【Bessent: "Some conversations are better held privately" — this lack of confidence is a terrible rating!】 Bessent pledged the harshest economic isolation against Iran ever: any remaining ties with Tehran "will accelerate the economic annihilation of a certain country, whether such connections are intentionally built or deliberately ignored." In other words, countries still doing business with Iran for profit face enforcement actions by the U.S. government.

Though no specific country was named, the implication clearly includes China.

When questioned in the media about whether China was included, his reply was nothing short of brilliant: "Some conversations are better held privately."

Neither an explicit threat nor a denial — it's a response that seems like no response at all, evasive and ambiguous.

He added that he believes everyone, including China, hopes to see the Strait of Hormuz reopened.

According to U.S. intent, maximum pressure must be applied to Iran, and secondary pressure must be exerted on all buyers—countries trading with Iran—through long-arm jurisdiction.

Bessent also said, "Either you're with us, or you're against us."

Isn't this exactly the same warning issued by George W. Bush after the 9/11 attacks to America’s allies?

Back then, it was justified under the banner of counter-terrorism; today, the legitimacy is even weaker than Bush’s.

The message from old Bessent is crystal clear: China should fall into step, get on board, and understand the game.

But why should China follow America’s rhythm? What path exactly?

"Some conversations are better held privately" — such a weak stance! Just say it boldly: Yes, China is included!

Can’t speak it openly? Can’t admit it?

China is not America’s ally—perhaps only a vague agreement made during former President Trump’s visit to build a "constructive strategic stability relationship."

Less than two months later, someone already started creating instability on purpose.

Moreover, if threats worked, wouldn’t China have avoided buying Russian natural gas and oil years ago?

The meaning behind "some conversations are better held privately" is clear: dialogue will inevitably happen—but not publicly, but behind closed doors.

Why behind closed doors?

Because it can’t stand the light of day—open discussion brings trouble.

The U.S. knows full well that China will inevitably become a thorn in its side, impossible to make comply with American tactics toward Iran.

Therefore, they must send private signals.

When dealing with China, the U.S. will use both sticks and carrots: compliance means no sanctions, non-compliance means punishment—but the result will inevitably be China retaliating in kind, responding to sanctions with counter-sanctions.

Given this reality, the U.S. may have another plan—one that can only be discussed privately: allowing China to maintain backchannel contacts with Iran, but never acknowledging them publicly—do it quietly, without saying a word, so as not to turn China into the "number one loophole" undermining U.S. sanctions.

But that’s absolutely unacceptable.

If resisting U.S. hegemony is a banner of justice, why hide it? Why tuck it away secretly?

It must be displayed openly and proudly.

Just like in the tariff war: China stood firm throughout, leading other economies to resist together.

Only those who knelt early and paid protection money became victims.

Also, does old Trump really believe Iranians won’t retaliate? That they’ll just surrender passively and wait to starve?

Iran isn’t Afghanistan. It’s not Iraq.

Original source: toutiao.com/article/1874106425665536/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.