Editor's note: Jiang Wenran, a special commentator for CGTN, is the founding director of the China Institute and MacTaggart Research Chair emeritus at the University of Alberta. He is also an adviser at the Institute for Peace and Diplomacy in Canada. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

The initial phase of the US-Israeli war against Iran has delivered not a decisive victory for the two but a rapid reversal of fortunes. A month into the conflict, there is now a strategic impasse. Air campaigns have failed to break Iran's resolve; "regime-change operations" have collapsed; and Lebanon's Hezbollah and Yemen's Houthis have joined the war.

Footage of Iranian missiles evading US Patriot air defense mechanisms to strike American bases in the region has gone viral online, exposing the limits of America's most advanced defense. Subsequently, Washington made an urgent, and diplomatically awkward, request for ammunition from allies it normally supplies with ammunition. This public grappling with shortages lays bare an unsustainable war effort. The initial objective – swift, decisive "regime change" – has demonstrably failed.

Iran's selection of Mojtaba Khamenei as its new supreme leader, and Washington's immediate dismissal of his legitimacy has only hardened Iran's defiance. Tehran's leadership has concluded it must "draw blood" before any negotiation, a strategy guaranteeing a prolonged war.

China's early posture of condemnation and objective strategic assessment has evolved. The US is not merely entangled; it faces a humiliating stalemate with no clear path to victory. This transforms into a strategic imperative for Beijing to transition from a passive observer to an active shaper.

Washington's failure has created a dangerous vacuum. With military options exhausted and political will fraying, it is seeking a face-saving exit. The strain is also felt acutely among Washington's Gulf allies, some of whom are down to days' worth of interceptor stocks and privately pressing for an end to hostilities. Iran, though resilient, faces immense economic devastation and cannot sustain a permanent war footing.

While the region teeters, the global economic fallout is already tangible – oil above $100 per barrel and International Monetary Fund warnings of "unthinkable" inflation. For a major energy importer like China, this is a direct threat to economic stability. The paralysis presents a unique moment for Beijing, perceived as both a consequential and disinterested power.

China is uniquely positioned. It is Iran's foremost economic partner, maintains stable Gulf relations, and sustains complex dialogue with Washington. Critically, it is not a party to the conflict.

This positional advantage now converges with a tangible shift in diplomatic necessity. In my experience facilitating China-US Track II dialogues on the Middle East, a consistent theme has emerged. Conversations with officials and scholars from Iran, Israel and the Gulf point to a growing, if hesitant, regional appetite for a more substantive Chinese mediating role. The war has transformed that latent possibility into an urgent necessity.

For this shift to occur, the parties must see utility in Beijing's engagement. Although Beijing's role as a mediator may incur some questions from the West considering the former's relations with Russia and economic ties to Tehran, this "imperfection" creates an opening. The US is struggling to talk to Iran's leadership. Russia is preoccupied. European powers are marginal. China remains the one power with direct lines to all parties and a clear motive to prevent a failed region.

For Israel, the realization that even with robust US support a military victory is unattainable could foster pragmatism. Accepting a Chinese role might become preferable to a perpetual conflict endangering its security. Similarly, the US, needing an exit and facing an Iranian leadership refusing direct talks, may require a credible intermediary. China could provide the necessary room for de-escalation. This creates a tangible yet delicate opportunity.

Beijing could now advance a graduated, two-tiered approach. First, it could leverage its UN Security Council position to co-sponsor a resolution for an urgent ceasefire and a regional security conference. Framing this not as a US-Iran negotiation but as a multilateral forum on a "collective security architecture in the Gulf" would reduce zero-sum optics. Current efforts by Pakistan have formed a base. China's role as convener would signify a major diplomatic shift.

Second, China could use this foothold for the materialization of the much-talked-about security guarantees. A mere ceasefire will collapse. A lasting settlement requires credible assurances for Iran against future "regime-change" operations and for Gulf states against Iranian retaliation. The US, having just attacked, cannot be that guarantor. By proposing mutual, verifiable guarantees – perhaps monitored by a neutral consortium – Beijing could begin sketching a post-American security architecture.

This pivot aligns with China's interests. Facilitating a settlement would solidify its leadership credentials, demonstrating an ability to resolve crises where the US faltered. It would secure core economic interests by stabilizing the Belt and Road Initiative's western corridor and ensuring energy flows, potentially anchoring the Chinese yuan's internationalization through reconstruction finance.

The war's initial phase confirmed American overreach. The current stalemate presents a strategic inflection point for the global order itself. For decades, Beijing was perceived as a “free rider” on the US-led Gulf security architecture. That architecture is now in flames. The question is whether China will continue to cautiously call for a ceasefire or step forward to build something new.

The moment to choose – between watching and shaping – has arrived.

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