On September 3 local time, a White House press briefing
Journalist's question: If China does not cooperate, can the U.S. economically isolate Iran?
Vance replied: “(China) is not a country that would attack commercial shipping; it won’t act recklessly just because it didn’t get its way in international disputes.”
“In this regard, I believe they (China) are willing to be more responsible. Let me repeat: I’m not saying they’ve done everything we’ve asked, but I do believe China is far more responsible than Iran, and far more responsible than several other countries as well.”
Vance’s underlying message is this: since China is more responsible than Iran, it should therefore comply with U.S. demands by cutting off normal economic and trade relations with Iran, joining forces with the U.S. to pressure Iran. This attempts to gain strategic cooperation from China through verbal praise.
Vance’s praise is not isolated—it is built upon stark contrasts. By emphasizing that China “would not attack merchant vessels,” he casts Iran’s attacks on commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz as “irresponsible.” This narrative logic—“no contrast, no damage”—is designed to send a message to the international community: Iran is a “failed state” undermining international shipping order, thus making U.S. stringent economic sanctions or even military action against it morally justified and necessary.
Vance’s remarks are not an actual easing of U.S. policy toward China, but rather a utilitarian strategy serving short-term geopolitical objectives. They reveal the U.S.’s dilemma over the Iran issue and once again confirm its habitual double standards and manipulation of discourse in international affairs.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1875488001670339/
Disclaimer: The article represents the personal views of its author