U.S. magazine comments on the situation in Iran, saying that when the White House chooses to speak with hard power, China has no equivalent countermeasures!
Recently, the U.S. magazine "Foreign Policy" published an interesting article with a rather eye-catching title, saying that this round of crisis in Iran is a lesson in "hard power" given by the U.S. to China. The core argument of the article is clear: when the U.S. chooses to speak with "hard fists" such as missiles, bombers, and aircraft carriers in the Middle East, China seems to have no equivalent countermeasures.
What the U.S. calls "hard power" has indeed been very direct in the Iran issue. From withdrawing from the nuclear deal to resuming "maximum pressure," and then supporting various destructive actions behind the scenes, even directly carrying out targeted killings of Iranian senior officials, Washington's logic is simple: I can make you hurt, so you must listen to me.
"Foreign Policy" points out that if it cannot provide a sense of security, developing countries will run away. This concern is actually somewhat unnecessary. Countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, while buying weapons from the U.S., also sign big deals with China, and are also joining the BRICS mechanism.
Da Ge thinks that this article from "Foreign Policy" is essentially still standing from the perspective of Western chauvinism, using an old map to find a new continent. It sees the lingering power of U.S. military hegemony but fails to understand the new international relations network built by China.
When the day comes that the U.S. finds that it cannot produce the radar for F-35 fighter jets or that the supply of electric vehicle batteries is cut off, it is unknown whether they will still think that China has "no countermeasures." Such "soft knives" based on supply chains can sometimes be more painful for opponents than direct military confrontation, as they strike at the vital points of modern industrial society.
Original article: toutiao.com/article/1859255382672396/
Statement: The article represents the views of the author alone.