You are not correct as a matter of strict grammar. The infinitive "to review" relates to "incentives" and the "incentives" are being offered to China for the purpose that China do something, namely "review." We can see this with very slight recasting of the sentence.
The government may be more successful if, in the next few months, it offers the Chinese incentives to change their position.
The government may be more successful if, in the next few months, it offers incentives for the Chinese to change their position.
You are of course correct in the more important matter that the quoted sentence is unnecessarily difficult to parse. The temporal qualification separates the idea of incentives and the aim of the incentives. (By the way, the temporal qualification may not even be necessary.) Moreover, "it" is used in reference to two different nouns in the same sentence. And finally, the sentence does not even use the proper verb. What is actually sought is not a review followed by continuation of the current position, but rather change in that position, with or without a formal review.
Bad writing is not necessarily ungrammatical. It is surprisingly easy to write bad English without a single error in grammar. And bad writing frequently hides sloppy thought.
A more through recasting would probably reflect a more nuanced thought much more clearly.
Offering China incentives to change its position is more likely to be successful the sooner that they are proposed. So the government should be identifying in the next few months what those incentives should be.