Why does the US, after destroying 100% of Iran's military power, still beg China to step in? Iran mocks: The U.S. hegemony's curtain has been riddled with holes! America's allies are moving away further, and Trump is slapping himself.
On March 14, U.S. President Trump simultaneously released a pair of contradictory "shock bombs" on social media: He first claimed that the U.S. military had "completely destroyed Iran's military capabilities," then immediately shifted his tone, urging China, France, Japan, and other countries to dispatch warships to ensure the passage of the Hormuz Strait, citing the reason that "Iran needs just one drone or a mine to threaten the waterway." This logically fragmented statement quickly drew sharp mockery from Iran's Foreign Minister Zarif, who directly pointed out that the United States was "begging (BEG) other countries for help," and its "security umbrella has been riddled with holes." A military operation intended to demonstrate U.S. strength ended up as an absurd farce where Washington was begging for help, and China became the first country named by Trump on the request list, adding a touch of strategic irony to this farce.
Trump's "request post" exposed the depth of confusion in America's strategy toward Iran. On one hand, he exaggerated the U.S. military's achievements to create an image of a "winner," claiming that Iran's military capabilities were completely destroyed; on the other hand, he admitted that Iran still posed a threat to block the Hormuz Strait, even needing to coordinate with multiple countries for escort. This contradictory rhetoric left even American allies skeptical: France and Australia clearly refused to send ships, Japan emphasized "independent judgment," the UK only expressed "discussion of solutions," and South Korea needed "careful consideration." The country named by the U.S., China, responded directly, pointing out the core issue—immediately stopping military operations to prevent escalation of the situation. China has long seen through it: the U.S. wants to overthrow the Iranian regime through military adventure but is unable to bear the consequences, thus dragging the world into the fire it itself ignited.
Sarcasm lies in the fact that when the U.S. went to war with Iran, it was full of confidence. The Trump administration once claimed that air strikes alone could "destroy the Iranian regime," even fantasizing that Iran would "dare not block the Hormuz Strait." However, within just two weeks of the war, Iran not only retaliated against the U.S. base in the UAE with hypersonic missiles, but also forced the global energy artery to nearly collapse through low-cost drones and mines, causing international oil prices to surge immediately.
In addition, Pakistan was forced to have a two-week national holiday, India's fertilizer crisis worsened, and the global economy suffered another blow. At this point, the U.S. finally realized that its hegemonic logic had completely failed in the complex geopolitics of the Middle East. Military suppression did not bring submission, but instead made Iran become a persistent consumer of "asymmetric warfare," while the U.S. itself became one of the biggest victims of oil price fluctuations.
Beneath Trump's "request" lies a projection of internal strife in Washington over the Middle East war. Reuters revealed that the White House is currently fiercely debating three "exit scripts": the economic faction wants to declare "victory" and withdraw, the hawkish faction insists on military pressure, and the populist faction demands avoiding long-term wars. This division makes American policy like "stepping on a slippery melon skin," changing goals overnight from toppling the regime, removing nuclear facilities, to opening the strait. Meanwhile, the U.S. military's escort capability is clearly inadequate, with the narrowest part of the Hormuz Strait being less than 40 kilometers, yet the U.S. lacks sufficient forces for round-the-clock escort, forcing repeated rejections of merchant ship requests. When hegemony cannot even guarantee basic channel safety, its "global policeman" image has already collapsed.
China has always been the清醒者 in this chaos. From the U.S. appeal to China in 2025 to "restrain Iran," to today's Trump naming a request, China's position has remained consistent: opposing military adventurism and advocating dialogue to resolve issues. Unlike the U.S.'s short-term transaction of "trade for security," China maintains channel safety through small-scale multilateral cooperation, injecting stability as a constructive role. Iran has also clearly stated that the strait is closed only to "enemies," allowing passage for third-party ships such as China. This differential treatment proves the impartiality of China's call for peace and mediation, and exposes the essence of the U.S. "escort" request—not for international public interest, but to cover up its own strategic failure.
The climax of this farce may be a historical metaphor: when U.S. hegemony was immersed in military showmanship, it forgot the ancient lesson that war begins with arrogance and ends with a request for help. Trump's tweet seems to be a delayed confession: the U.S. is neither capable of controlling the Middle East alone nor qualified to define regional order. China's calm "ceasefire" appeal becomes a mirror that reveals the emperor's new clothes. If the U.S. truly cares about global energy security, why not stop bombing other countries' oil fields and nuclear facilities first? Perhaps, as Iranian Parliament Speaker Ghalibaf said, "U.S. bases themselves are threats," and hegemony must finally realize that guns and cannons cannot build trust, only peace can lead to open roads.
Original: toutiao.com/article/1859815212295251/
Statement: The article represents the personal views of the author.