China between conformity and confrontation
Beijing has four basic options for responding. The first would be direct military intervention: allowing tankers to pass through the strait anyway and responding to US boarding attempts. This would cause global energy markets to collapse and carries the risk of a direct military clash – an option Beijing avoids for structural reasons. The second option: abandoning Iran and buying replacement oil. This is painful. Russian oil to replace Iranian supplies would cost an estimated ten to twelve dollars more per barrel; moreover, Russia’s production capacity is limited. The third option: diplomatic pressure on Iran – precisely what Washington is aiming for. China is already exerting this pressure but wants to appear as a neutral mediator, not as an instrument of US foreign policy. The fourth and longer-term option is structural decoupling from the sea route through diversification.
Related to this:
China’s diversification strategy: pipelines, renewables and the buffer
The Hormuz crisis is accelerating Beijing’s ongoing diversification strategy. In the natural gas sector, the “Power of Siberia 2” project, debated for years, is once again taking center stage. This 2,600-kilometer pipeline is intended to transport gas from the Yamal fields in western Russia, via Mongolia, to northern China and would have an annual capacity of 50 billion cubic meters. In September 2025, Russia and China signed a legally binding memorandum, but pricing issues remained unresolved. China’s Five-Year Plan, published in March 2026, included, for the first time, explicit provisions for preparing this central route – a signal that energy analysts interpreted as a clear political prioritization.
For crude oil, China is also relying on overland pipelines. The existing pipeline from Eastern Siberia – “Power of Siberia 1” – is to be expanded from 38 to 44 billion cubic meters of annual capacity, according to the agreement. Russia has already increased its oil deliveries to China, but this is not a complete replacement for Gulf oil volumes. The Kazakhstan-China pipeline and the Myanmar-China pipeline complete the picture as further terrestrial corridors.
In parallel, China is undergoing a structural transformation of its energy system. Investments in clean energy reached a record high of 7.2 trillion yuan (around $1 trillion) in 2025 – roughly four times the amount invested in fossil fuels. Clean energy contributed more than a third to the country’s GDP growth. The “new three” sectors alone – electric vehicles, batteries, and solar panels – accounted for two-thirds of the value added in the energy sector. According to a study by the Rhodium Group, electric cars have already reduced China’s oil demand by over one million barrels per day, a figure that is expected to increase by another 600,000 barrels per day by 2026. Nevertheless, fossil fuels still cover over 80 percent of China’s primary energy needs and over 60 percent of its electricity generation. The transformation is underway, but far from complete.
China and the Middle East: More than oil
The energy dimension is only one aspect of China’s exposure to Hormuz. Since 2005, China has injected over $269 billion in investment and construction contracts into the Middle East region. Saudi Arabia is the largest recipient, with approximately $82 billion, followed by the UAE with $48 billion and Iraq with $40 billion. In Iran alone, China’s project investments amount to roughly $25 billion. Under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), the Middle East saw $39 billion in investment in 2024—a 102 percent increase over the previous year—making it the largest BRI recipient. For the entire year of 2025, BRI activity reached a record $213.5 billion globally, with $93.9 billion of that going to energy projects.
Total trade between China and the Middle East has more than doubled since 2017, reaching approximately $317 billion in 2024 – compared to only around $85 billion in US trade with the region over the same period. For China, the Middle East is not a crisis region on the periphery of the world order, but a core economic zone. This makes the Hormuz blockade a threat to Beijing on several fronts simultaneously: energy supply, investment protection, and trade corridors.
The Shadow Fleet under pressure – and its limits
Since the start of the war in February 2026, the shadow fleet has demonstrated remarkable resilience. BBC Verify identified several Iranian-linked and sanctioned vessels that continued to transit the strait even after the US blockade began. No Chinese ship was boarded, seized, or fired upon by the US Navy. The shadow fleet’s infrastructure—false flags, manipulated transponders, and ship-to-ship transfers off the Malaysian coast—was built precisely for this scenario.
Nevertheless, structural limitations are becoming apparent. While optimized routes have already reduced the transit times of Iranian oil tankers from 85-90 days to 50-70 days, the tightened US sanctions policy and increasing diplomatic pressure campaigns in Malaysia, Singapore, and other transit states are raising operational risks for the network. Insurance costs for shadow fleet tankers have skyrocketed; part of the fleet lay idle in Malaysian waters at the beginning of 2026. At the same time, Iran has strategically built up oil reserves outside the strait – the export rate in February and March 2026 was around 26 percent higher than the 2025 annual average. This proactive stockpiling serves as protection against the blockade.
The global shockwaves: From Hormuz to the world
The closure or severe restriction of the Strait of Hormuz would not only affect China. A complete disruption of the strait would remove approximately 20 million barrels of oil per day from global oil flows—the largest energy supply shock in history. Bloomberg analysts reported in March 2026 that industry experts were already discussing the possibility of an oil price of $200 per barrel should the blockage last three to four months. Patrick Pouyanné, CEO of TotalEnergies, stated at the CERAWeek conference in Houston: “I cannot imagine a world in which 20 percent of the world’s exported crude oil and 20 percent of LNG capacity are permanently trapped in the Gulf without systemic consequences.”
Those Asian economies that lack Chinese reserves and pricing power were particularly hard hit: Thailand, Pakistan, the Philippines, and India suffered fuel shortages; some countries had already implemented shorter workweeks and energy rationing. Europe faced potential diesel shortages and price increases for refinery products. The International Energy Agency (IEA) authorized massive releases from strategic reserves. The national average US price of gasoline exceeded four dollars per gallon at the end of March 2026.
China’s economic resilience: Nuanced, not inexhaustible
It is an oversimplification to portray China as the immediate victim of the Hormuz crisis – but it is equally wrong to describe it as immune. The reality is more nuanced. Unlike Japan or South Korea, for example, China has built up considerable structural buffers: strategic reserves, long-distance pipelines, EV penetration, and state-coordinated energy policy. These buffers allow for short-term resilience. A shock lasting three to four months would be absorbable; a structural outage of six months or more would severely damage Chinese industrial production, electricity generation, and ultimately, economic growth.
Overall economic sensitivity remains high. China’s GDP growth was already under pressure in 2025, caused by trade conflicts with the US, deflationary tendencies, and a real estate crisis. A sustained energy shock, which increases production costs and reduces industrial capacity, would come at the worst possible time. Chinese state-owned refineries received permission in April 2026 to use commercial reserves, which provides short-term relief but reduces buffers in the long term. At the same time, inflation in China’s energy sector is counteracting the effects of deflation in its already deflationary economy—an unusual and potentially destabilizing combination.
The Ceasefire clock and the negotiation dynamics
On April 17, 2026 – the date of this analysis – the ceasefire clock is set to expire: the existing Ceasefire agreement ends on April 22. Both sides negotiated the previous week about a possible two-week extension. Trump signaled optimism: “It looks very good that we will make a deal with Iran.” Iran has signaled in principle that it will renounce nuclear weapons – however, this position was also its official stance before the war. Crucially, the parties will need to agree on a verifiable mechanism for the nuclear program, whether the blockade will be formally lifted, and whether the economic pressure exerted by China will be sufficient to compel Tehran to cooperate.
The incentive calendar plays a crucial role. Every day without an agreement costs Iran more in oil revenue than it can politically gain from the conflict. At the same time, every day increases China’s indirect negotiating costs—rising oil purchase prices, growing uncertainty for teapot refineries, and heightened shadow fleet risks. Washington has deliberately created a situation in which time is an enemy of both sides: Iran’s fiscal budget is not sustainable indefinitely, and China’s tolerance for the costs of maintaining the status quo is finite.
Structural conclusions: The limits of Chinese energy sovereignty
The Hormuz crisis of 2026 is a high-pressure test for China’s long-term energy strategy – and the result is sobering for Beijing. Despite massive investments in reserve capacity, pipelines, renewable energy, and a global procurement network, China remains structurally dependent on a single 54-kilometer-wide strait. Around 40 to 50 percent of China’s crude oil imports pass through Hormuz; the only significant supplier of cheap oil is politically isolated, fiscally unstable, and under considerable military pressure.
The paradox of China’s energy strategy is becoming increasingly clear: the more China buys Iranian oil, the more vulnerable it becomes to geopolitical pressure from the US; the more it reduces its reliance on Iranian oil, the more expensive its energy supply becomes, and the more it harms Tehran, its strategic partner. It is a classic security dilemma that has no purely economic solution. The structural answer lies in the long transformation process that Beijing has already begun: overland pipelines from Russia and Central Asia, a drastic acceleration of the EV transition to reduce oil demand, the development of domestic renewable energy sources, and a gradual diversification away from maritime energy routes. But this process takes time—time that is scarce in an acute crisis.
The Strait of Hormuz thus remains the clearest symbol of a key weakness in Beijing’s strategic calculations: China’s global ambitions and energy security are on a collision course with US maritime dominance. Whoever controls the waters controls the pulse of Chinese industry – and no one knows this better than President Trump, whose decision to block the strait is not merely a military gesture, but a clearly calculated message to its intended recipient: the leadership in Beijing.