When the flames of war leapt from the Caribbean coast of Caracas to the Alborz Mountains overlooking Tehran, the geopolitical map began its most brutal reshuffling since the end of the Cold War.
As US-Israeli forces launched a series of precision, regime-targeted strikes against Iran — openly declaring the overthrow of the theocratic regime as their objective — the clock was ticking down to the much-anticipated summit between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) at the end of this month. The timing was no coincidence. The military action was not merely about redrawing the Middle East; it was a strategic foreclosure notice delivered to Beijing on the eve of negotiations. The message was unmistakable: China’s long-cultivated “leverage diplomacy,” including the notion of dangling Taiwan as bait in a sweeping “grand bargain” with Washington, had evaporated under the shock of overwhelming force.
Only weeks earlier, Peking University academic Wang Jisi (王緝思) and US-China academic David M. Lampton had published a striking essay in Foreign Affairs. Timed conspicuously ahead of the Trump-Xi meeting, the article floated a bold proposition: Capitalize on Trump’s transactional instincts. Beijing, it suggested, could pursue a strategy of inducement — using Taiwan as a form of strategic leverage to entice Washington into a broader “grand bargain” encompassing trade and geopolitical concessions, in exchange for US flexibility on China’s core interests.
Analysts have said that Beijing’s calculation is that with the US stretched thin in the Middle East, Washington would need China’s cooperation to restrain Iran, to contain Russia and to keep North Korea in check. Add to this domestic legal setback to Trump’s tariff policies, and the logic followed that he might seek a diplomatic “win” with Beijing.
Instead, Trump flipped the table. Rather than negotiate from perceived weakness, Washington replaced the bargaining table with the battlefield. The gambit exposed what it was: a one-sided illusion of leverage, colliding with US hard-nosed realism.
For years, Beijing walked a careful line on Iran. Publicly, it signaled willingness to assist in restraining Tehran’s nuclear ambitions and regional provocations, occasionally aligning with sanctions language at the UN. However, in practice, China functioned as Iran’s logistical lifeline.
Rather than neutralizing the threat, Beijing was seen as nurturing it, deepening strategic coordination with Moscow, supplying Iran with precision electronic components and military-grade microprocessors, and reportedly facilitating advanced air-defense systems such as HQ-17AE. Through satellite intelligence sharing and counter-stealth radar technologies, China helped strengthen Iran’s deterrent posture under sanctions pressure.
On the eve of the latest strikes, Beijing even publicized satellite imagery of US F-22 deployments, a move widely interpreted as signaling reassurance to Tehran.
Washington’s decision to strike now suggests a stark conclusion: Reliance on Beijing as mediator would only buy Iran more time. By directly degrading Iran’s military capabilities, the US effectively confiscated China’s diplomatic card. When the threat is physically dismantled, the leverage derived from offering to “manage” that threat disappears.
The blow was compounded by events in the Western hemisphere. Not long ago, a swift US operation in Venezuela — another of Beijing’s “all-weather” strategic partners — reportedly neutralized key leadership targets within a matter of hours. For China, which had viewed Caracas as a strategic foothold in the Americas, the speed and decisiveness of that action carried a chilling implication. The presumed “iron triangle” linking China, Russia and Iran proved brittle when confronted with coordinated precision force.
The signal was unmistakable: In areas Washington defines as core strategic interests, Beijing’s proclaimed partnership tiers not only fails to provide protection but becomes a priority obstacle for the US to eliminate.
Sources point out that for Beijing, the projection effect of this military action, launched before the Trump-Xi meeting, on Taiwan and the Indo-Pacific situation is extremely chilling. The US-Israeli operation underscores Washington’s willingness to act simultaneously across multiple strategic theaters — even at the cost of regime-change campaigns. More importantly, it punctures a central miscalculation in Beijing: the belief that the US might trade Taiwan for broader geopolitical stability.
The reality is quite the opposite — for Trump, whether it is energy security in the Middle East or the Indo-Pacific democratic chain, once an issue is defined as a core US interest, it ceases to be negotiable surplus in diplomacy. It becomes a national interest itself. The fire over Tehran delivered a blunt message to Beijing: On matters Washington deems essential, there is no grand bargain — only acceptance of reality.
Therefore, the Trump–Xi meeting later this month is unlikely to resemble the G2-style distribution of spoils some in Beijing envisioned. Rather, it might amount to the formalization of an asymmetric status quo.
Xi had hoped to arrive as a self-styled peacemaker — positioning China as indispensable in both the Middle East and across the Taiwan Strait, using Taiwan as leverage. Instead, he faces a US counterpart that has just destroyed his energy lifeline and has seen through his two-faced tactics.
Wang’s “grand bargain” thesis has dissolved in the smoke over the Persian Gulf. Geopolitics, once again, has reverted to its elemental logic: In the presence of overwhelming power, diplomatic leverage unsupported by credibility — and partnerships unsupported by strength — carry little weight at the negotiating table.
Tzou Jiing-wen is editor-in-chief of the Liberty Times (the Taipei Times’ sister newspaper).
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
Former Taipei mayor and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) founding chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) was sentenced to 17 years in prison on Thursday, making headlines across major media. However, another case linked to the TPP — the indictment of Chinese immigrant Xu Chunying (徐春鶯) for alleged violations of the Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法) on Tuesday — has also stirred up heated discussions. Born in Shanghai, Xu became a resident of Taiwan through marriage in 1993. Currently the director of the Taiwan New Immigrant Development Association, she was elected to serve as legislator-at-large for the TPP in 2023, but was later charged with involvement
Out of 64 participating universities in this year’s Stars Program — through which schools directly recommend their top students to universities for admission — only 19 filled their admissions quotas. There were 922 vacancies, down more than 200 from last year; top universities had 37 unfilled places, 40 fewer than last year. The original purpose of the Stars Program was to expand admissions to a wider range of students. However, certain departments at elite universities that failed to meet their admissions quotas are not improving. Vacancies at top universities are linked to students’ program preferences on their applications, but inappropriate admission
RSS