ConflictClarifier

ردیاب بحران ایران-خلیج فارس ۲۰۲۶
CC
Events Archive
strikeApr 16, 2026

Trump has just handed China a major win. It shows the UK what to do next

Summary

The recent standoff in the Strait of Hormuz provided a stark reminder of global shipping vulnerabilities. Yet while Western policymakers focused on the immediate economic damage, Beijing seized a strategic opportunity. Analysts long assumed a Middle Eastern blockade would cripple China due to its reliance on imported oil, but that assumption is dangerously out of date. Having spent years hoarding strategic energy reserves, increasing overland Russian imports and cultivating diplomatic leverage, Beijing has engineered a position of considerable strength, which it has been using to its advantage. Look at what actually happened during the Iran conflict. Initially, China benefited. While Western shipping sat paralysed – stranded by Iranian mine and strike threats – China-flagged supertankers kept moving. Tracking data showed that vessels chartered by Unipec, the trading arm of China’s Sinopec, sailed unmolested through the kill zone. Iran has explicitly cleared vessels it considered coming from “non-hostile” nations. However, that calculus shifted abruptly when the US initiated a naval blockade of Iranian ports last week. Suddenly cut off from its largest source of heavily discounted crude oil, Beijing could no longer afford to simply work the room. It was forced to step out of the shadows, publicly condemning the US blockade as “irresponsible and dangerous”. This intervention forced a dizzying – if performative – reversal from the White House. Donald Trump abruptly announced he was ending the blockade “for China”, while anticipating a “big, fat hug” from Chinese leader Xi Jinping in return. Despite Trump’s vow, reports indicate US forces are still turning commercial ships back. Beijing is treating Trump’s transactional approach as an opening to advance its own broader agenda aggressively. Crucially, China can force this pivot because of its own domestic resilience. Aware that a maritime freeze could cripple its export economy, Beijing has spent years engineering its energy base for this exact scenario. It boasts the world’s largest emergency petroleum reserve, hoarding an estimated 1.7 billion barrels. It also continues to mine four times more coal than the next largest producer, while piped gas imports from Turkmenistan and Russia have ballooned. Beijing has also aggressively electrified – electricity now accounts for 30 per cent of its total energy consumption, roughly 50 per cent higher than the UK or US. Bolstered by this, Beijing has weaponised its ostensibly neutral posture to work the diplomatic room. Xi used a recent meeting with Abu Dhabi’s crown prince to insist the “international rule of law” must be upheld, and warning against a return to the “law of the jungle”. It was a calculated framing, allowing China to portray itself in contrast to the US, while signalling a stronger strategic partnership with the UAE and pushing regional economic items like the China-Gulf trade pact. But Chinese opportunism extends far beyond the Gulf. Beijing is using the distraction of the Middle East crisis to quietly solidify its relationships, notably thawing ties with India. The two nations’ commerce ministers met on 27 March to discuss deepening trade; a move aimed at further insulating both economies from international disruptions. Beijing remains profoundly cautious. While encouraging Tehran to accept the Pakistan-brokered ceasefire, it has resisted offering Iran deeper security assurances. This reflects a preference for influence without entanglement. In short, Beijing is content to facilitate agreements that keep its oil flowing without committing its military to underwrite Middle Eastern security. This approach appears to be paying off. Gulf nations, weary of collateral damage, are increasingly receptive to Beijing’s offers of post-conflict infrastructure development. There are also negotiations to permit the passage of regional shipping provided payments are made in yuan – accelerating the birth of the ‘petroyuan’ and attempts to dismantle the dominance of the US dollar. Nowhere, however, is Beijing leveraging this crisis more aggressively than across the Taiwan Strait. On 10 April, while the US was tied down in the Middle East, Xi hosted Taiwanese opposition leader Cheng Li-wun in Beijing. During the talks, he explicitly weaponised the Hormuz crisis, warning of the “inherent fragility of distant lifelines” and the “illusion of external rescue”. By pointing to Washington’s distraction and inability to secure a vital global chokepoint, Beijing was attempting to reinforce calls to slow Taiwan’s defence buildup, while also forcing its electorate to question US security assurances. This messaging was backed by a chilling proof-of-concept around the impact of blockading commercial waterways. To starve Taiwan – an island entirely dependent on the sea for imports – China’s People’s Liberation Army may believe it only needs to generate enough unpredictable peril to spook shipping underwriters in the City of London. For the UK and others, the lessons are uncomfortable. The true revelation is not about US strength, but Chinese resilience. To ensure economic progress, the imperative is fire-proofing the British economy against future geopolitical crises, building fundamental domestic resilience. This requires a dramatic acceleration of renewables, greater electrification of the economy and systemic changes to how Britain prices and trades energy. We knew this before, but the Iran war has given it a newfound importance. China has shown the world how to prepare and win out in a global crisis. James Rogers is a co-founder and director of research at the Council on Geostrategy

Actors involved

USIranRussiaChina

Sources

  • James RogersBy James Rogers

    The recent standoff in the Strait of Hormuz provided a stark reminder of global shipping vulnerabilities. Yet while Western policymakers focused on the immediate economic damage, Beijing seized a strategic opportunity. Analysts long assumed a Middle Eastern blockade would cripple

See this event through different lenses

Compare how Western, Iranian, Israeli, Global South, and Pro-Peace perspectives frame this event.

Compare Perspectives

Community Notes

Community Notes

Loading notes...

Related events

strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranUN
1 source

The US and its allies Britain, France and Germany are pushing other countries on the UN nuclear watchdog's board to pass a resolution next week reporting Iran to the UN Security Council for the first time in 20 years, diplomats said on Friday. If passed, the resolution would follow up on one adopted on June 12 of last year declaring Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for not fully cooperating with an investigation into uranium traces found at undeclared sites.

The US launched an air war against Tehran on February 28 in which, together with Israel, it destroyed or badly damaged Iran's uranium-enrichment facilities. Iran has not let International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors return to the bombed sites since then or verify what remains of its stocks of enriched uranium, some of which was enriched to up to 60% purity, a short step from weapons grade.

Resolution would be culmination of standoff over IAEA's access to nuclear sites A resolution by the IAEA's 35-nation board reporting Iran to the Security Council would also be the culmination of a standoff over IAEA access to those sites, since the board has passed two resolutions in the past year demanding Iran declare its enriched uranium stocks and grant the IAEA full access to verify them.

A draft text for the resolution has yet to be formally submitted to the board and negotiations between countries over the exact wording are ongoing, diplomats said. A draft is usually formally submitted early in the week of a board meeting. As a party to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran has the right to develop nuclear technology, including enrichment, for peaceful purposes.

Iran says it would never produce nuclear weapons. It is, however, the only country to enrich to 60% without making a bomb. The amount it has enriched to that level is "a matter of serious concern" to the IAEA. The IAEA believes well over 200 kg of that highly enriched uranium has survived the bombardments and is held in a tunnel complex at Isfahan and at the Natanz facility.

Location: Jerusalem
strikeUnverifiedUSIranChina
1 source

The U.S. Treasury imposed sanctions on the Turkish bank Golden Global Yatirim Bankasi Anonim Sirketi, alleging it facilitated the transfer of Iranian oil revenues into cash and gold. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated these measures are part of "Operation Economic Outcast," an initiative launched following more than six months of conflict to pressure Iran.

Location: Iran
strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranEURussiaChinaUkraineHamas
1 source

Rabobank reported that geopolitical developments, including Russian statements regarding potential peace talks in Ukraine and US-Iran hostilities, continue to dominate market sentiment, though analysts noted these claims remain unverified. The bank also cited unconfirmed reports that South Korea may deploy forces to the Strait of Hormuz and that Israel has stated regime change in Tehran is a primary objective, while noting that Ukrainian media reports of an impending northern Russian offensive lack independent verification.

Location: Tehran
strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranRussiaUkraine
1 source

The White House is now apparently using Russian tactics to convince the American public that the war in Iran is not, in fact, a war. When asked by reporters at the White House on Thursday whether the most intense sustained air campaign by American forces since the invasion of Iraq would be over by the midterms, Vice President JD Vance replied: “I wouldn’t call it a war.

” Vladimir Putin said much the same thing when he invaded Ukraine. Russia was not fighting a war either, the Kremlin insisted; it was merely conducting a “special military operation.” If that comparison strikes you as shocking, consider the contours of the two conflicts.

A vastly more powerful military launched a punishing offensive against a smaller, less well-equipped adversary, inflicted enormous damage without achieving a decisive resolution, and then found itself drawn into a longer, grinding conflict with no clear way out.

The motivations behind the wars may be different, and they’re playing out in different theaters, but the pattern is eerily similar. Now, so too is the attempt by those in power to control how the public understands, and even what it is allowed to call, the obvious war unfolding in front of them.

If This Isn’t a War, What Is? Let us take a moment to assess what exactly has happened since February 28, when the U.S. launched Operation Epic Fury. The opening U.S.-Israeli attack killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, along with the commander of the Revolutionary Guard, the defense minister and various other senior officials.

According to the U.S. military’s own accounting, the first 38 days of major combat operations involved more than 10,200 sorties and 13,500 strikes. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) says those attacks damaged or destroyed more than 85 percent of Iran’s ballistic missile, drone and naval defense industrial base, while knocking out 82 percent of its air-defense missile systems.

The U.S. sent carrier strike groups and warships into the region, later imposing a military blockade on Iranian ports. Meanwhile, American and allied air defenses intercepted more than 6,000 Iranian attack drones and 1,500 ballistic missiles fired at U.

S. forces, Israel and American partners across the Middle East. More than 50,000 U.S. service members remain deployed across the region. The fighting has killed 18 U.S. service members and at least 8,000 people across Iran, Lebanon, Israel and the Gulf states.

More than 750 U.S. service members have been wounded. Last month, during a lull in the fighting, the U.S. Treasury unveiled a sanctions package likened to an “economic D-day” that is designed to make Iran an “economic outcast” and cut the adversary off from all available forms of economic support.

In the announcement, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent openly declared that Iran had been “at war against America” for 47 years. This week, the shooting resumed; the U.S. hit targets in and around the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran blasted missiles at targets in Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan and Iraq.

All this from an administration that almost exactly a year ago launched a rapid rebrand of the Defense Department into the “Department of War”. No boots on the ground, though, so it’s not a war, right? Tell It Kind of Like It Is Even the very best snake-oil salesman would have a hard time convincing people that the war in Iran isn’t a war.

So why is JD Vance even trying? Well, if there’s one thing politicians understand better than anyone, it’s the importance of language and rhetoric. Words have immense power; a well-written speech can unite millions of people, and a catchy slogan like Make America Great Again can come to represent an entire political philosophy.

But war is a pesky word. For one, it implies there will eventually be a winner and a loser. It also brings with it certain expectations—and some very difficult questions. What is the objective? How many people will die? When will it end? And, perhaps most dangerously of all: was it worth it?

Those are not questions the White House wants Americans to be asking. Trump built a substantial part of his political identity around ending, rather than beginning, America’s “endless wars.” When Washington and Tehran signed a memorandum of understanding in June, the White House presented it as proof that Trump’s America First approach could deliver peace without another prolonged Middle Eastern conflict.

Then the hostilities started again. Earlier this week, Trump shared a Truth Social graphic declaring that “Hormuz Oil Volumes are BACK!”, saying 18 million barrels a day were once again leaving the Strait, compared with 20 million before the war. No independent commodity tracking company or energy analyst appeared to verify Trump’s claims.

But most Americans won’t be checking tanker-tracking dashboards. What they’ll care about is the cold, hard fact that diesel hit a new record price this morning, soaring to an average of $5.85 a gallon for the first time ever. Gasoline is $4.15 a gallon on average, compared with $3.

20 at this time last year, according to AAA. The numbers on the sign at the gas station and the price on the grocery receipt aren’t affected by Trump’s tall tales, but they’ll surely affect how Americans vote at the midterms. When viewed in this light, Vance’s attempt to discourage reporters from “call[ing] it a war” begins to make sense.

A war is something that we want to end. It tends to result in a winner and a loser. And its worth is up for debate at all times. A different kind of engagement that doesn’t quite meet the threshold of war—say, a special military operation—is not exposed to the same kind of scrutiny.

Vance effectively made that case himself. “When you ask, ‘When will this end?’ You’re asking me a question like, ‘When will the Iranians stop shooting at ships?’” he said. By that logic, there is no American war—only recurring Iranian provocations that require American military responses.

That’s exactly the logic applied by Putin to Ukraine and supposed expansion of NATO. Putting the Toothpaste Back in the Tube U.S. lawmakers have repeatedly invoked the War Powers Resolution to challenge Trump’s authority to keep fighting Iran without specific congressional authorization.

The law generally gives a president 60 days after U.S. forces enter “hostilities” to secure congressional approval or bring those hostilities to an end. That makes the pauses in fighting hugely important. When the original 60-day deadline arrived in May, Trump told Congress that the temporary ceasefire reached in April meant the hostilities that began on February 28 had ended.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth argued that the War Powers clock could “pause, or stop” when the shooting did. That position is disputed by legal experts, but its political utility is obvious. If every new outbreak of fighting can be treated as a separate skirmish, rather than part of one continuous war, the administration can argue that a fresh 60-day clock starts each time.

Vance’s insistence that there is no continuing “war” fits neatly for an administration that has already tried to divide six months of conflict into separate periods of hostilities, interrupted by ceasefires and pauses. This brings us back to Moscow.

The Kremlin’s own linguistic trick was also about making one sprawling war sound smaller, more limited and more manageable than it really was. From the very beginning of the invasion, Putin described the war as a special military operation. Only after two years of grinding warfare did Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov openly declare Russia to be in a “state of war”—and even then, he said the transformation had occurred because the “collective West” had joined the fight against Russia.

Vance is playing a similar game, but in reverse. Only now—with soaring fuel prices, mounting casualties, concerns over the military’s munitions stockpiles, and midterm elections on the horizon—is the conflict no longer a war. You can’t put the genie back in the bottle, though, and the American people aren’t stupid.

Vance and the White House may discover in November that voters are perfectly capable of recognizing a war, even when the vice president doesn’t want to call it one.

Location: Iran