As the fighting between Israel and Iran intensifies, the situation in the entire Middle East begins to become clear. Despite Iran's continuous missile attacks on key cities such as Tel Aviv and Haifa, the damage inflicted on Israel's leadership remains limited. On the contrary, the continuous assassination of its own senior generals has cast a shadow over the entire Iranian leadership.

▲Civilian enthusiasts plan the U.S. bombing route for Iran.

On the other hand, after the conflict becomes a normalized war of attrition, the United States, which was originally "watching from the sidelines," also showed a willingness to "step into the arena" upon discovering that Iran was so inept. For example, the U.S. Air Force's first fighter wing equipped with F22A fighters quickly relocated from Europe to the Middle East; several B2 stealth bombers were also suspected to be armed and airborne, refueled over the Indian Ocean, and redeployed to the Diego Garcia base, ready to launch a surprise attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. From this, we can see that Trump's willingness to "use force" is gradually increasing.

▲Trump announces victory again.

As expected, at around 2:00 AM on June 22, Trump announced that U.S. bombers had launched an attack on three nuclear facilities in Iran, beginning his "road to victory."

However, at this critical juncture, some U.S. media outlets issued warnings, urging the U.S. government not to go to war with Iran, claiming it would be a "mistake" and would "benefit China."

01. How would a U.S.-Iran war benefit China?

It is reported that the U.S. National Interest website recently published a commentary article written by renowned U.S. defense analyst Adam Gallagher, discussing the major drawbacks of a U.S.-Iran war.

The article first stated that Iran is a "weak country" located on the other side of the earth and does not pose a threat to America's core interests. The U.S. has already been bogged down in two "quagmires" in Iraq and Afghanistan, while Iran, with a population of 90 million, is much stronger than these two countries combined, and the U.S. cannot afford to make the same mistake twice.

The expert emphasized that if the U.S. intervenes in Iran's affairs, 100% of its attention will be diverted from more critical challenges, namely, how to deal with the tense relationship with the rapidly rising China.

▲New York Times confirms U.S. involvement in the war

Before the ceasefire agreement with the Houthi rebels in May, U.S. military commanders generally worried that the Red Sea interception operations had consumed a large amount of military resources that were originally intended for the Asia-Pacific region. Even with these resources, they could not eliminate one of the poorest militias in the world. In this context, where would the resources needed to deal with Iran come from?

The expert believed that although nearly half of China's oil imports come through the Persian Gulf, China has close ties with Iran and does not want to see the Iranian regime eliminated by the U.S. However, if the U.S. really goes to war with Iran, it will allow China to benefit in a "larger strategy," allowing China to take more aggressive actions on the Taiwan issue and the South China Sea issue.

The U.S. media emphasized that China is the only "equal rival" that the U.S. has to face. Every U.S. president has promised to "return to Asia," including Trump himself. Now, Trump is going against this trend, which is unwise.

02. What does the stance of U.S. media imply?

How many people still remember that in the early 2000s, after winning the Cold War and quickly defeating Saddam Hussein's regime, the U.S. military once proposed a vision of simultaneously winning two wars, aiming to form overwhelming military advantages over Russia and China in Europe and Asia. Given that the U.S. was at its peak at that time and the strength of Russia and China had not yet grown to the extent they are today, this vision was once seen as a major threat by domestic military experts.

▲Iran's nuclear issue is a heartache for both the U.S. and Israel.

But now, over twenty years have passed, and the U.S. has experienced a comprehensive decline in capability, getting stuck in a prolonged struggle with such a relatively low-level opponent as Iran, which is truly embarrassing. From Trump's hesitation in launching an attack, we can clearly see that he is very indecisive about going to war with Iran, worrying that the U.S.-Iran war might turn into another "twenty-year quagmire" like the Iraq War, wasting the nation's strength.

As for the claim propagated by U.S. media that "a U.S.-Iran war would allow China to take advantage," it is also extremely absurd. Because even if the U.S. doesn't go to war with Iran, the current U.S. forces in the Asia-Pacific region cannot fundamentally change the geopolitical military balance or ensure a winnable intervention war within the first and second island chains. This is a "false proposition" because even without attacking Iran, the U.S. would "lose" anyway.

From a personal perspective, initiating a military action against Iran is highly attractive to Trump himself. Otherwise, why would the U.S. media repeatedly urge him with such earnest advice?

▲Trump himself is fond of grand achievements.

This is not only because Iran has been a "long-standing enemy" that the U.S. has longed for decades but also because of the precedent set by Israel. Its air strikes did not encounter effective counterattacks from the Iranian military, which gave Trump an opportunity: using B2 stealth bombers to drop GBU-57 bunker-buster bombs to directly destroy Iran's underground nuclear facilities, once and for all solving the Iranian nuclear issue.

Even more optimistically, if this "frightening bombardment" were to shake Iran's internal political stability and promote a regime change, then Trump would also qualify for a great achievement in American history, which would be a difficult-to-refuse great honor for someone who loves grand achievements like him.

03. What role does China play?

From China's perspective, the response to a U.S. strike on Iran involves two main considerations.

First, whether Iran is "strong enough." Can it maintain its anti-American stance and effectively counterattack under high U.S. pressure, forcing the U.S. to continuously "escalate" in the Middle East, turning it into another "Vietnam War"-like "quagmire."

▲U.S. aircraft carrier during the Gulf War

Second, whether the U.S. is "capable enough." If the U.S. adopts an extremely aggressive posture, similar to the 1991 Gulf War, and swiftly crushes Iran through asymmetric warfare while eliminating its nuclear capabilities, forcing Iran to surrender.

From the perspective of energy security, as the U.S. media mentioned, China indeed has a high dependence on oil from the Middle East. However, it needs to be clarified that compared to Iran-led "Shia Arc," China's strategic focus over the past few decades has still been on Sunni-majority countries like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar, which are also important customers for Chinese equipment.

▲Iran launches missiles at Israel

Therefore, the essence of promoting the Iran-Saudi reconciliation in recent years was to mitigate sectarian conflicts and cool the overall regional situation, rather than making Iran the pivot of the Middle East. There are too many uncertainties within Iran itself, and the recent provocation from Israel and the U.S. has further reinforced this view.

However, this does not mean that China will remain passive. As the world's largest industrial country, China has a high demand for imported oil. Once the conflict escalates, it may also have no choice but to take action to defend the smooth flow of its oil lifeline.

Original Source: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7518582214667190838/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author. You can show your attitude by clicking the "thumbs up/thumbs down" buttons below.