We know that because that’s what the Chinese say. But before we get to that, it’s worth noting something else first. And it’s totally related.
Luke Gromen @LukeGromen
4h
For the 5th month in the last 6, “Nonmonetary Gold” was again the single biggest export of the US in March.
US gold exports were
1.7x > oil;
2x > than Rx preparations,
2.5x > aircraft engines.
Biggest destination for US gold exports: China or Switzerland (& then on to China).
So, are we paying for rare earths with gold? Weird, isn’t it—I mean, that spike? Trump’s spray painting everything in gold colors, but he’s sending the real stuff to China.
Hadda laff at this one—which is directly related to Hormuz:
Luke Gromen @LukeGromen
*Other than destabilizing Indo-Pacific energy supplies, food supplies, and industrial input supplies, neither nation wants to destabilize the Indo-Pacific region…
Bloomberg @business
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said he expects Donald Trump and Xi Jinping to discuss Taiwan when they meet next week and that neither nation wants to destabilize the Indo-Pacific region
What made me laugh about that was Rubio saying that Trump will be all ready to talk about Taiwan. No doubt there was a time when Taiwan might have topped Xi’s list of discussion topics, but no longer.
What happened is that on May 1 China assumed the presidency of the UN Security Council. And China’s ambassador to the UN, following Putin’s April 28th warnings delivered to Trump, had some choice words for Trump.
Ambassador Fu, reading out a written statement, explicitly stated that the US blockade against Iran must be lifted and that the root cause of the crisis lies in the “unjust” attacks by the US and its allies on Iran.
Ambassador Fu warned that if the Strait of Hormuz is still in crisis when Air Force One lands in Beijing, it will be on top of the agenda, despite the reality that China-US relationship goes far beyond the current crisis, as the continued closure of the world’s most vital chokepoint has become an unavoidable priority.
... He called for a synchronised deescalation — Iran should lift its restrictions and the US should lift its retaliatory blockade.
The ambassador expressed particular alarm over the current rhetoric from Washington suggesting that the ceasefire is only temporary and urged the international community to voice opposition to the resumption of kinetic operations.
…
Interestingly, the Ambassador seized the opportunity to categorically deny any military collaboration between China and Iran during the war. “But we are very sympathetic towards what the Iranian people are enduring. An illegitimate war has been imposed on the people…”
...
Significantly, three days after Fu spoke in New York, Beijing took a decisive step against the US by ordering Chinese refineries across the country to defy the Trump administration’s sanctions on Iranian oil. Action speaks better than words. This is the first time a country has frontally poked the Trump administration in the eye, marking a new level of defiance that may be a precursor of the shape of things to come. [cf. That Does It--No More Mr. Nice Guy]
...
On the other hand, it is a big thing in itself to warn a megalomaniacal politician like Trump to be publicly notified by Beijing that the invitation to him for a state visit comes with strings attached. Already, President Xi Jinping is reportedly balancing his invite to Trump with another one likewise to Putin in May itself.
And Trump’s visit to Beijing may not be written in stone:
One can never be sure about the Chinese motivation to publicly set the tone for Trump’s arrival in Beijing 10 days from now. Actually, embedded deep inside Ambassador Fu’s lengthy statement was a cryptic remark in parenthesis to the effect ‘if the visit (by Trump) takes place.’ Could it be that Beijing would have preferred Trump’s state visit to be deferred to a future date in calmer circumstances?
The fact of the matter is that Trump has three options —
a return to war but that is not only deeply unpopular internally and requires a redefinition of necessity as well as definite prospects of success;
two, moving toward negotiation but Tehran seeks a fundamental change in the negotiation framework which would essentially require a retreat by Trump from his maximum pressure policy.
There is a third option indeed, which is to continue the present “siege warfare.” It is less costly but is gradually becoming a strategic trap where the decisive factor is resilience.
This is where the shift in global pressure can be a critical factor. The US stands isolated today as a permanent member of the Security Council.
Trump is highly sensitive about criticism. He hit back at Putin with a rare public rebuff apropos the latter’s offer to mediate by advising him to concentrate on the war in Ukraine. Fu, on the other hand, has written on a clean state, factoring in the grim geo-strategic reality this is the last chance for the Trump-Netanyahu juggernaut to have another “go” at Iran’s destruction and disintegration.
Taking it all together, it appears that Xi is determined to deal with Trump as an equal—certainly he’s not going to take any guff from Trump. Remember who’s sending all the gold to China.
You do hafta wonder whether this trip will actually take place. Originally, it was clearly conceived as Trump traveling around the globe to the Middle Kingdom as the conquering colossus, after crushing Iran over a weekend. He would show up in Beijing’s Forbidden City as the guy who controlled most of the energy flow for the entire world. He would dictate terms. And then Iran didn’t cooperate by saying “I yield!” as Trump demanded, and the trip to Beijing was canceled. What has changed, that Trump wants to do it again? Is it that Trump needs some major PR? If so, getting lectured by the Chinese about Iran won’t fit in with that scenario. And, on the other hand, if Trump gins up a new bombing campaign, China may yank the invite themselves.
Thanks for reading Meaning In History! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
"...a return to war but that is not only deeply unpopular internally and requires a redefinition of necessity as well as definite prospects of success;..."
Ah, but that is the fly in the ointment (or the hair in the soup). This is not a true statement politically. As long as Israel desires a return to war it matters not what the American people think or "require" as to the terms of engagement with Iran or prospects of success. It only matters what Bibi and his cohorts want. If Israel "independently" attacks Iran (a logical falsehood in itself) and Iran responds in kind, how many (show of hands) truly think the U.S. will "sit it out"? This is the fatal flaw in what was supposed to be our representative Republic (Republicans' narrative) or our democratic Democracy (Democrats' narrative).
"...a return to war but that is not only deeply unpopular internally and requires a redefinition of necessity as well as definite prospects of success;..."
Ah, but that is the fly in the ointment (or the hair in the soup). This is not a true statement politically. As long as Israel desires a return to war it matters not what the American people think or "require" as to the terms of engagement with Iran or prospects of success. It only matters what Bibi and his cohorts want. If Israel "independently" attacks Iran (a logical falsehood in itself) and Iran responds in kind, how many (show of hands) truly think the U.S. will "sit it out"? This is the fatal flaw in what was supposed to be our representative Republic (Republicans' narrative) or our democratic Democracy (Democrats' narrative).
Come-uppance, and a cornered rat.