in shipments through the Strait of Hormuz. Commercial shipping is being rerouted. Power outages in Iran affected 12 cities; Israeli transport networks have been paralyzed. The UN reports that over 500,000 civilians in both countries have been displaced, while emergency medical and food supplies are rapidly dwindling.

This fast-moving crisis has also exposed limitations – and in some cases, the complicity of outside powers. The Trump administration, citing defense of a key ally, publicly announced its interception of Iranian projectiles and provision of advanced anti-missile systems to Israel. White House officials also warned residents in Tehran to evacuate, leading to speculation about possible direct U.S. military action. While Washington positions this intervention as support for deterrence and stability, others view it as inflaming a fragile and volatile situation.

The legal, humanitarian and geopolitical ramifications of these events are significant. The deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure violates core provisions of international humanitarian law. The potential for nuclear facilities to become war theaters introduces a terrifying new dimension of risk. The further militarization of the Red Sea and Gulf shipping lanes threatens global commerce and energy security – especially for major energy importers.

Most importantly, this crisis exposes a broader systemic failure: the inability of prevailing Western-led security frameworks to prevent escalation, foster dialogue, or offer credible off-ramps. The Abraham Accords, once touted as a path toward normalization, now appear insufficient to contain a spiraling regional war. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), already undermined by the U.S. withdrawal in 2018, lies in diplomatic ruins. Efforts at nuclear diplomacy are now hostage to battlefield dynamics.

Ironically, according to reports, during the ongoing G7 summit in Canada, member states are drafting a joint statement calling for de-escalation of the conflict between Israel and Iran. However, U.S. President Donald Trump may choose not to sign it.

In this context, the international community must reassess how it engages with conflict resolution. Rhetorical condemnations and reactive sanctions no longer suffice. A recalibration is required – one that acknowledges the failures of military-first strategies and prioritizes stability through inclusive diplomacy, respect for sovereignty and economic interdependence.

The longer-term implications are stark. Without a coordinated push toward de-escalation and institutionalized dialogue, the conflict risks drawing in other regional players and igniting a wider war. Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon – all vulnerable and interconnected with the current fault lines – could rapidly become secondary theaters. The damage to global energy markets, food supply chains and infrastructure investments – particularly those involving emerging economies – would be severe and lasting.

Against this backdrop, China has stepped up its diplomatic engagement with both sides of the conflict. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi conducted a series of calls with his Iranian and Israeli counterparts, proposing an emergency framework for dialogue that includes a "double suspension" of strikes and retaliatory measures.

Further, Beijing introduced a structured proposal, in 2024, named the three-step approach to solving the Palestinian issue, which has garnered support from regional actors such as Türkiye and Russia, and may provide a good example and foundation for broader multilateral engagement.

Rather than taking sides or imposing solutions, China has chosen to emphasize sovereignty, legality and development as tools for stabilization. At the UN and the International Atomic Energy Agency, Beijing has defended the principle of peaceful nuclear use while condemning unilateral military strikes.

Importantly, China's approach reflects a larger vision – embodied in the Global Security Initiative – that seeks to de-link regional stability from external domination. It rejects the logic of military alliances and coercive sanctions, and instead promotes a model centered on mutual security, economic connectivity and inclusive governance. This model, while still evolving, represents an attempt to reconstruct order through negotiation rather than force.

In a world fractured by zero-sum rivalries, the commitment to mediation – measured, principled and development-driven – offers a rare and urgent alternative to endless conflict.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on X, formerly Twitter, to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)