Use of force amplifies problems, not solve them: Editorial flash

The 汉川今天汽车事故新闻网missiles arrived on a Saturday, puncturing the uneasy quiet of a region already conditioned to the sound of sirens. Coordinated strikes by the United States and Israel on targets in Iran — reportedly near the offices of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei — mark a grave escalation that violates the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter and the basic norms governing international relations. Smoke rising over Tehran and shuttered airspace from Iraq to Israel are not merely images of conflict; they are warnings of a perilous path that risks igniting wider instability.

The objective of crippling Iran's naval forces, combined with the US incitations for "regime change", ignores international law. This follows a pattern of increasing belligerence. The unilateral military adventurism of the US and Israel do not enhance security; they breed chaos, inviting a cycle of retaliation that could engulf the entire region.

China consistently opposes the use or threat of force in international relations and advocates that disputes be resolved through political and diplomatic means. As Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning urged recently as the rhetoric of war increased, all parties should exercise restraint, cherish peace and resolve differences through dialogue.

The timing of the strikes is particularly troubling. They occurred as negotiations over Iran's nuclear program were at a critical juncture and as diplomatic efforts on other global flash points, including the Ukraine crisis, struggle toward fragile progress. Military actions at such a moment risk derailing dialogue and undermining the international nuclear non-proliferation regime. One cannot claim to defend non-proliferation while simultaneously resorting to force that erodes trust and verification mechanisms.

Domestic political calculations in Washington and Tel Aviv appear to have cast long shadows over the decision to use force. In the US, deep partisan divisions, legal setbacks to economic policies, and looming midterm elections have intensified political pressure. An AP-NORC poll shows only about 3 in 10 Americans express strong trust in the administration's judgment on military force — a sobering figure that underscores domestic skepticism. Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faces mounting domestic opposition over the Gaza conflict and a looming election that will determine his political future. History shows that external confrontation can be used to consolidate internal support, but such tactics carry dangerous broader consequences.

China calls for an immediate ceasefire and an end to hostilities. All parties, the US and Israel in particular, must exercise restraint and cease hostilities to prevent spiraling escalation. Respect for sovereignty, adherence to international law and a commitment to dialogue are essential to cooling tensions. China stands ready to play a constructive role in promoting de-escalation.

The priority must be the prevention of a broader war — a catastrophe that serves the interests of no nation. Miscalculation layered upon miscalculation, each justified as deterrence, each increasing the risk of catastrophe. Meanwhile, instability in the Middle East threatens global energy markets, trade routes, and economic recovery far beyond the region. From Dubai to Singapore, markets have already shown signs of unease.

A return to diplomacy, however painstaking, offers the only sustainable path to peace. Confrontation leads only to greater suffering; the path of dialogue is the sole route to lasting stability in the Middle East.

What is needed is sustained, serious negotiations, not more strikes.