Chinese media did not trust Reuters‘ claim about China and Iran’s missile deal. They are calling it the Western media’s bias against China.
On 29 July, the British news agency reported that China is going to deliver 400 Chinese-made shoulder-fired air defence systems to Iran as part of a missile deal. Citing sources, the report said the agreement involves man-portable air defence systems (MANPADS), including QW-12 and FN-16 missiles. The contract was claimed to be signed by Hong Kong-based Zhongqing Baoshang International Investment—reportedly an intermediary between Iranian authorities and Chinese suppliers. The report also suggested that China and Iran are exploring land routes for delivery.
Beijing rejected the claim outright by calling it ‘entirely unfounded’.
Questioning the report’s foundations
Many Chinese social media users turned their attention to Reuters’ sources, questioning why a major geopolitical claim rested on a few anonymous individuals rather than publicly available evidence. Some dismissed the report as Western media sensationalism. One commentator described it as “a meticulously crafted script”, while another accused Western media of using anonymous sources as a shield, allowing dramatic claims to circulate behind words such as “possibly”, “expected” and “allegedly”. The commentator joked even Hollywood screenwriters would struggle to create such a plot twist.
A Baijiahao commentary portrayed the report as following a formula: ‘begin with unnamed sources, add technical details about weapons and delivery routes, and place the claims within a tense regional context.’ The commentary suggested that such reporting can create a strong narrative even when key facts remain unverified.
Commentators picked apart what they saw as the assumptions behind the story. One highlighted three separate facts brought together in the report: Iran’s need to strengthen its air defences, China’s ability to produce such systems, and Pakistan’s geographic position between the two countries. The commentator claimed that these elements were stitched together with anonymous sources to create a narrative of Chinese military assistance to Tehran without publicly verifiable proof such as contracts, payment records, export licences or delivery evidence.
One commentator accused Western media of viewing China through a confrontational and bloc-based lens, implying that engagement with countries opposed by Washington is portrayed as evidence of strategic alignment. Another commentator suggested that such allegations could later be used to generate political pressure and justify restrictions on Chinese companies. The discussion also echoed previous debates over China’s trade with Russia, where Chinese exports of civilian and dual-use goods have been viewed in the West through the lens of strategic competition.
Also read: How is China reading CJP protests?
Situating the report within US-China rivalry
A Weibo post captured a broader sentiment among some Chinese users: “The US can continue to increase arms sales to Taiwan, but if China were to sell weapons to Iran, it would be committing a grave taboo.”
For some Chinese commentators, this is an outcome of a wider contest over China’s global role. One user outlined three possible motivations behind Reuters’ coverage. Pressure China against deeper military cooperation with Iran, particularly the transfer of more advanced equipment. Second, divert attention from US challenges in the Middle East. Third, portray China as a destabilising actor and damage its international image.
Military expert Song Zhongping framed the report as an attempt to “bind” China to Iran. He said China had maintained a fair, open and transparent position on both the Ukraine-Russia war and the Middle East war. He added that unverified reports about Chinese arms transfers only contribute to regional instability. Song presented China’s position as that of peace and dialogue, not the development of instability.
The majority of social media posts reject the idea that China is siding with Iran in its conflict against the US. The media, they claimed, did not employ neutral fact-finding.
Sana Hashmi, PhD, is a fellow at the Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation. She tweets @sanahashm1. Views are personal.
(Edited by Ratan Priya)