10MAR

China, Russia, Iran drill at Hormuz

3 min read

04:55UTC

Chinese, Russian, and Iranian warships conducted joint Maritime Security Belt 2026 exercises in the Strait of Hormuz while US and Israeli forces struck Iranian targets — the first time trilateral naval drills have overlapped with active combat operations in the same waterway.

← Back to Iran moves to heavy warheads; China deploys Jump to analysis ↓

ConflictDeveloping

Key takeaway

Running scheduled exercises during an active conflict converts routine training into deliberate strategic signalling without triggering alliance commitments.

Chinese, Russian, and Iranian naval forces are conducting Maritime Security Belt 2026 exercises in the strait of Hormuz, operating alongside the newly arrived 48th PLA Navy fleet. The exercises place warships from two permanent UN Security Council members in the same waterway where CENTCOM is prosecuting a naval campaign that has destroyed two-thirds of Iran's surface fleet .

Maritime Security Belt has a short but deliberate history. Iran, China, and Russia held the first iteration in the Indian Ocean and Gulf of Oman in December 2019 — four months after the IRGC's seizure of the British-flagged tanker Stena Impero and the US assassination of Qasem Soleimani. Subsequent exercises in 2022, 2023, and 2024 expanded in scope and moved closer to the strait itself. Each iteration was a diplomatic signal: the three powers were building interoperability in the waterway that carries roughly 20% of the world's traded oil. But the signal was always prospective — a demonstration of what they could do together, not what they were doing.

The 2026 iteration breaks that pattern. The exercises are running during active hostilities. Iranian ports are under bombardment. The IRGC is striking civilian tankers by name . Coalition aircraft are flying daily sorties. In this environment, joint exercises are not symbolic; they are operational cover. Russian and Chinese warships conducting manoeuvres in the strait create zones of ambiguity — areas where CENTCOM must verify the identity and intent of every contact before engaging, slowing response times and complicating targeting decisions.

Russia's participation adds a specific intelligence dimension. US intelligence officials confirmed Moscow is already providing satellite imagery and targeting data on American military positions to Iran . Russian naval vessels in Hormuz can supplement that with real-time observation of Coalition ship movements and communications — a capability that pairs with the Liaowang-1's SIGINT collection to give Tehran's remaining command structure a composite picture of the maritime battlespace that Iran's own degraded sensors cannot provide.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

China, Russia, and Iran have been running joint military exercises in the Strait of Hormuz since 2019 as a way to signal political coordination. These exercises were planned before this war started. The fact that they continue now — while fighting is happening nearby — sends a deliberate message: these three countries are present and coordinated. It also serves a practical purpose for China. Framing its warship deployment as part of pre-planned exercises makes it appear less like a reactive intervention and more like a routine event. This gives Beijing maximum deterrence effect — making the US think twice about operations near Chinese vessels — whilst minimising the political commitment that would follow from an explicitly military response.

Deep Analysis

Synthesis

Conducting exercises simultaneously with the Chinese fleet deployment creates deliberate strategic ambiguity: outside observers cannot distinguish which Chinese vessels are in an exercise posture and which are in an operational deterrence posture. This ambiguity is itself the strategic asset — it compels US planners to treat all Chinese vessels as potentially operationally relevant, maximising the deterrence footprint from a modest deployment without China explicitly declaring an operational role.

Root Causes

The Maritime Security Belt format emerged in December 2019 specifically as a counter to the US maximum pressure sanctions campaign against Iran. All three participating states face US secondary sanctions exposure and share a structural interest in demonstrating collective resistance to unilateral US economic coercion. The exercises are not primarily about military interoperability — interoperability gains are limited by incompatible communications systems — they are a recurring political statement about multipolarity.

Escalation

The exercise framework provides procedural legitimacy for sustained Chinese and Russian naval presence in Hormuz beyond the immediate conflict. If the war extends into weeks, the format could justify rotating fresh forces through the strait indefinitely — converting a crisis response into a permanent structural feature of Hormuz's security environment that outlasts any ceasefire.

What could happen next?

Meaning
Continuing pre-planned exercises during active conflict signals China and Russia regard the war as within acceptable bounds of their strategic partnership with Iran.
Immediate · Assessed
Risk
Deliberate ambiguity between exercise and operational posture increases miscalculation risk for US commanders uncertain whether Chinese vessels have a combat-support role.
Immediate · Suggested
Precedent
Exercise continuation during wartime normalises trilateral military presence in Hormuz, establishing a baseline that will be politically difficult to reverse after the conflict ends.
Long term · Suggested

Source Landscape

This story draws on neutral-leaning sources from Belgium

Belgium

Primary parallel: NATO held Exercise Reforger annually near Warsaw Pact borders throughout the Cold War, deliberately blurring the training-operations boundary during Berlin crises and Soviet interventions. Exercises proceeding during crises sent unmistakable signals about alliance cohesion and military readiness without requiring formal activation of Article 5.

Counter-parallel: The CSTO's failure to intervene militarily during the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, despite prior exercise coordination, demonstrates that trilateral exercise posture does not guarantee operational follow-through — exercises signal alignment, not commitment.

Why it’s relevant now

The Warsaw Pact parallel holds in one direction: exercises near an active conflict normalise military presence and raise the cost of adversary action. The CSTO counter-parallel warns against reading exercise coordination as a mutual defence guarantee — a distinction Beijing will be careful to preserve.

Consensus view: The Stimson Centre's China programme has characterised Maritime Security Belt as a 'demonstration of alignment without alliance' — the three states signal coordination without mutual defence obligations that would constrain Beijing's independent decision-making or drag China into a war it has not chosen.

Counter-view: The Valdai Discussion Club (Moscow) frames the exercises as evidence of a functioning multipolar security order, arguing that Western criticism of trilateral exercises whilst NATO holds exercises near Russian borders reflects structural double standards rather than principled objection.

Key tension: Whether the exercise format has evolved from political signalling into genuine operational coordination — specifically, whether participating states share targeting data or rules of engagement that would constitute de facto co-belligerence.

Sources:Modern Diplomacy

Mentions:CENTCOM (US Central Command) →Coalition →Indian Ocean →Gulf of Oman →China →Oman →United States →United Nations Security Council (UNSC) →National Security Council (Iran) →Time →Tehran →Strait of Hormuz →Iran-Azerbaijan Conflict (2026) →Russia →NATO →Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) →Iran →

First Reported In

Update #31 · Iran moves to heavy warheads; China deploys

Modern Diplomacy· 10 Mar 2026

Read original →

Different Perspectives

Gulf shipping and insurance markets

With Hormuz and Bab el-Mandeb both hostile at once, war-risk underwriters face their first dual-chokepoint pricing problem; the rerouting hedge that absorbed one closure is gone for Israeli-linked hulls. Any deal that reopens Hormuz without a Houthi stand-down clause delivers only partial shipping relief.

Russia and China

Russia and China met IAEA chief Grossi jointly in Geneva on 5 June to coordinate an advance blocking position against Washington's censure resolution, the first documented instance of proactive pre-session obstruction rather than reactive post-vote dissent. Beijing's move came four days after OFAC designated Shanghai Qianye Energy under Iran energy sanctions.

Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia was left out of the emergency $4.01 billion Patriot waiver Qatar received on 2 May as its own PAC-3 stocks ran near-empty from intercepting Iranian salvoes over Aramco facilities. Riyadh is on a standard 18-month FMS queue behind a production line booked through 2030, with no equivalent priority to Qatar's Al Udeid basing role.

Houthis (Ansar Allah)

The Houthis declared a complete ban on Israeli Red Sea navigation on 8 June and struck Jaffa, their first attack on Israeli territory since April, seven days after the Tasnim authorisation to activate other fronts including Bab el-Mandeb. The declaration put both chokepoints under hostile authority simultaneously.

Iran

Iran agreed the 9 June mutual halt after the Mahshahr exchange and coordinated with Russia and China to block Washington's IAEA censure resolution, using the Board as a second front while the bilateral pause held on the military one. Tehran's acceptance of the Lebanon carve-out contradicts the linkage position it stated on 1 June.

Benjamin Netanyahu and the IDF

Israel struck the Karun Petrochemical plant at Mahshahr on 8 June over Trump's explicit objection, then agreed a halt with Iran the following day scoped on Israeli terms with Lebanon carved out. Netanyahu's posture is that the IDF will not accept Iranian missile factories as off-limits regardless of US diplomatic timelines.