对伊朗战争引发的能源冲击，中国的缓冲建立在分散化而非依赖单一来源之上。伊朗把超过 80% 的原油出口到中国，但这只占中国石油进口的大约十分之一；总体上，中国约 40% 的石油进口经过霍尔木兹海峡。相比之下，日本约 95% 的原油来自中东，显示中国的地理集中度更低。对中国而言，伊朗的损失是有害的，但按设计并非致命的。

这种韧性来自“多轮驱动”能源结构。中国约一半原油来自中东，但并非全部经霍尔木兹；它还可增加从俄罗斯的采购，并拥有至少可满足 3 个月需求的储备，而且在去年低油价时已提前补库。与此同时，中国通过发展可再生能源和继续使用煤炭来降低外部依赖；煤炭仍提供其超过 50% 的能源。核心逻辑不是完全自给自足，而是在关键领域控制脆弱性。

文章把能源战略放入更广泛的中国式自力更生框架。其目标不是全面自给，而是对真正关键的物资建立“国内生产＋多元进口＋储备＋替代品”的组合。粮食政策已显示这一模板：到 2010 年代，中国只对小麦和稻米追求“绝对安全”，而非对所有农产品都如此。过去十年，美国制裁、疫情与如今的伊朗战争削弱了对全球市场永远可靠的信念，也使这种看似高成本、低效率的冗余战略更具说服力。

China’s buffer against the Iran-war energy shock rests on diversification rather than reliance on any single source. Iran sends more than 80% of its crude exports to China, but that still accounts for only about one-tenth of China’s oil imports; overall, around 40% of China’s oil imports pass through the Strait of Hormuz. By comparison, Japan gets about 95% of its crude from the Middle East, showing China’s lower geographic concentration. For China, losing Iranian supply is damaging, but by design not crippling.

This resilience comes from a “multi-wheel drive” energy structure. About half of China’s crude comes from the Middle East, but not all via Hormuz; it can also buy more from Russia and holds reserves sufficient for at least 3 months of demand, after stocking up when prices were low last year. At the same time, China is reducing external dependence through renewables while still relying on coal, which provides more than 50% of its energy. The core logic is not total autarky but controlled vulnerability in critical sectors.

The article places energy strategy inside a broader Chinese self-reliance framework. The goal is not complete self-sufficiency, but a mix of domestic production, diversified imports, reserves and substitutes for truly vital goods. Food policy already shows the template: by the 2010s China sought “absolute security” only for wheat and rice, not for all crops. A decade of American sanctions, covid disruptions and now the Iran war has weakened faith in permanently reliable global markets and made this costly, potentially inefficient redundancy strategy look more rational.