Trump wants to throw Xi into a dilemma before his upcoming trip, which he threatened to delay if China doesn’t join the US’ coalition, but it’s still possible that Xi flips the tables on Trump somehow.
Trump’s request to China to show the flag against Iran is either a provocation or a surrealistically unrealistic request, possibly both. China wants the oil from the Gulf to get to the Far-East but this desire has to be balanced against an overriding geopolitical interest, that is to keep the US out of Iran and Western Asia as much as possible.
Was this always the US’ plan? That they, together with Israel will make the decision to attack Iran without consulting any other country then later ask those same countries for help to open the Strait of Hormuz when Iran eventually closed it? Or did they not go this far in their planning and now have to improvise their way out of this mess?
My personal view is that there's a lot of improvisation going on. I believe that the US might have truly underestimated the Iranian armed forces' and IRGC's willingness to become martyrs for their country.
This doesn't mean that Iran is "winning" -- it's being bombed with near impunity after all -- but just that we seem to be at a point that the US would have preferred to have reached if possible.
Be that as it may, it's now looking to multilateralize the conflict for both "sharing the burden" of waging it and "deterring" Iranian escalations (as they expect, whether mistakenly or not, would then be the case).
If China defies Trump, then he might do what I described in my analysis, while the US could in theory (key qualifier!) stop selling arms to NATO for passing along to Ukraine if the bloc remains obstinate about participating.
The problem is that the US does not seem to think through the consequences of any of their actions, including the possibility of stopping the sale of arms to NATO or cancelling the trade deal with China as you suggest in this article. To me, it seems there is zero planning, a lot of impulsively and perpetuated chaos as a result.
I agree in principle, but while this lack of planning probably wasn't by design, it nevertheless affords the US more flexibility at this chaotic moment in the global systemic transition (even before everything became even more chaotic with this war) to shift its policies as required to advance perceived interests than if it had some or several very detailed plans that might have already by now all become outdated.
"affords the US more flexibility at this chaotic moment in the global systemic transition". The chaos is entirely caused by the US and Israel so one can be inclined to think that it is a desired state with the hope that at the end of it US, in relative terms, will still be the top dog, even if that pauperizes everyone. However, US cannot build ships, missiles, tanks, drones, radars, etc.
No, he just believe ChatGPT which said him that the first human to enter in America was a English pilgrim, and that the images of destruction on US based and Israel is a product of IA.
«My personal view is that there's a lot of improvisation going on.»
Of course someone wrote "no battle plan survives contact with the enemy" but USA military planners and think tanks are very professional and competent and consider all contingencies and have been thinking about "bomb bomb bomb Iran" for decades especially remembering the failed rescue of the hostages by Carter.
That said there have been several reports in the past that the political level however well briefed in theory does not always take the briefings so seriously (for some good and several bad reasons).
Thanks for writing this up. If I were Xi, my focus would be on pushing as much instability onto the USA as possible. Since America is mostly energy independent, Hormuz closure does not affect it much, apart from price hikes. A renewed trade war with China, however, would push more instability into the USA. Not that China would not suffer, but China is at least producing stuff, can import more energy from Russia and can manage its domestic situation in an orderly way. Whereas store shelves in the USA will eventually go bare, the US national sentiment is already pre insurrectionary and Trump is notorious for shooting himself in the feet. So yep... If I were Xi, I would find one those artfully diplomatic ways of not saying no to Trump and yet not providing anything of substance. And then let Trump dig himself deeper, which he is good at. If he digs deep enough, Trump may eventually strike oil ... Whether he still has a country though, is open to debate.
Zionist U.S. President Trump has stated that he would postpone his visit to China if Beijing does not provide assistance regarding the escort mission in the Strait of Hormuz.
However, the reality is that it was the U.S. President who, last year, proactively requested to visit China—not the other way around.
China and Iran are both important members of BRICS.
The Trump administration's planned multinational "Strait of Hormuz escort coalition" has already been rejected by several key allies; moreover, China is not an ally of the United States.
Also instead of the US asking China and NATO for help with the mess they created with Israel how about a third option. That both countries stop attacking Iran and end their war of aggression against the country?I bet this will get the Strait opened pretty quickly after that. Or is this option not on the table?
"You see, wishes are totally free. It's like when you can't decide whether to daydream about being a famous Hollywood star or having amazing magical powers. Why not -- be a famous Hollywood star with amazing magical powers! Along these lines, John has developed an infallible way to improve any public policy wishes. You just wish for the thing, plus, wish that everyone would have their own pony! [...] John wants me to point out that he got the idea from a Calvin and Hobbes strip in which little Susie first wishes that Calvin was nicer, then realizes she might just as well wish for a pony while she's at it."
Nope - Iran and China attacked first in Oct 7, 2023. If they didn't, Ukraine would be settled by now, because Congress Republicans were ready to stop funding Ukraine in autumn 2023.
The U.S. and China are in a mutual deterrence scenario, where both sides have tools to influence the other, but China has increasingly strong leverage due to technology, energy, and financial independence. The weakening dollar-finance system and rising multipolarity limit U.S. coercion.
China’s Leverage (Key Tools and Advantages)
Critical Technology Dominance
China now controls 60 of 67 critical technologies of the future, including AI, quantum computing, next-generation semiconductors, biotech, and renewable energy.
This allows China to:
Limit U.S. ability to impose tech restrictions or sanctions effectively.
Influence global tech supply chains, including allied countries dependent on these technologies.
Reduce strategic dependence on U.S. innovation.
Rare Earths and Strategic Materials
China dominates production and processing of rare earths, essential for global electronics, defense, and clean energy.
Leverage includes the ability to restrict exports or set terms that could affect U.S. and allied industries.
Energy Diversification & Strategic Reserves
Oil and gas imports from Russia, Iran, and other sources reduce vulnerability to Gulf disruptions.
Strategic reserves (~1.3 billion barrels) provide a 3–4 month buffer.
Investments in renewables and domestic energy projects aim for near energy independence within five years, giving China leverage over U.S. attempts to pressure energy supply.
Financial Independence & Dollar Bypass
Expanding trade in yuan and alternative payment networks reduces U.S. leverage.
Exploits the weakening dollar-finance-security bargain: Gulf countries and others no longer rely entirely on the dollar for security and trade.
Global Manufacturing and Industrial Base
Control over critical production capacity allows China to influence global supply chains.
Ability to shift production or exports strategically in response to U.S. pressure, including in high-tech and industrial sectors.
Diplomatic and Geopolitical Options
Partnerships with Russia, Iran, and other nations allow China to bypass U.S.-led coalitions or sanctions.
Ability to maintain neutrality in conflicts while simultaneously protecting its strategic interests.
China Vulnerabilities
Short-Term Oil Dependence
Roughly 50% of seaborne oil imports pass through the Strait of Hormuz, a potential bottleneck.
Exposure to U.S.-Led Sanctions
Restrictions on technology, finance, or rare earth exports could slow growth temporarily.
Diplomatic Pushback Risk
Aggressive resistance to the U.S. could trigger coordinated action from U.S. allies.
U.S. Leverage (for comparison)
Dollar & Global Finance – Historically powerful but increasingly limited as China bypasses the dollar.
Technology Leadership – Still strong in certain sectors but challenged by China’s dominance in critical future technologies.
Alliances & Maritime Control – Can influence Gulf states, Japan, Europe, and key chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz.
Energy Pressure – Potential to disrupt China’s short-term oil imports.
Limits/Vulnerabilities:
Dollar-finance system eroding: Gulf states experienced disruption despite trading in dollars.
Election-year domestic political constraints.
Supply chain interdependence exposes U.S. firms and consumers.
Strategic Assessment
Short-Term: China can resist U.S. pressure through rare earths, critical technology leverage, industrial capacity, energy reserves, and alliances.
Long-Term: China’s energy independence, critical technology dominance, and financial alternatives erode U.S. leverage, while the declining dollar-finance system accelerates a multipolar trade environment.
Both sides risk economic and political costs if escalation occurs.
Bottom Line
China has clear leverage in technology, energy, finance, rare earths, and global supply chains.
U.S. leverage is constrained by domestic politics, the weakening dollar-finance system, and China’s counter-strategies.
This standoff is a stalemate, where both sides benefit more from careful diplomacy, indirect competition, and strategic hedging than direct confrontation.
«Trump called on China and several other countries over the weekend to join his proposed naval coalition for securing freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz amidst the ongoing Third Gulf War.»
The point here is that the USA does not need to import any oil from the the Gulf but actually benefits hugely (together with the RF) from a fall in oil exports from the Gulf and it is not mainly about China (just a side bonus point) but about those "several other countries" that is NATO; Trump is clearly doing this to prove to his domestic base that the NATO governments are just freeloaders and they have all fallen into the trap as they have all refused to spend one euro or risk one soldier's life to protect *their own vital supply of oil* and are expecting the USA to spend a lot of money and many lives for their benefit.
«Iran already clarified that the strait is only closed to unfriendly countries, which presently doesn’t include China [...] 13.4% of the oil that China imported by sea last year came from Iran, while the Gulf Kingdoms (excluding Oman whose exports are from the Arabian Sea) and Iraq contributed around 35% of its imports [...] the Gulf Kingdoms’ drastically reduced oil exports to China)»
As to the PRC, however friendly the iranian government is to the PRC government it is fairly unthinkable that the Gulf Kingdoms will take the risk of shipping oil through the Straits to China even if Iran promises it will not attack them and in defiance and USA sanctions.
If the PRC has oil scarcity (it produces quite a bit of oil itself so it is not as bad as NATO or Japan) then it also has food scarcity as its agriculture is utterly dependent (like the EU and Japanese ones) on mechanization and synthetic fertilizers for maintaining levels of output.
The one thing that the PRC could do is to send PRC flagged and owned tankers to Iran and escort them with PRC warships to prevent them being seized by the USA navy as sanction breakers, but that would be really not their style.
BTW it is curious that Japan that is even more dependent than NATO on imports from the Gulf is not being mentioned.
Andrew: "If China doesn’t comply [...] the fragile Sino-US trade truce might not last"... Which came not as a gesture of US goodwill but a humiliating defeat as a result of Chinese rare earth minerals leverage.
Andrew: "If Xi proudly defies his demand, however, then Trump could perpetuate the conflict..." I think the whole world agrees that the US empire (and Trump) wants this iteration of Desert Storm to stop as fast as possible given oil prices are spiking and its military assets are getting a beating. The US empire basically does an aerial blitzkrieg, destroys as much as it can and murders as many key persons as it can by using the element of surprise and then to prevent another protracted war tries to "pull out" or pause which it then uses to rearm and launch another blitzkrieg. Rinse and repeat. That had learned that in Tehran prior to DS3 taking off and after the 12 day war.
Andrew: "Trump might reach a deal with Putin first". That's all theater. There won't be any deal because Trump has little to no say to what the US empire actually does. At best, he can temporarily stall some (not even all) military supplies and ISTAR on the Ukraine war front. Russia and China know they are in the same boat and they will never downgrade their current level of cooperation except maybe if Russia would start using nukes which would put too much pressure on China. If Iran would be finalized, Taiwan will be next. They know that in Moscow and they know that in Beijing.
«Iran gives free passage to oil to China through the Strait, what's the problem?»
Free passage to *iranian* oil to the PRC? That would be seized by the USA Navy as sanction breaking and trigger huge tariffs against the PRC, and there is little reason why the iranian government should give free passage to Gulf Kingdom oil to the PRC to let them keep making them a lot of money while they (including Iraq) allow the USA to attack Iran from their territory or allow passage to USA and Israel forces over their territory. Unless the PRC is giving them some really really huge "presents".
It is as if the ukranian troops started to launch cruise missiles at Moscow from Norway, Lithuania and Poland and Finland and Estonia allowed them to pass through to attack St. Petersburg.
Well, that's in fact already the case. The only pre requisite is that the passages are coordinated with Tehran so that only those that have "the right" pass through and no accidents happen.
Of course. I still don't see hw China is in a bind. China and Iran both get what they want by allowing Chinese tankers through. Where is this trap that Trump has set for China?
Trump’s request to China to show the flag against Iran is either a provocation or a surrealistically unrealistic request, possibly both. China wants the oil from the Gulf to get to the Far-East but this desire has to be balanced against an overriding geopolitical interest, that is to keep the US out of Iran and Western Asia as much as possible.
Agreed, I'm very interested to see whether China comes up with a third way for extricating itself from this dilemma, and what that would be if so.
"If Xi proudly defies his demand..."
You can be as sure as God made little green apples that this will be the outcome.
I also don't expect him to comply.
Neither does the US, so obviously this is a setup.
Was this always the US’ plan? That they, together with Israel will make the decision to attack Iran without consulting any other country then later ask those same countries for help to open the Strait of Hormuz when Iran eventually closed it? Or did they not go this far in their planning and now have to improvise their way out of this mess?
My personal view is that there's a lot of improvisation going on. I believe that the US might have truly underestimated the Iranian armed forces' and IRGC's willingness to become martyrs for their country.
This doesn't mean that Iran is "winning" -- it's being bombed with near impunity after all -- but just that we seem to be at a point that the US would have preferred to have reached if possible.
Be that as it may, it's now looking to multilateralize the conflict for both "sharing the burden" of waging it and "deterring" Iranian escalations (as they expect, whether mistakenly or not, would then be the case).
If China defies Trump, then he might do what I described in my analysis, while the US could in theory (key qualifier!) stop selling arms to NATO for passing along to Ukraine if the bloc remains obstinate about participating.
The problem is that the US does not seem to think through the consequences of any of their actions, including the possibility of stopping the sale of arms to NATO or cancelling the trade deal with China as you suggest in this article. To me, it seems there is zero planning, a lot of impulsively and perpetuated chaos as a result.
I agree in principle, but while this lack of planning probably wasn't by design, it nevertheless affords the US more flexibility at this chaotic moment in the global systemic transition (even before everything became even more chaotic with this war) to shift its policies as required to advance perceived interests than if it had some or several very detailed plans that might have already by now all become outdated.
"affords the US more flexibility at this chaotic moment in the global systemic transition". The chaos is entirely caused by the US and Israel so one can be inclined to think that it is a desired state with the hope that at the end of it US, in relative terms, will still be the top dog, even if that pauperizes everyone. However, US cannot build ships, missiles, tanks, drones, radars, etc.
Stopping sales to NATO to pass along to Ukraine would be a genius idea. All with very plausible deniability.
Yes Trump is playing 1D checkers, not 5D chess.
No, he just believe ChatGPT which said him that the first human to enter in America was a English pilgrim, and that the images of destruction on US based and Israel is a product of IA.
«Was this always the US’ plan?»
«My personal view is that there's a lot of improvisation going on.»
Of course someone wrote "no battle plan survives contact with the enemy" but USA military planners and think tanks are very professional and competent and consider all contingencies and have been thinking about "bomb bomb bomb Iran" for decades especially remembering the failed rescue of the hostages by Carter.
That said there have been several reports in the past that the political level however well briefed in theory does not always take the briefings so seriously (for some good and several bad reasons).
I suspect that you are getting warmer.
Thanks for writing this up. If I were Xi, my focus would be on pushing as much instability onto the USA as possible. Since America is mostly energy independent, Hormuz closure does not affect it much, apart from price hikes. A renewed trade war with China, however, would push more instability into the USA. Not that China would not suffer, but China is at least producing stuff, can import more energy from Russia and can manage its domestic situation in an orderly way. Whereas store shelves in the USA will eventually go bare, the US national sentiment is already pre insurrectionary and Trump is notorious for shooting himself in the feet. So yep... If I were Xi, I would find one those artfully diplomatic ways of not saying no to Trump and yet not providing anything of substance. And then let Trump dig himself deeper, which he is good at. If he digs deep enough, Trump may eventually strike oil ... Whether he still has a country though, is open to debate.
Zionist U.S. President Trump has stated that he would postpone his visit to China if Beijing does not provide assistance regarding the escort mission in the Strait of Hormuz.
However, the reality is that it was the U.S. President who, last year, proactively requested to visit China—not the other way around.
China and Iran are both important members of BRICS.
The Trump administration's planned multinational "Strait of Hormuz escort coalition" has already been rejected by several key allies; moreover, China is not an ally of the United States.
Also instead of the US asking China and NATO for help with the mess they created with Israel how about a third option. That both countries stop attacking Iran and end their war of aggression against the country?I bet this will get the Strait opened pretty quickly after that. Or is this option not on the table?
The problem is that, seemingly, Iran will not let them go like that without compensation for destructions and garanties they'll never attack again.
It what just said an iranian officiel:" Trump musu know that he will not be able, as usual , to declare he won and go away"
«Iran will not let them go like that without compensation for destructions and garanties they'll never attack again.»
They might as well add to their demands to rename Washington DC to Khomeini DC and to rename Tel Aviv to Tel Khamenei.
«rename Washington DC to Khomeini DC and to rename Tel Aviv to Tel Khamenei.»
And an american pony for every iranian little girl!
https://web.archive.org/web/20250930161342/https://examinedlife.typepad.com/johnbelle/2004/03/if_wishes_were_.html
"You see, wishes are totally free. It's like when you can't decide whether to daydream about being a famous Hollywood star or having amazing magical powers. Why not -- be a famous Hollywood star with amazing magical powers! Along these lines, John has developed an infallible way to improve any public policy wishes. You just wish for the thing, plus, wish that everyone would have their own pony! [...] John wants me to point out that he got the idea from a Calvin and Hobbes strip in which little Susie first wishes that Calvin was nicer, then realizes she might just as well wish for a pony while she's at it."
https://featureassets.gocomics.com/assets/3cf94fe0deba01317193005056a9545d?optimizer=image&width=768&quality=85
Nope - Iran and China attacked first in Oct 7, 2023. If they didn't, Ukraine would be settled by now, because Congress Republicans were ready to stop funding Ukraine in autumn 2023.
USA represent only less than 1,5% of China GDP. All West combined 3%.
China can live without that.
France, UK, Germany, Australia refused to participate.
If China does it, it should be the worth shame of modern China history.
And further more, it would be the proof of China kneeling in front of US Imperial power.
And this act of Trump prove the weakness of USA. It's not the moment to save the snake who want to suffocate and eat you.
We'll see how long France and Germany can hold on to their NO.
Maybe Xi can offer to send a Chinese destroyer along side the first US carrier to try to transit the Straits. 😁
No, he want a US destroyer surrounded by Chinese oil tankers to protect his heroes.
China is an economic super power so it would be very difficult for Trump to determine what China will do. Trump can ask but not demand.
The U.S. and China are in a mutual deterrence scenario, where both sides have tools to influence the other, but China has increasingly strong leverage due to technology, energy, and financial independence. The weakening dollar-finance system and rising multipolarity limit U.S. coercion.
China’s Leverage (Key Tools and Advantages)
Critical Technology Dominance
China now controls 60 of 67 critical technologies of the future, including AI, quantum computing, next-generation semiconductors, biotech, and renewable energy.
This allows China to:
Limit U.S. ability to impose tech restrictions or sanctions effectively.
Influence global tech supply chains, including allied countries dependent on these technologies.
Reduce strategic dependence on U.S. innovation.
Rare Earths and Strategic Materials
China dominates production and processing of rare earths, essential for global electronics, defense, and clean energy.
Leverage includes the ability to restrict exports or set terms that could affect U.S. and allied industries.
Energy Diversification & Strategic Reserves
Oil and gas imports from Russia, Iran, and other sources reduce vulnerability to Gulf disruptions.
Strategic reserves (~1.3 billion barrels) provide a 3–4 month buffer.
Investments in renewables and domestic energy projects aim for near energy independence within five years, giving China leverage over U.S. attempts to pressure energy supply.
Financial Independence & Dollar Bypass
Expanding trade in yuan and alternative payment networks reduces U.S. leverage.
Exploits the weakening dollar-finance-security bargain: Gulf countries and others no longer rely entirely on the dollar for security and trade.
Global Manufacturing and Industrial Base
Control over critical production capacity allows China to influence global supply chains.
Ability to shift production or exports strategically in response to U.S. pressure, including in high-tech and industrial sectors.
Diplomatic and Geopolitical Options
Partnerships with Russia, Iran, and other nations allow China to bypass U.S.-led coalitions or sanctions.
Ability to maintain neutrality in conflicts while simultaneously protecting its strategic interests.
China Vulnerabilities
Short-Term Oil Dependence
Roughly 50% of seaborne oil imports pass through the Strait of Hormuz, a potential bottleneck.
Exposure to U.S.-Led Sanctions
Restrictions on technology, finance, or rare earth exports could slow growth temporarily.
Diplomatic Pushback Risk
Aggressive resistance to the U.S. could trigger coordinated action from U.S. allies.
U.S. Leverage (for comparison)
Dollar & Global Finance – Historically powerful but increasingly limited as China bypasses the dollar.
Technology Leadership – Still strong in certain sectors but challenged by China’s dominance in critical future technologies.
Alliances & Maritime Control – Can influence Gulf states, Japan, Europe, and key chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz.
Energy Pressure – Potential to disrupt China’s short-term oil imports.
Limits/Vulnerabilities:
Dollar-finance system eroding: Gulf states experienced disruption despite trading in dollars.
Election-year domestic political constraints.
Supply chain interdependence exposes U.S. firms and consumers.
Strategic Assessment
Short-Term: China can resist U.S. pressure through rare earths, critical technology leverage, industrial capacity, energy reserves, and alliances.
Long-Term: China’s energy independence, critical technology dominance, and financial alternatives erode U.S. leverage, while the declining dollar-finance system accelerates a multipolar trade environment.
Both sides risk economic and political costs if escalation occurs.
Bottom Line
China has clear leverage in technology, energy, finance, rare earths, and global supply chains.
U.S. leverage is constrained by domestic politics, the weakening dollar-finance system, and China’s counter-strategies.
This standoff is a stalemate, where both sides benefit more from careful diplomacy, indirect competition, and strategic hedging than direct confrontation.
The Belt and Road from China to the Middle East and back.
Let's have it.
But China had to move away from international operations!?
«Trump called on China and several other countries over the weekend to join his proposed naval coalition for securing freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz amidst the ongoing Third Gulf War.»
The point here is that the USA does not need to import any oil from the the Gulf but actually benefits hugely (together with the RF) from a fall in oil exports from the Gulf and it is not mainly about China (just a side bonus point) but about those "several other countries" that is NATO; Trump is clearly doing this to prove to his domestic base that the NATO governments are just freeloaders and they have all fallen into the trap as they have all refused to spend one euro or risk one soldier's life to protect *their own vital supply of oil* and are expecting the USA to spend a lot of money and many lives for their benefit.
«Iran already clarified that the strait is only closed to unfriendly countries, which presently doesn’t include China [...] 13.4% of the oil that China imported by sea last year came from Iran, while the Gulf Kingdoms (excluding Oman whose exports are from the Arabian Sea) and Iraq contributed around 35% of its imports [...] the Gulf Kingdoms’ drastically reduced oil exports to China)»
As to the PRC, however friendly the iranian government is to the PRC government it is fairly unthinkable that the Gulf Kingdoms will take the risk of shipping oil through the Straits to China even if Iran promises it will not attack them and in defiance and USA sanctions.
If the PRC has oil scarcity (it produces quite a bit of oil itself so it is not as bad as NATO or Japan) then it also has food scarcity as its agriculture is utterly dependent (like the EU and Japanese ones) on mechanization and synthetic fertilizers for maintaining levels of output.
The one thing that the PRC could do is to send PRC flagged and owned tankers to Iran and escort them with PRC warships to prevent them being seized by the USA navy as sanction breakers, but that would be really not their style.
BTW it is curious that Japan that is even more dependent than NATO on imports from the Gulf is not being mentioned.
Andrew: "If China doesn’t comply [...] the fragile Sino-US trade truce might not last"... Which came not as a gesture of US goodwill but a humiliating defeat as a result of Chinese rare earth minerals leverage.
Andrew: "If Xi proudly defies his demand, however, then Trump could perpetuate the conflict..." I think the whole world agrees that the US empire (and Trump) wants this iteration of Desert Storm to stop as fast as possible given oil prices are spiking and its military assets are getting a beating. The US empire basically does an aerial blitzkrieg, destroys as much as it can and murders as many key persons as it can by using the element of surprise and then to prevent another protracted war tries to "pull out" or pause which it then uses to rearm and launch another blitzkrieg. Rinse and repeat. That had learned that in Tehran prior to DS3 taking off and after the 12 day war.
Andrew: "Trump might reach a deal with Putin first". That's all theater. There won't be any deal because Trump has little to no say to what the US empire actually does. At best, he can temporarily stall some (not even all) military supplies and ISTAR on the Ukraine war front. Russia and China know they are in the same boat and they will never downgrade their current level of cooperation except maybe if Russia would start using nukes which would put too much pressure on China. If Iran would be finalized, Taiwan will be next. They know that in Moscow and they know that in Beijing.
No dilemma for Xi, just business as usual.
100% spot on. And if China then turns to Russia for oil, the issues of US military in Greenland and blockades of China arise.
And, btw, if China refuses, Europe will suffer severe consequences. So this is an epic game of chicken.
Bessent is in China and if he announces a deal over rare earths there may be a face-saving offramp.
I personally doubt China will accept any loss of face, and I think Trump is cognizant of this, so I still have some hope a way forward can be found.
If Iran gives free passage to oil to China through the Strait, what's the problem?
«Iran gives free passage to oil to China through the Strait, what's the problem?»
Free passage to *iranian* oil to the PRC? That would be seized by the USA Navy as sanction breaking and trigger huge tariffs against the PRC, and there is little reason why the iranian government should give free passage to Gulf Kingdom oil to the PRC to let them keep making them a lot of money while they (including Iraq) allow the USA to attack Iran from their territory or allow passage to USA and Israel forces over their territory. Unless the PRC is giving them some really really huge "presents".
It is as if the ukranian troops started to launch cruise missiles at Moscow from Norway, Lithuania and Poland and Finland and Estonia allowed them to pass through to attack St. Petersburg.
Well, that's in fact already the case. The only pre requisite is that the passages are coordinated with Tehran so that only those that have "the right" pass through and no accidents happen.
Of course. I still don't see hw China is in a bind. China and Iran both get what they want by allowing Chinese tankers through. Where is this trap that Trump has set for China?