Israel’s Security Paradox: Strength Without Psychological Closure

Benjamin Netanyahu’s long political dominance has coincided with one of the most turbulent phases in Israel’s modern security history. For his supporters, he represents strategic clarity in a hostile region. For critics, his era reflects the entrenchment of a permanent conflict mindset. Both interpretations, in different ways, touch the same underlying reality - Israel’s security condition today is defined as much by perception as by power.

Militarily, Israel remains one of the most capable states in the Middle East. Its intelligence infrastructure, air power, and multi-layered defence systems have significantly strengthened deterrence. Several adversaries are either weakened, fragmented, or operating under constraints not seen in previous decades. From a purely conventional standpoint, Israel’s strategic position appears more secure than in many earlier phases of its history.

Yet this is only one side of the equation. On the ground, security is not experienced in abstract balances of power. It is experienced through sirens, shelters, alerts, and the unpredictability of escalation. For civilians—particularly children growing up amid periodic conflict—security becomes a lived rhythm rather than a stable condition. Even when attacks are intercepted or contained, the psychological imprint of uncertainty remains. This is where Israel’s central paradox emerges - growing military strength has not translated into a proportional sense of psychological security.

The reason lies in the changing nature of conflict. Traditional wars between defined states have increasingly been replaced by asymmetric threats—rockets, proxy forces, cross-border raids, and regional instability. These forms of confrontation do not require parity to create disruption; they require only unpredictability. As a result, even a militarily dominant state can remain socially alert, frequently mobilized, and psychologically exposed.

Within Israeli society, this produces a dual perception. One strand believes Israel is stronger than ever, capable of managing multiple fronts simultaneously. Another strand, equally present, sees a country that remains encircled not necessarily by conventional armies, but by persistent and evolving threats that rarely disappear entirely.

Netanyahu’s political approach has reinforced this condition of “managed insecurity”—a doctrine in which deterrence is maintained not by eliminating threats, but by continuously containing them. This may strengthen strategic positioning in the short term, but it also prevents a full transition from conflict management to post-conflict normalcy.

The result is a society that oscillates between confidence and anxiety. Military superiority coexists with civilian vulnerability. Tactical successes coexist with strategic uncertainty. And periods of calm are often interpreted not as resolution, but as interludes between escalations.

The question is not whether Israelis believe their enemies are weaker or stronger. The more accurate question is whether they believe threats can ever be fully removed from their horizon.

For many, the answer remains uncertain. And it is in that uncertainty—more than in battlefield outcomes—that Israel’s modern security condition is ultimately defined.

Donald Trump and Corruption Debate

Few political figures in modern American history have generated as much controversy as Donald Trump. His supporters view him as a disruptive outsider who challenged entrenched political interests, while his critics see him as a president who blurred the boundaries between public office and private gain. The recent claim by The Independent that Trump has taken corruption to new highs reflects a debate that has become central to American politics.

The real story may not be whether Donald Trump has taken corruption to new heights. The real story is that America itself can no longer agree on what corruption looks like. In a deeply polarized nation, the same act is seen by one side as abuse of power and by the other as political persecution. That may be the most troubling development of all.

 Those who agree with the criticism argue that Trump’s presidency has been marked by an unprecedented overlap between political power and personal business interests. They point to controversies surrounding family business ventures, cryptocurrency projects, investment activities, and legal settlements that allegedly benefited Trump and those close to him. Critics contend that even when actions remain within the letter of the law, they can still raise serious ethical questions. In their view, public office should not create opportunities for private enrichment, nor should it create the perception that official decisions could be influenced by personal financial considerations. To these observers, the issue is not simply legality but the erosion of public trust in government institutions.

Supporters of Trump offer a very different interpretation. They argue that accusations of corruption have followed him since he entered politics and are often driven more by political hostility than objective analysis. They note that many allegations have not resulted in criminal convictions and that critics frequently present disputed claims as established facts. From this perspective, Trump’s business background inevitably creates scrutiny that career politicians rarely face. His defenders also argue that many of the policies he pursued were aimed at fulfilling campaign promises rather than advancing personal interests. They see the corruption narrative as part of a broader effort by political opponents and sections of the media to delegitimize his presidency.

The disagreement ultimately reflects different understandings of what constitutes corruption. For critics, the appearance of conflicts of interest can be as damaging as proven wrongdoing because public confidence depends on trust and transparency. For supporters, corruption should be defined more narrowly and require clear evidence of illegal conduct rather than assumptions based on political disagreements or ethical concerns.

What is beyond dispute is that the debate has become increasingly polarized. Americans are often evaluating the same events through entirely different lenses, reaching sharply different conclusions. To one side, Trump represents a dangerous fusion of political authority and private interests. To the other, he represents a target of relentless political and media opposition.

History will ultimately determine which interpretation carries greater weight. For now, the controversy serves as a reminder that in modern politics, perceptions of integrity can be almost as consequential as the facts themselves.

US and Oil Producers: Always in Confrontation

A striking pattern runs through modern geopolitics. Over the past three decades, many of the nations that have found themselves in Washington’s crosshairs share one defining characteristic: they are major producers of oil and gas.

The historical record is difficult to ignore. Iraq was invaded and dismantled under a pretext of weapons of mass destruction that never existed. Libya, once Africa’s most prosperous energy producer, was reduced to a fragmented state following Western military intervention. Syria became a prolonged proxy theater where strategic energy routes carried immense weight. Meanwhile, Venezuela—holding some of the world’s largest proven crude reserves—has endured years of crippling economic sanctions.

The containment list does not end there. Russia and Iran, two global energy titans, remain subject to unprecedented, extensive sanctions regimes. While each conflict features its own local political and security dimensions, the recurring intersection between energy wealth and geopolitical confrontation points to a deliberate strategic template rather than mere coincidence.

Iran has become the latest focal point of this enduring struggle. Recent military escalations against Iranian targets and the heightened friction surrounding the Strait of Hormuz have once again exposed the raw mechanics of global power politics. Officially, Washington and its allies frame these interventions as efforts to secure maritime routes, combat terrorism, or prevent nuclear proliferation. Critics, however, see a much broader, calculated agenda: squeezing regional producers to assert strategic dominance over the world's most critical energy corridor.

This raises uncomfortable economic questions. If market stability and uninterrupted energy flows are the ultimate objectives, why does the Arabian Peninsula repeatedly find itself pushed to the brink of conflict? The unsettling answer is that instability itself creates strategic leverage. A region under perpetual tension remains dependent on external security architecture, keeping energy markets highly vulnerable to artificial supply shocks.

For a superpower seeking to control global pricing power and enforce political alignment, a peaceful, independent, and smoothly operating Strait of Hormuz may simply not align with the broader geopolitical playbook.

Blockade of Strait of Hormuz: A Symptom, Not the Disease

The rising tension surrounding the Strait of Hormuz is once again dominating global headlines. Yet portraying the crisis merely as a maritime security dispute risks missing the broader geopolitical picture. The threat of disruption in one of the world's most critical energy corridors is not an isolated event; it reflects deeper and long-standing strategic tensions in the Middle East. Military posturing at sea may be the visible manifestation of the crisis, but the roots extend far beyond naval deployments.

At the center of the dispute lies the decades-long confrontation between the United States and Iran, shaped by disagreements over Tehran's nuclear ambitions, missile capabilities, regional influence, and economic sanctions. Successive rounds of sanctions have sought to pressure Iran into altering its strategic behavior, while Iran has argued that these measures amount to economic coercion intended to weaken its sovereignty and limit its regional role.

Supporters of sanctions maintain that economic pressure remains an important instrument for preventing nuclear proliferation and deterring regional escalation.

Critics, however, argue that prolonged sanctions have often generated unintended consequences, hardening positions rather than creating space for sustainable diplomacy. This divergence reflects one of the most enduring debates in international relations - whether coercive pressure changes behavior or merely deepens confrontation.

Questions regarding global non-proliferation policies have further complicated the debate. Critics often point to perceived inconsistencies in the international system, particularly concerning different approaches toward regional nuclear capabilities. Such perceptions, whether fully justified or not, contribute to mistrust and reinforce narratives of unequal treatment.

The Strait of Hormuz therefore should not be viewed solely through the narrow lens of maritime access or freedom of navigation. Any temporary reduction in tensions at sea may provide immediate relief to energy markets, but lasting stability is unlikely to emerge without addressing the wider political and economic disputes that continue to fuel confrontation.

The lesson is straightforward - blockades and naval tensions are symptoms of deeper geopolitical fractures. Addressing the symptom may calm markets for a time, but durable stability requires resolution of the underlying political disputes that continue to shape the region's strategic landscape.

Washington’s Flawed Energy Geopolitics

The persistent volatility in global energy markets is less a reflection of physical supply deficits and more a testament to weaponized energy supply. A cold analysis of data confirms there is no genuine global oil shortage. Instead, what the world is witnessing is a meticulously manufactured crisis, orchestrated by Washington in a desperate bid to dominate global oil production and its critical logistical chokepoints.

The centerpiece of this strategy relies heavily on calculated disruptions, particularly around the highly sensitive Strait of Hormuz. Yet, the Trump administration’s aggressive maneuvers have failed to achieve their ultimate economic target - driving crude prices up to US$200 per barrel mark. While the market remained resilient against these artificial supply shocks, the underlying motives of American interventionism have become glaringly obvious.

Through this manufactured instability, Washington has attempted to kill two birds with one stone. First, by keeping the market in perpetual anxiety without letting prices completely boil over to catastrophic levels, it successfully squeezed and manipulated the oil revenues of traditional Arab exporting nations, altering their fiscal leverage. Second, and perhaps more critically, the engineered friction along maritime routes are aimed at containing and throttling the steady flow of vital energy supplies to China’s industrial engine.

For developing economies, this artificial premium adds an unnecessary layer of import-led inflation. Global stakeholders must recognize that the current energy narrative is driven by geopolitical chess rather than the fundamentals of demand and supply. The international community must push for transparent, unhindered maritime logistics to insulate the global economy from unilateral hegemonic control.

Hostile Takeover of US Primaries by Billionaires

The integrity of democratic governance relies heavily on the transparency of its introductory gatekeepers - the political primaries. While international attention remains fixated on the theater of the general elections, a highly sophisticated, billionaire-backed financial apparatus is quietly engineering a structural overhaul of the electoral menu. 

Recent investigative disclosures have exposed a coordinated network of political action committees (PACs), shadow consultants, and dark-money conglomerates acting as a de facto "party within the party." This machine systematically distorts the democratic process long before the broader electorate ever reaches the ballot box.

From a structural standpoint, the strategy is calculated to maximize return on political investment. Primaries are historically low-turnout, low-visibility contests. In these economically vulnerable entry points, a heavily concentrated injection of capital yields outsized influence.

Billionaires and corporate interest groups are leveraging dark-money channels to finance saturated, highly targeted media campaigns. This capital asymmetry effectively suffocates grassroots contenders, forcing an artificial curation of candidates aligned with a centrist, corporate-friendly agenda. Because these transactions are deliberately obscured from public tracking, the fundamental relationship between representative and constituent is severely compromised.

This phenomenon extends far beyond campaign finance irregularities; it represents an existential threat to economic equity and fair representation. When elite donor classes capture the primary gateway, they effectively establish a "shadow veto" over macro policy.

Critical structural reforms—ranging from regulatory corporate accountability and tax normalization to robust economic justice initiatives—are preemptively sidelined. The result is a governance framework designed to insulate capital rather than serve the public interest.

If democratic systems are to retain institutional credibility, regulatory bodies must intervene, Congress must urgently implement stringent legislative reforms enforcing absolute disclosure of all political expenditure and multi-organizational coordination.

The power of the primary must be salvaged from private capital capture and restored to a merit-driven, community-oriented framework. Transparency is no longer a policy preference; it is the baseline requirement to prevent the absolute corporatization of the state.

Beijing’s Two Guests, Two Different Missions

China’s hosting of US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in quick succession was more than a matter of diplomatic scheduling. Red carpets and ceremonial greetings often appear similar, but the political calculations behind state visits differ significantly. Beijing appeared to receive two major powers pursuing very different objectives.

Trump’s visit seemed driven largely by immediate economic and geopolitical concerns. Tariffs, trade access, supply chains and tensions surrounding the Middle East crisis appeared to dominate the agenda. Washington’s priorities also seemed linked to limiting disruptions in global energy markets and ensuring the reopening and security of the Strait of Hormuz. The United States understands that prolonged instability in this vital maritime route would have consequences not only for oil prices but also for global economic confidence.

Putin’s visit appeared to carry a different strategic character. Moscow’s engagement with Beijing looked less transactional and more structural. Energy cooperation, strategic coordination and strengthening a partnership that increasingly challenges Western influence seemed to occupy a central place. While Washington frequently engages China through competition mixed with cooperation, Moscow increasingly approaches China as a long-term geopolitical partner.

On the question of Middle East peace and the US-Israel confrontation with Iran, both leaders had reasons to seek Beijing’s attention but from opposite directions. Washington appears interested in preventing a wider regional escalation that could destabilize markets and alliances. Moscow, meanwhile, may view prolonged instability as another indicator of a changing global order where US influence faces growing challenges.

Even reception ceremonies can carry subtle diplomatic messages. Observers often read airport greetings as signals of political warmth and priority. Whether intentional or not, such gestures become subjects of interpretation.

The South China Sea dispute and tariffs also remain unresolved pressures between Washington and Beijing. China’s larger message appears increasingly clear: it no longer wishes merely to participate in global politics; it seeks to shape the environment in which global politics is conducted.

Dubai’s Dangerous Drift

For decades, Dubai built its prosperity on neutrality, commerce, and strategic pragmatism. It transformed itself into the Middle East’s leading financial and logistics hub by staying open to all sides. Today that carefully cultivated image appears increasingly at risk as the emirate seems to drift into a broader US-led confrontation with Iran.

Recent tensions with Saudi Arabia, speculation surrounding its future role in OPEC, and growing American pressure to assume a larger regional security role have created an uncomfortable perception that Dubai may be abandoning neutrality for geopolitical adventurism.

That could prove dangerously costly.

Dubai’s economic strength depends overwhelmingly on foreign investment, tourism, trade, and financial services. Unlike larger regional powers, it possesses limited industrial and manufacturing depth to absorb prolonged geopolitical shocks. The moment investors sense instability, capital flight can begin rapidly. Financial centers survive on confidence, not military alliances.

Geography further magnifies the risk. Iran lies directly across the Gulf. In any military escalation, ports, airports, financial districts, and energy infrastructure become exposed targets. Even limited retaliation could disrupt shipping lanes, damage investors’ sentiments, and undermine Dubai’s carefully built reputation as a safe commercial gateway.

Another uncomfortable reality is often overlooked. While Israel may welcome Gulf normalization politically, it also views regional influence competitively. Dubai’s emergence as a dominant commercial and logistics hub does not necessarily align with Israeli ambitions to become the region’s undisputed technological and economic powerhouse.

Critical assets such as Jebel Ali Port and Port of Fujairah are central not only to Gulf trade, but also to global supply chains. Dubai became successful by avoiding regional confrontations. Abandoning that balance may expose the emirate to consequences far beyond its calculations.

MBS Silence and Strategic Pressure

The unusually restrained posture of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) during the ongoing US-Israel war on Iran reflects a deeper geopolitical shift unfolding across the Middle East. For decades, Washington’s regional strategy relied heavily on portraying Iran as the principal threat to Arab security. However, the China-brokered rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Iran weakened that narrative and signaled growing strategic independence within the Gulf.

Equally significant is Riyadh’s continued reluctance to join the Abraham Accords despite persistent pressure from the United States. Several Gulf states now appear increasingly cautious about unconditional alignment with Washington’s regional priorities.

Against this backdrop, the renewed legal attention to the Jamal Khashoggi case in France carries significance beyond the human rights dimension alone. A French anti-terrorism judge has been tasked with investigating allegations linked to Khashoggi’s killing inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in 2018 — years after Turkey transferred proceedings to Saudi authorities and the United States effectively closed related civil litigation by granting immunity protections to MBS.

There is no evidence of direct political coordination behind the French inquiry. Yet, in geopolitics, timing often shapes perception as much as facts themselves. The reopening of a dormant controversy at a moment of visible divergence between Washington and Riyadh inevitably invites broader strategic interpretation.

Whether the renewed focus on Khashoggi is purely judicial or partly geopolitical may become clearer in the months ahead, particularly if tensions between the United States and Saudi Arabia continue to widen.

Trump’s China Visit: Too Many Words, Too Little Substance

President Donald Trump’s visit to China was projected by much of the American media as a diplomatic breakthrough. In reality, the visit appeared heavy on rhetoric but short on meaningful strategic outcomes. Beneath the carefully managed optics, Washington’s policy contradictions remained fully visible.

The most obvious contradiction was economic. The United States continues efforts to disrupt the movement of Iranian crude oil to China while simultaneously expecting constructive engagement from Beijing. It is difficult to pressure a country’s energy interests and then seek cooperation on trade, regional security, and geopolitical stability. President Xi Jinping had little reason to offer major concessions under such circumstances.

The timing of renewed discussion around Taiwan also appeared questionable. Following the visible reduction of American naval activity in the South China Sea, reviving the Taiwan issue during the visit only reinforced Beijing’s long-standing concerns regarding Washington’s strategic intentions. For China, Taiwan is not a bargaining issue but a matter directly linked to sovereignty and national security.

Economic realities further exposed America’s declining leverage. Trump may have sought to promote exports from Boeing, yet Washington today offers far fewer incentives to Beijing than it once did. China has diversified its trade partnerships, expanded industrial self-reliance, and strengthened economic ties across Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. The global economic order is no longer dominated by a single power center.

Equally significant was the simultaneous meeting of foreign ministers from BRICS. The participation of Iran and the United Arab Emirates reflected the growing tendency among regional powers to diversify strategic relationships instead of relying exclusively on Washington.

Trump’s Beijing visit therefore highlighted a larger geopolitical reality. Media headlines may attempt to project diplomatic success, but symbolism alone cannot conceal the steady transition toward a more multipolar world where economic partnerships and strategic consistency increasingly matter more than political messaging.

Taiwan Most Contentious Issue in China-US Relations

This week, US President Donald Trump visited China for the first time in nearly nine years, and met with Chinese President Xi Jinping. The summit, held at the Great Hall of the People, lasted for more than two hours. While China staged a grand ceremony and both sides exchanged diplomatic pleasantries, the substance of the leaders' talks remained unclear, at least through Thursday.

Against this backdrop, major media outlets, including Nikkei Asia, have highlighted a "warning" made by Xi. According to a readout published by state news agency Xinhua, Xi told Trump that the Taiwan question is "the most important issue" in US-China ties. "If handled well, bilateral relations can maintain overall stability," Xi was quoted as saying. If "handled poorly," the two countries risk a "clash" that could push "the entire China-US relationship into a very dangerous situation."

The term "clash" is far from mild. Notably, the US readout after the meeting did not mention Taiwan. While China has sought to project this message as a "warning" to the world, the US appears to have sidestepped what Xi described as the "most important" issue in the relationship, leaving the talks sounding inconclusive.

Trump's visit to China was accompanied by prominent business leaders, including Apple CEO Tim Cook and Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, a central figure in the AI boom, who joined the trip at the last minute. Despite bringing along some of the country's most influential executives, who also have great influence on Asia's technology supply chains, the visit has so far resulted in no notable tech business announcements.

US-China talks, which were expected to have significant global implications, appear to have ended in ambiguity. It appears that Xi, through his warning on Taiwan, delivered the headline-making message. Having said he will host Xi in the US ahead of the country's midterm elections, Trump will likely seek to claim more tangible outcomes when the second round of the summit is on his home turf.

Trump: Diplomat, Opportunist, Hypocrite or Simply a Gambler?

The latest headline in Nikkei Asia — “Trump calls Xi ‘great leader,’ vows ties will be better than ever” — once again exposes the extraordinary contradictions that define the politics of US President, Donald Trump. Only recently, Trump had declared that the United States did not require Chinese cooperation to deal with a possible blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. At the same time, Washington continued tightening sanctions targeting the movement of Iranian oil to China while portraying Beijing as America’s principal strategic adversary.

The sudden shift in tone raises a serious question, who exactly is Donald Trump — a diplomat, an opportunist, a hypocrite, or simply a political gambler?

Diplomacy normally relies on consistency, credibility, and strategic clarity. Trump’s style appears fundamentally different. His statements often seem driven less by coherent long-term policy and more by immediate political or economic convenience. One-day China is accused of exploiting global trade, weakening American industry, and threatening international security. The next day, Xi Jinping is described as a “great leader” and bilateral relations are promised a bright future.

Such contradictions may energize domestic political audiences, but these simultaneously weaken America’s diplomatic credibility abroad. Allies struggle to understand Washington’s actual strategic direction, while rivals increasingly view American policy as transactional and unpredictable.

The contradiction becomes even sharper when examined alongside Trump’s broader policies. Sanctions on Chinese-linked Iranian oil trade, aggressive tariff rhetoric, restrictions on technology exports, and repeated efforts to economically isolate Beijing all reinforce the perception that Trump views China less as a business partner and more as a geopolitical foe. Yet whenever economic pressure begins unsettling American markets or threatening global supply chains, the rhetoric suddenly softens.

When a leader repeatedly alternates between portraying China as an existential threat and praising its leadership as indispensable, critics naturally begin questioning whether such statements reflect genuine policy or merely political convenience.

This is not classical diplomacy. It resembles high-stakes bargaining where confrontation and praise are alternated to maximize leverage. Trump appears convinced that unpredictability itself is a negotiating weapon. However, unpredictability may work in real estate deals; it becomes dangerous in global geopolitics.

Great powers can survive hostile rivals, but they struggle under inconsistent leadership. The real danger for America may not be China’s rise, but Washington’s inability to decide whether Beijing is an enemy to confront or a partner it ultimately cannot live without.

Trump Pushing China Towards Confrontation

Just before departing for China, US President Donald Trump imposed another round of sanctions targeting the movement of Iranian oil to China. Officially, Washington presents the move as part of its pressure campaign against Iran. In reality, the sanctions expose a far bigger strategic objective - tightening America’s economic grip around China.

This is not an isolated policy decision. Since returning to power, Trump has aggressively revived tariff wars, expanded restrictions on Chinese technology, intensified pressure on supply chains, and openly challenged Beijing’s growing influence across Asia and the Middle East. The latest sanctions simply add energy security to Washington’s expanding list of pressure tactics.

China’s economic machine depends heavily on uninterrupted energy imports. Iranian crude, often available at discounted prices, has remained an important component of China’s energy strategy despite Western sanctions. By attempting to choke these supplies, Washington is effectively signaling that no sector of the Chinese economy will remain outside the reach of American coercive power.

The message becomes even more provocative when discussions surrounding the Strait of Hormuz are taken into account. Any blockade or disruption in this critical maritime corridor would severely impact Chinese industry, exports, and economic stability. Whether openly stated or not, the strategic implication is unmistakable - the United States is demonstrating its capacity to threaten the economic lifelines of its principal global rival.

Washington may be dangerously misreading Beijing’s patience. Today, China is not a weak, inward-looking economy of the 1990s. It is a global economic giant, a technological competitor, and an emerging military power increasingly unwilling to bow before American pressure. Every new tariff, sanction, or strategic threat deepens Chinese mistrust and accelerates Beijing’s efforts to reduce dependence on Western-controlled financial and trade systems.

From a geopolitical perspective, Trump appears convinced that sustained pressure will force China into strategic compromise. Yet history often produces the opposite result. Major powers rarely surrender under humiliation; they retaliate when they conclude that confrontation has become unavoidable.

The danger is that Washington’s relentless pressure campaign may gradually transform economic rivalry into open geopolitical hostility. If that happens, the consequences will extend far beyond China and America, shaking global trade, energy markets, and already fragile international stability.

Significance of Upcoming Trump-Xi Summit

Since former US President Richard Nixon landed in Beijing in 1972 and redefined US-China relations, no countries have done as well as these two. Since then the US has generated more than US$23 trillion in additional GDP, while China lifted 800 million people out of extreme poverty, accounting for three-quarters of all global poverty reduction in the period. 

In 1990, China accounted for just 1.6% of global GDP; today it accounts for nearly 18%, meaning the two together now represent 44% of the world economy, up from 28% when globalization began in earnest.

A dollar invested in the S&P 500 the year Nixon landed in Beijing is worth over US$270 today. China, which had negligible industrial capacity in 1972, now produces more manufactured goods than the next nine countries combined.

This is not to say that the fruits of globalization were enjoyed equally within either economy. The CCP’s cultural genocide of the Uighurs and the slow-motion death of the US industrial heartland are the receipts: ruthless consolidation in China, hollowed-out communities, and rising inequality in America. But this was the deal both sides made.

The US told itself fairy tales about economic liberalization leading to a more democratic China; in fact, both populations simply got significantly richer than the rest of the world. And to quote the bard, therein lies the rub—in a US-China trade war, neither can win against the other. 

Victory in a US-China trade war is a competition about who can lose the least. The true winners are the countries that can stay out of the trade war, a difficult feat in a global economy so dominated by Washington and Beijing.

It’s easy to assign President Trump’s first term as the starting gun of the US-China trade conflict, since he ran on being tough on China back in 2015. But the fight began in 2009 when the Obama administration slapped a 35% tariff on tires from China.

Geopolitical forces were already well at work before Trump and Xi came to power. Trump speed things up, but his pressure was always in service of “the art of the deal.”

Then the pandemic hit. One doesn’t need to be a conspiracy theorist to see that Beijing’s stubbornness made it much harder for the world to control the virus.

The pandemic threw US-China relations off course and likely helped Biden win in 2020—and Biden had no interest in making a deal with China.

Instead, he doubled down on Trump 1.0’s tough talk. Trump 2.0 prefers to pick up where he left off. His administration has threatened, cajoled, and tariffed China to no end, but it was clear even on the campaign trail that President Trump does not ultimately want to fight with China; he wants to deal with China.

In the then-candidate’s own words in August 2024, “If they want to build a plant in Michigan, in Ohio, in South Carolina, they can—using American workers, they can.”

This is one of President Trump’s most maverick policy choices. The US national security establishment and the rest of the “swamp” are China hawks.

They see China as the next great peer competition to US power in the world… and the most serious threat the US has ever faced. In terms of sheer size, power, and wealth, they are correct.

Moreover, the hawks aim to use Trump’s threats, which Trump needs as leverage in his negotiations, to realize their own goals in blocking the rise of Chinese power.

China would also rather avoid a fight—the US is its single largest export market, and exports make up roughly 20% of China’s GDP. When Trump 2.0 tariffs hit in 2025, bilateral trade fell 29%, yet the US remained China’s top export destination.

China produces 28% of global manufactured goods but can’t absorb them domestically, making the US the key buyer keeping its factories running. Still, China is ready to fight if needed, knowing a nationalist dictatorship can weather economic pain better than a liberal democracy.

It is evident that while the US and China have been negotiating, China rolled out new trade rules that lay the legal groundwork for punishing foreign companies that seek to shift their sourcing away from China.

Over the weekend, China told five domestic refiners linked to Iranian oil trade to ignore explicit US sanctions based on a 2021 Chinese law.

 

US remains an uninvited guest in Persian Gulf

I am pleased to share one of my blogs posted on May 06, 2020, nearly six years ago, arguing that the United States has no legitimate role in the Persian Gulf and is effectively an “uninvited guest.”

A key theme is historical legitimacy. Iranian officials draw parallels with past foreign powers such as Britain and Portugal, noting that they eventually left the region, implying the United States will also have to withdraw.

The Persian Gulf is framed not only as a strategic waterway but as part of Iran’s identity, with claims that it has been protected by Iranians for thousands of years.

The blog also highlights Iran’s emphasis on military readiness. Rouhani and others stress that Iran’s armed forces—including the Revolutionary Guards, army, and associated units—are fully capable of securing the region.

Iranian officials describe the US presence as a source of instability, tension, and insecurity, insisting that regional security should be handled by neighboring countries.

Overall, the blog reflects a coherent narrative aimed at delegitimizing US presence while asserting Iran’s dominance and responsibility in the Persian Gulf.

To read details please click https://shkazmipk.blogspot.com/2020/05/united-states-uninvited-guest-in.html

SeaLead operated vessel transits through Strait of Hormuz

According to Seatrade Maritimes News, the Antigua-Barbuda flagged container ship Paya Lebar has traded both into and back out of the Arabian Gulf between April 13-28.

The SeaLead Shipping operated and owned Paya Lebar transited westbound through the Strait of Hormuz westbound into the Gulf on April 13 having been at anchor in Nhava Sheva, India since late March.

While in the Gulf the vessel called at Jebel Ali and Khalifa ports in the UAE and Hamad in Qatar.

The Paya Lebar crossed the Strait of Hormuz eastbound on April 29 - passing the approximate location of the US naval blockade in the Arabian Sea as it heads back to Nhava Sheva.

The movements of the Paya Lebar would imply a change in policy by SeaLead which said on March 02 in customer advisory it had halted all transits through the Strait of Hormuz for the safety of its crews, ships, and cargoes.

In July last year the US Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctioned 16 container ships the company had on charter over links with Iran. SeaLead acted to quickly terminate the charters on the 16 vessels and denied it had ties with Iran.

However, in March this year the US Department of Justice filed civil forfeiture complaints seeking to seize US$2.4 million in funds allegedly intended for SeaLead Shipping and its Indian subsidiary, as part of a broader action targeting more than US$15.3 million tied to a sanctions-evasion network linked to Mohammad Hossein Shamkhani, the son of a senior adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader.

 

 

 

Who holds the cards?

Having departed Pakistan on Saturday just as the US was preparing to send emissaries to discuss the war, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi eventually popped up for talks with Vladimir Putin in St. Petersburg, where he said Tehran is committed to strengthening its partnership with Moscow, reports Bloomberg.

Araghchi’s geopolitical chess move came after a dissonant weekend of potential feints and false starts in the effort to end the US-Israel war with Iran. As news broke that the Iranian official was leaving Islamabad, Trump announced he was canceling the trip by Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, in part because the US “has all the cards.”

Iran has told Pakistan, which is operating as an intermediary, that it would cease obstruction of the Strait of Hormuz if the US ended its naval blockade of Iranian shipping. Under its plan, negotiations over Iran’s nuclear research would be dealt with later, Axios reported.

While the White House said it hasn’t changed its position on “red lines” associated with Iran’s atomic program, the administration said it was nevertheless discussing the Iranian proposal.

None of this back and forth sat well with energy markets Monday, the eve of the war’s two-month anniversary. Brent crude prices rose for a sixth straight session to settle above US$108 a barrel. And at least one European leader angered by the high energy prices the continent is paying thanks to the conflict was less than diplomatic in his assessment.

The US “is being humiliated by the Iranian leadership,” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said Monday, adding he didn’t see “what strategic exit the Americans are now choosing.” Tehran’s negotiators, the German leader said, are proceeding “very skillfully—or indeed very skillfully not negotiating.”

Security Scare at the White House

An alleged gunfire scare at the White House during a journalists’ dinner has triggered concern—but even more than concern, it has triggered doubt. In a place defined by airtight security, such an episode is either a serious breach or a serious failure of explanation. Both are equally damaging.

Let us begin with the obvious, the White House is among the most secure facilities in the world. Layers of intelligence, screening, and armed protection are designed precisely to prevent such scenarios. The suggestion that a weapon could be carried anywhere near a high-profile gathering strains belief. If this happened, it signals an alarming breakdown. If it did not happen as suggested, then clarity is being sacrificed.

The next line of failure lies in the vetting of invitees. Events involving journalists and senior officials are subject to rigorous checks. Entry is not casual; it is controlled, verified, and monitored. Any lapse here is not minor—it reflects systemic weakness in procedures that are assumed to be foolproof.

The communication surrounding the incident adds another layer of concern. The role of the Press Secretary is to provide facts with clarity. Yet the presentation of this episode appears carefully shaped, raising a legitimate concern that perception is being managed as much as information is being shared. In sensitive situations, even a hint of narrative control undermines trust.

Equally disappointing is the media’s response. Instead of interrogating inconsistencies, parts of the press seem content to amplify the spectacle. A potential security lapse should provoke scrutiny, not serve as a ratings opportunity. When journalism drifts toward dramatization, public confidence erodes further.

Finally, the silence of the educated elite stands out. Incidents of this magnitude demand questioning, debate, and accountability. The absence of critical engagement suggests a worrying complacency among those expected to challenge official narratives.

Whether this was a genuine breach or an exaggerated scare, the larger issue is credibility. Institutions weaken not only through failure, but through unanswered questions—and the unwillingness to confront them.

Chinese Deployment in South China Sea

According to media reports, China has deployed vessels and installed floating barriers at the entrance to the South China Sea, where it is engaged in a maritime territorial dispute with the Philippines. This move comes as the United States, which is at war with Iran, has positioned three aircraft carriers in the Middle East and withdrawn military assets and personnel from the Indo-Pacific region. In the past, when US carriers left the area, Beijing often tested the level of external pressure against it through various channels.

According to reports vessels presumed to be Chinese Navy or Coast Guard patrol ships, fishing boats, and floating barriers crossing the reef were detected near the Scarborough Shoal lately. The Scarborough Shoal is one of the most fiercely contested maritime territories in the Indo-Pacific, where Chinese Coast Guard ships frequently ram and spray water cannons at Philippine maritime patrol vessels.

In 2023, China had installed floating barriers in the waters around the Scarborough Shoal to block Philippine fishing boats, leading to a conflict when Philippine Coast Guard divers were dispatched to remove them.

China claims sovereignty over most of the South China Sea under its self-defined "nine-dash line," but the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) ruled in 2016 that this claim has no basis under international law. Despite this, Beijing has continued to dispatch patrol ships to the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone (EEZ), prolonging the dispute.

The US has pressured China since 2015 by conducting "Freedom of Navigation" operations in the South China Sea. Allies and partner nations advocating for a "Free and Open Indo-Pacific" (FOIP) have also participated in these exercises. However, a significant portion of US naval forces is currently deployed near Iran and the Strait of Hormuz.

The Washington Post has reported last month that the USS George H.W. Bush, which departed from the Norfolk base in Virginia, is expected to arrive in the Middle East around the April 21, 2026. This marks the third aircraft carrier to be deployed to the region, following the USS Abraham Lincoln, previously stationed in the South China Sea, and the USS Gerald R. Ford, which was deployed in the Caribbean Sea.

Additionally, part of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system, a key component in South Korea’s defense against North Korean nuclear and missile threats, has been withdrawn, and the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, typically the first to respond to contingencies on the Korean Peninsula, has been redeployed from Japan to the Middle East.

 

China slams US blockade of Iranian ports

China has slammed the US blockade of Iranian ports as dangerous and irresponsible, calling for an immediate and full ceasefire and for the Strait of Hormuz to be reopened.

Foreign ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun told reporters at a daily briefing in Beijing on Tuesday that the US action would only “inflame tensions, escalate the situation and undermine an already fragile ceasefire”, and that would further jeopardize the safety of navigation in the strait.

“We urge all parties to abide by the ceasefire arrangement, focus on the broader direction of dialogue and negotiations, take concrete actions to de-escalate the regional situation and restore normal navigation in the strait at an early date,” Guo said.

He added that the situation in the region was “at a critical stage” and said China would continue to work with the international community to promote peace talks and to strive for peace and stability in the Middle East.

The US began a naval blockade of Iranian ports on Monday after its marathon peace talks with Iran in Pakistan to reopen the Strait of Hormuz failed over the weekend.

The US Central Command on Monday issued a formal notice to seafarers outlining enforcement measures in waters around the strait, saying that not all maritime traffic would be halted. The blockade “will not impede neutral transit passage through the Strait of Hormuz to or from non-Iranian destinations”, it said.

Iran has warned of retaliation, vowing that “no port in the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman will be safe”.