Experts blast Tim Walz’s claim that China could be ‘neutral actor’ in Israel-Iran conflict

Former vice presidential nominee Gov. Tim Walz, D-Minn., is under fire for suggesting that China could serve as a neutral mediator in the ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran. His comments have sparked outrage and criticism from experts and political figures alike.

During a recent event hosted by the Center for American Progress (CAP), Walz raised the question of who could potentially act as a voice of moral authority in the Middle East conflict. He argued that the United States, due to its past actions in the region, may not be seen as a neutral actor capable of facilitating peace talks. Instead, he suggested that China could fill this role.

However, Walz failed to provide a concrete explanation for why China would be suitable for this task. This lack of justification has led to accusations of ignorance and naivety from individuals like Danielle Pletka, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Pletka emphasized that China, far from being a moral authority, is guilty of numerous human rights abuses, including the arbitrary detention of over a million Muslims in reeducation camps.

Andy Keiser, a senior fellow at the National Security Institute, echoed Pletka’s sentiments, highlighting China’s track record of repression and authoritarianism. He emphasized that China’s actions in Xinjiang and Tibet amount to crimes against humanity, making it unfit to play a neutral role in international conflicts.

Critics have pointed out that the idea of China serving as a mediator between Israel and Iran is not only misguided but also dangerous. As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has stated, Iran remains a significant threat to the United States, with intentions to harm President Donald Trump.

Nikki Haley, former U.S. Ambassador to Israel and a 2024 GOP presidential candidate, also condemned Walz’s comments, calling them “absolute insanity.” She emphasized the need to recognize Iran as an enemy and rejected the notion of China acting as a mediator in the conflict.

In conclusion, Walz’s suggestion that China could play a role in mediating the Israel-Iran conflict has been met with widespread criticism and skepticism. Experts and political figures have emphasized the unsuitability of China as a neutral arbiter, given its history of human rights abuses and authoritarianism. The focus remains on finding a credible and impartial mediator to facilitate peace talks in the Middle East.