Apart from some interesting choices by the US (like the idea of a double blockade), most actions during this war after it started has made logical sense and follows a typical escalation pattern. I've mostly understood the US and Iranian position and goals, as well as that of Israel and the GCC nations.
That said, I've been immensely curious about China's response. This seems like the ideal time to deal mortal damage to the US. So the following points to the contrary required some serious thought:
I've begun to suspect that the main reason China has acted the way it has in this conflict is to test if the US is agreement-capable.
While China and the US have had major disputes for decades, what's been the situation for at least the last half century was that the US could, at least mostly, stick to agreements like the One China Policy and Three Communiques. At recently as Biden's slip up where he publicly said the US would militarily assist Taiwan, the White House was quick to clarify Biden's words and re-affirm its commitment to established agreements with China. Of course this doesn't mean they won't intervene in armed reunification, but they did firmly uphold established agreements and correct their own president. Its hard to imagine they would do the same if Trump said it today. More likely they'd just try to ignore Trump's words, leaving an ambiguous mess.
Assessing whether your opponent is agreement-capable is vital because it sets appropriate goals and how you can reach them. Say Armed Reunification does happen in the future, the situation regarding ending that war would depend strongly on if the US could stick to post-war agreements (regardless of how the war actually pans out) or if they would just tear it up like the Iranian MoU, leading to a state of ambiguous, intermittent war punctuated by bad faith attempts at truces. This is perhaps the worst situation for a nation that prefers peaceful development and commerce like China.
To put it more simply, if the US is non-agreement-capable, it may be in China's interest to fight a far bloodier and more extensive war and force US compliance out of material reality rather than mutual agreement. This is likely not their original intention, for if they could just fight a short and more contained war (or avoid war altogether with a peaceful reunification), I believe that would be the preference given China's political culture. The continual Chinese attempts to push for a binding agreement to end the US-Iran War likely reflects China's hopes (given how they currently benefit from the global status quo), and we should watch for when/if they give up on this and instead start taking action to maximise pain on the US.
As for Iran, I see its actions as a mirror of what China would like to do. Like China, Iran is a nation in need of rapid peacetime economic development, which is why they keep playing the nuclear and Strait of Hormuz cards to try and lift economic sanctions. How the US acts to Iran is likely how it would act to China, so China is testing if its ideal path of resolution vs the US would work using Iran as a test run.
That said, I've been immensely curious about China's response. This seems like the ideal time to deal mortal damage to the US. So the following points to the contrary required some serious thought:
- Why did China strongly push for Iran to sign a truce/MoU with the US?
- Why did China reduce its own oil imports to stabilise global prices, essentially bailing out the US?
I've begun to suspect that the main reason China has acted the way it has in this conflict is to test if the US is agreement-capable.
While China and the US have had major disputes for decades, what's been the situation for at least the last half century was that the US could, at least mostly, stick to agreements like the One China Policy and Three Communiques. At recently as Biden's slip up where he publicly said the US would militarily assist Taiwan, the White House was quick to clarify Biden's words and re-affirm its commitment to established agreements with China. Of course this doesn't mean they won't intervene in armed reunification, but they did firmly uphold established agreements and correct their own president. Its hard to imagine they would do the same if Trump said it today. More likely they'd just try to ignore Trump's words, leaving an ambiguous mess.
Assessing whether your opponent is agreement-capable is vital because it sets appropriate goals and how you can reach them. Say Armed Reunification does happen in the future, the situation regarding ending that war would depend strongly on if the US could stick to post-war agreements (regardless of how the war actually pans out) or if they would just tear it up like the Iranian MoU, leading to a state of ambiguous, intermittent war punctuated by bad faith attempts at truces. This is perhaps the worst situation for a nation that prefers peaceful development and commerce like China.
To put it more simply, if the US is non-agreement-capable, it may be in China's interest to fight a far bloodier and more extensive war and force US compliance out of material reality rather than mutual agreement. This is likely not their original intention, for if they could just fight a short and more contained war (or avoid war altogether with a peaceful reunification), I believe that would be the preference given China's political culture. The continual Chinese attempts to push for a binding agreement to end the US-Iran War likely reflects China's hopes (given how they currently benefit from the global status quo), and we should watch for when/if they give up on this and instead start taking action to maximise pain on the US.
As for Iran, I see its actions as a mirror of what China would like to do. Like China, Iran is a nation in need of rapid peacetime economic development, which is why they keep playing the nuclear and Strait of Hormuz cards to try and lift economic sanctions. How the US acts to Iran is likely how it would act to China, so China is testing if its ideal path of resolution vs the US would work using Iran as a test run.
