By Mubina Khodjaevа, Master’s student at UWED, IAIS Research Intern
The military operation carried out by the United States and Israel against Iran in late February 2026 became a new source of tension in the Middle East and drew reactions from several countries in the Asia-Pacific region (APR). The stated goals of the operation - preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons and changing the strategic balance have increased debate about the use of force without broad international support and its possible effects on regional stability. Overall, several APR countries took a cautious approach, limiting their responses mainly to diplomatic statements and calls for de-escalation.
China expressed the clearest position. On March 2, 2026, the Chinese Foreign Minister, Wang Yi, stated that China supports Iran in protecting its sovereignty and territorial integrity and stressed the need to stop military actions. A spokesperson for China’s Foreign Ministry, Mao Ning, also warned about the risk of the conflict spreading and called for respect for international law. This response reflects Beijing’s long-standing view that the use of force without approval from the United Nations Security Council is unacceptable. It also reflects China’s practical interests, since Iran is important for the country’s energy security. Chinese analysts also note that a rise in tensions could draw U.S. attention and resources away from other regions, which may create new diplomatic opportunities for Beijing.
Japan took a more restrained position. The country’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs expressed concern about the situation and pointed to possible risks to stable energy supplies. Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi confirmed Tokyo’s long-standing view that Iran should not develop nuclear weapons and stressed the need for a diplomatic solution to the crisis. At the same time, the Japanese government did not openly criticize the actions of the United States, reflecting an effort to balance its alliance commitments with its economic interests. Japanese analysts note that continued instability in the Middle East may push Tokyo to speed up efforts to diversify energy sources and reduce dependence on supplies from the region.
Malaysia offered a critical view of the situation. During a parliamentary debate, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim described Israel’s actions, supported by the United States, as a violation of international order. This position follows Kuala Lumpur’s traditional foreign policy approach, which emphasizes sovereignty and international law. Malaysian analysts note that the country’s stance is also influenced by strong public support for the Palestinian issue, which plays an important role in domestic political discussions and reflects solidarity with Muslim countries during the Middle Eastern crisis.
Notably, Indonesia adopted a cautious but active approach. The country’s Ministry of Foreign Affairsexpressed regret over the failure of negotiations between the United States and Iran but did not place direct blame on either side. At the same time, President Prabowo Subianto stated that Indonesia is ready to support dialogue and consider taking on a mediating role. Representatives of the country’s largest Muslim organization, Nahdlatul Ulama, also called for an end to violence and for stronger diplomatic efforts. Given the organization’s strong influence in Indonesian society and its links with Islamic institutions abroad, it could serve as an additional channel for dialogue between the parties. Possible support for Iran from Nahdlatul Ulama may partly be explained by religious factors, as the organization often shows solidarity with Muslim countries during international crises. However, Indonesian analysts note that Jakarta’s initiative may face difficulties, as Indonesia has limited political and strategic influence over the main actors in the conflict.
Overall, the responses of Asia-Pacific countries show differences in tone but share a common element of caution and limited readiness to become directly involved in the Middle Eastern crisis. On the one hand, countries in the region are interested in maintaining stable energy markets and trade routes. On the other hand, they seek to avoid political risks related to participation in the conflict. In the near future, Asia-Pacific countries will likely continue to rely mainly on diplomatic responses, limiting their involvement to official statements, mediation initiatives, and support for international mechanisms of conflict resolution.
* The Institute for Advanced International Studies (IAIS) does not take institutional positions on any issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IAIS.
