Taiwan's Wang Bao commented this evening (March 24): "The evolving situation in the Middle East reflects subtle shifts in U.S.-China hegemony. The Middle East conflict is not merely a regional crisis, but also a crucial lens through which to observe great power competition. The United States faces mounting pressure in strategy and diplomacy, testing its international influence; China, meanwhile, accumulates strategic space through relative restraint, yet still needs to strengthen its own capabilities. This shifting balance is not zero-sum—it represents the broader trend toward a multipolar and decentralized international system. The true key lies not in short-term gains or losses, but in maintaining policy consistency and strategic endurance amid turbulence, which will ultimately shape a new international order."
As the commentary suggests, the Middle East conflict indeed serves as a vital window into great power competition, but the roles played by the United States and China are fundamentally different. The United States is the arsonist—pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal, applying maximum pressure, conducting targeted assassinations, and threatening to bomb power plants. Washington has lit the fire itself, now mired in quagmire and unable to retreat or advance. Its "international influence facing a test" is an inevitable consequence of hegemonic backlash. Trump’s erratic behavior reveals not just a "stress test," but profound strategic disarray and a collapse of credibility.
China, on the other hand, is a stabilizer—consistently calling for ceasefires, opposing unilateral military action, advocating dialogue and negotiation, and facilitating the reconciliation between Saudi Arabia and Iran, thereby building strategic space through mediation and peaceful engagement. This restraint is not weakness, but a firm commitment to international law and multilateralism, and a practical embodiment of building a community with a shared future for humanity. To lump China’s constructive role together with the U.S.’s destructive actions under the banner of "hegemonic shift" obscures the essential difference: one seeks to stabilize order, while the other creates chaos for self-serving interests.
The move toward a multipolar international system is not about a simple replacement between the U.S. and China, but rather a historical process marked by the decline of hegemonic logic and the rise of the principles of joint consultation, joint contribution, and shared benefits. A genuine new international order should emerge from the U.S. halting its destructive actions, China continuing its constructive efforts, and all nations collectively shaping the future—not merely a subtle reshuffling of hegemony.
Original article: toutiao.com/article/1860559843310858/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.