China and Iran are short-circuiting the American agenda. US President Donald Trump said he might delay his summit in Beijing with President Xi Jinping because of the ongoing war in Iran. Dennis Wilder, a former White House expert on China, reportedly said it would be bad optics if Trump met with Xi while the US military is engaged in Iran. (here) China is close to Iran and has so far refused to send forces to keep the Strait of Hormuz open, as Trump requested on Saturday. Therefore, the war could continue into April, when Trump was scheduled to arrive in Beijing. It’s uncertain how the market will respond to all of this.
The Chinese semiofficial daily Global Times wrote (here), “someone set the fire. Now they’re asking the world to help put it out – and split the bill …The Middle East issues have taught this lesson more than once: Military force can win battles. However, it cannot secure stability or build trust… From Iraq to Libya, from Afghanistan to Syria, every US-led military intervention came with promises of order and security. Each one left behind a deeper disorder. The crisis in the Strait of Hormuz today is not an isolated incident – it is the accumulated consequence of decades of policy choices, now reaching a boiling point. Iran’s threat to close the Strait is, at its core, a last-resort deterrent… If the war stops, the threat disappears… The security of the Strait of Hormuz does not depend on how many navies patrol it. It depends on whether the guns fall silent.”
The comment is thoughtfully crafted, allowing room for discussion and negotiation with the US while keeping the door open to Iran as well. China might be aware of the risk of irking the US and could try to find a path to navigate the delicate diplomatic situation, as the summit clock ticks, markets could become volatile, and Trump remains unpredictable.
It’s all over again, but with more twists than the consonant separating Iran and Iraq. In 2003, America messed up in Iraq. Will it do it again on a larger scale with Iran? Then, China’s role was behind the scenes (see here); now it is in the spotlight.
US President Donald Trump called on China to help patrol the Hormuz Strait, threatened by Iranian activities.
China might see two options now: America either handles Iran well or poorly. 1. If America succeeds and the war ends, Iran’s situation could keep getting worse, leading to regime change and eventually a deal with the US. In that case, China’s main role is to watch the situation and adjust as needed. Being on the US good side would then be beneficial.
2. America messes up. The situation in Iran is becoming increasingly unstable, and oil and gas prices are skyrocketing. The market becomes unpredictable, and everything shifts.
So, what should China do in its own best interests? Maybe, contrary to what seems obvious, China should do what it didn’t do 23 years ago – help the United States resolve this situation. This could boost China’s international credibility as a responsible stakeholder. It might build trust with the United States with humility and modesty, and start reevaluating its domestic and global strategies while keeping a close relationship with the US.
If, on the other hand, China antagonizes the United States, tensions both between the countries and globally are likely to increase. Unless China assumes that America is doomed, as it did 23 years ago. But then, it was wrong; would it be right now?
What China sees in America
Trump’s advisers are divided. “Some officials and advisers are warning Trump that surging gasoline prices could exert a political cost from the U.S.-Israeli attacks on Iran, while some others are urging him to keep up the offensive against the Islamic Republic,” reports Reuters (here)
The division underscores an important element for Beijing: Trump’s faults in strategic thinking. “The Trump administration acknowledged in classified briefings, CNN reported last night, that it did not make provisions for a closure because officials assumed that such a move would hurt Iran more than the United States. In its failure to anticipate Iran’s reaction, the administration ignored a dynamic that former Defense Secretary James Mattis, a first-term Trump appointee, was fond of pointing out: Once hostilities begin, “the enemy gets a vote.” (see here).
China might see that, in Iran, the US has no clear theory of victory (see also here) and think: ‘why should China help America that otherwise causes us a lot of trouble? Let them drown.’
US options in Iran
Still, for the US, there are two issues: Hormuz, the oil passage, and Iran itself.
Hormuz has allowed Russia to restart oil sales and provided China an opportunity to improve ties with the US while maintaining lower oil prices (since China is a net importer). Will it seize the chance?
Then Iran. The regime is resisting, but it’s shaky and wounded. It could fall, but time is needed for cracks in the leadership to grow and for the wounds to deepen. Heavy external pressure might keep things stable inside. Releasing pressure during a crisis can cause decay, but rot takes time and effort.
A realistic option might be to end the war quickly, keep the sanctions in place, and let the Iranian situation unfold naturally. Iran is a complex regime. It can’t be toppled like a dictatorship, and it will keep functioning even if a power vacuum occurs because of its complexity. However, a power vacuum creates a serious wound that could become infected, possibly leading to internal fractures that, over time, might cause radical changes.
Will the US and Israel take such actions? What about China and Russia? It’s a complex situation, but China and Russia didn’t save the paramount leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, which could impact Tehran’s current and future leaders’ considerations. This might give China something to consider.
US 2003 and 2023
In 2003, the US intervened in Iraq and Afghanistan because the main goal was to incorporate these countries into the existing international order through “nation building,” similar to what succeeded in Germany or Japan. However, after a few years, the US failed to rebuild Iraq, and the international order that the US established after World War II was being undermined by many forces resisting the “American thumb.”
The main power was rising China, which looked for loopholes and strategies to push its agenda without fully respecting the principles of the international order.
The result, after 23 years, is that America has largely abandoned an international order. It will intervene in foreign affairs not to restore one challenged by China and others, but to defend its own interests. As a result, there is little interest in nation-building. Its foreign interventions mainly aim to eliminate threats.
It doesn’t mean the US is completely abandoning nation-building or the international order; it indicates that its goals are limited. If these goals can be achieved within certain boundaries, such as in Venezuela, the US will pursue them. Otherwise, it will leave it to the people of that country.
American intervention in Iran was aimed at eliminating military threats and facilitating a political transition.
However, if that transition does not happen, its goals—such as eliminating Iran’s threat, weakening Iran’s economic and financial support for other subversive Shiite groups targeting Israeli and Western interests in the region, and stopping the rise of radical Islam—have already been achieved. Radical Islam has been humiliated, and it will take time to recover, if it ever does.
Russia and China now face a choice: either abandon Iran or support it, which will drain their limited resources. Either way, it’s to America’s advantage. Certainly, America has spent a lot of money on it. Conversely, the display of strength will encourage many Arab and oil-producing nations to fund the conflict, either directly or indirectly, gladly.
America faces many risks of messing up, but it also has a better shot at coming out ahead. China has little time to figure out what to do without trying to be too clever about it.
