The Aging Empire versus Slowing Empire: Trump-Xi Meeting.

What matters is that Chinese and American officials understand the long-term trends.
For the US, the Chinese dragon is not an existential threat anymore. For China, cooperation with the US is essential to boost the economic growth and avoid devastating wars.
The Thucydides Trap is no more
SL Kanthan, May 14, 2026, https://slkanthan.substack.com/p/the-aging-empire-versus-slowing-empire?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=844398&post_id=197610098&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email Excellent graphs on original.
A decade ago, Harvard professor Graham Allison warned that the US and China will likely fall into the “Thucydides Trap” — a term named after the war between the rising Athens and the ruling power, Sparta in 400 BC. Of course, anyone who knows a bit about history doesn’t need a grand theory to understand geopolitics’ law of the jungle.
However, Allison’s prediction is no longer true, and the reason is simple: China is no longer an inexorably rising power.
By the way, Xi Jinping actually mentioned Thucydides Trap during the high-stakes summit with Trump in Beijing today.
This article will show some of the ways that China is declining rapidly and becoming “Japanified” to some extent. The silver lining in this decline is that the US-China war is no longer imminent or inevitable.
From another point of view, if the declining empire and the slowing empire cannot militarily defeat one another and, in fact, need each other economically to prosper, the strategic calculations change dramatically.
What happened to Japan?
If you remember, Japan was a serious threat to the US in the late 1970s and 1980s. Then — ignoring the reasons such as the Plaza Accord — the Japanese real estate and stock market bubble crashed. Astonishingly, Japan’s GDP today is 25% smaller than it was in 1995! Even population today is a bit smaller than it was 30 years ago. Many Japanese stopped marrying, having kids and even dating or having sex. Japan lost its edge in technologies — remember how Japanese electronics dominated the market.
Economy has numerous second-order effects.
China — No longer the roaring Dragon
While China is not an exact replica of the 1990s Japan, many symptoms are similar.
For example, China’s GDP growth has decelerated steadily and dramatically —from 14% in 2007 to 4.5% this year — the slowest since 1990. (And IMF says that if the Iran war continues, China’s GDP growth will be around 3.9%).
Look at China’s GDP in US dollars over the last five years. Not impressive — the GDP grew merely 7% during this period.
How bad is it? Consider that from 2006-2010, China’s GDP grew a whopping 120%. This is the slowing empire, the tired dragon.
The number of marriages and new born babies have fallen by about 60% since Xi Jinping came to power (it’s not his fault though). And the median age is increasingly steadily — from 30 in 2001 when China joined the WTO to become the world’s factory to 41 today.
In a recent survey, nearly half of all young Chinese women (aged 18-24) say that they do not want to have ANY children.
China’s population has now decreased four years in a row. Worse, the Chinese youth population (aged 20–40) has fallen by a whopping 60 million over the last decade. This is the demographic group that determines the vitality of a nation — in terms of productivity, consumption, innovation etc.
At the same time, China’s real estate is where it was 20 years ago. Although Beijing prudently started deflating the real estate bubble in 2020, the damage to the economy is real and painful. The average Chinese household has 70% of its wealth invested in homes.
Real estate construction also supports numerous other industries such as construction, steel, cement, home appliances and more. Thus, tens of millions of jobs are threatened by the anemic property sector.
Unique to the Chinese system, the local governments are primarily funded by sale of land. So, you can imagine the consequences — more debt, cuts to spending on infrastructure, schools, hospitals etc., which cause more unemployment, slower economic growth and bigger burden on the governments. It’s a vicious cycle.
Young Chinese are not willing to do work in factories, construction sites, and mines anymore. These were the jobs that once made China great. Now, robots are taking over factories, and millions of new college grads are unemployed.
There has also been a social phenomenon called “lying flat” or “tang ping,” when young people simply give up on the rat race — the infamous 996 lifestyle. (9am to 9pm, 6 days a week). Now, the Chinese government is trying to blame evil foreign forces for this societal malaise.
Another indicator of China’s to demographic challenges and economic slowdowns is consumption. Look at the annual auto sales in China. The number of cars bought by Chinese consumers has been stuck in a narrow range for a decade.
While the US government is drowning in debt, China is no different. Capitalists and communists are addicted to debt alike. The total debt-to-GDP ratio in China — including government, corporations and households — is about 400%. There are also a lot of hidden debts, whose true size is unknown. Chinese banks are helping zombie companies stay alive in order to protect jobs as well as the banks’ balance sheets (by not revealing the true stats about non-performing loans).
The Chinese government now spends 125 yuan for every 100 yuan it gets in revenue.
Finally, China’s military also has a lot of problems with corruption and lack of meritocracy. Xi Jinping has recently fired a surprising number of PLA generals; and two former defense ministers just got death/life sentences. Perhaps the performance of Chinese weapons such as radars and air defense systems in Venezuela and Iran played a role in these purge
n terms of military, Japan is trying to drop pacifism from its constitution under the new PM Takaichi. And Japan is selling warships to Australia, and carrying out drills in the Philippines. All of these will not happen without the blessing and encouragement from the US.
Conclusion
China is doing reasonably well today and is not quite fully “Japanified” yet.
China’s manufacturing and exports are still robust — with $1 trillion of trade surplus last year. However, just like “China shock” sucked manufacturing jobs away from the US, now lower-wage countries such as Vietnam, Mexico and India will steal labor-intensive jobs in China.
What matters is that Chinese and American officials understand the long-term trends.
For the US, the Chinese dragon is not an existential threat anymore. For China, cooperation with the US is essential to boost the economic growth and avoid devastating wars.
That’s why President Trump has brought in a whole bunch of top CEOs to Beijing. For them, the #1 ask is that China open up more. For Xi Jinping, the biggest priorities are the three T’s: Tariffs, Taiwan and Technology (like Nvidia chips). The negotiations won’t be easy, but both sides will be happy to make incremental progress.
In summary, the aging empire and slowing empire will find cooperation to be a strategic imperative, while competing gently in some areas. There is no reason to fall into the Thucydides Trap, and that’s good news for the US, China and the world.
US President Donald Trump, Chinese President Xi Jinping end unipolar age in Beijing

By Bang Xiao, 16 May 26, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-05-16/us-donald-trump-china-xi-jinping-end-unipolar-age-beijing/106687004
For nearly a decade, the world has braced for a collision.
The dominant United States and a rising China, locked in escalating strategic competition, were said to be hurtling towards a Thucydides Trap that history suggested would be almost impossible to avoid.
This week in Beijing, both Donald Trump and Xi Jinping quietly admitted something the rest of the world has been slow to grasp. Neither of them can afford the collision.
The summit produced no breakthrough trade deal, no joint statement, no big announcement on Taiwan. And yet what it delivered may turn out to be more consequential than any of those things. The public outline of a new global order.
One in which the US and China are not enemies, not rivals, and not partners in the warm Western sense. They are something newer and harder to name. Two structurally interdependent superpowers who have decided, for now, to manage their rivalry rather than let it manage them.
At the state banquet on Thursday night, Xi put the new compact in language no Chinese leader has previously offered an American counterpart in such direct terms.
“The China-US relationship is the most important bilateral relationship in the world,” he said.
“We must make it work and never mess it up.”
Beijing gave the framework a name: a “constructive China-US relationship of strategic stability”.
Xi spelled it out in four phrases. Positive stability with cooperation as the mainstay. Sound stability with moderate competition. Constant stability with manageable differences. Enduring stability with promises of peace.
Trump endorsed it. Beijing says the framework will guide bilateral relations for the next three years and beyond.
Read carefully, that is not a thaw. It is the architecture of a new bipolar order.
What was striking about Beijing this week was not just the warmth of the welcome that Xi has staged, it was the unprecedented openness. Cameras were granted access to Zhongnanhai, China’s most secretive political compound, in numbers nearly no foreign press has ever enjoyed.
Xi gave Trump a tour of trees four centuries old, told him the seeds of Chinese roses were on their way home as a gift, and walked beside him into rooms that almost no foreign leader has ever entered.
The only other one to have stood there, it should be said, is Vladimir Putin.
Xi framed the access in personal terms. He told Trump in front of the cameras that he had “chosen this place especially to reciprocate the hospitality extended to me in 2017 at Mar-a-Lago”. It was a private courtesy returned.
Trump went further. He called the relationship “the G2” — the world’s two most important countries.
At the banquet he called Xi “my friend” and described the visit as one of “the most consequential relationships in world history”. He traced the connection between the two peoples back 250 years.
“It’s a special world,” he said, “with the two of us united and together.”
That is the speech of a US president acknowledging a shared story. Nothing in it reads like he will contain a rival.
At the Zhongnanhai tea on Friday, Trump matched Xi’s warmth. He said the two had known each other “almost 12 years” and had “settled problems other people wouldn’t have been able to settle”.
The first test is already in front of them. It is the Strait of Hormuz.
Both leaders publicly agreed this week that the strait should be reopened. Xi indicated he would press Tehran behind the scenes.
What is on the calendar is September 24. That is when Xi will arrive in Washington for the reciprocal state visit Trump confirmed before his departure from China.
It is also, effectively, the deadline for the two most powerful men in the world.
If the Middle East war is not resolved by then, Xi will land in Washington without the commitment he made this week. The G2 will face its first practical test having failed it.
Both sides bet on a wider grey
There was no joint statement issued from Beijing this week. But what Trump delivered at Zhongnanhai, with Xi standing beside him, read like one.
For more than a decade, the US-China relationship has been described in black and white. Rivals or partners. Containment or appeasement. Decoupling or engagement. Democracy or authoritarianism.
This week, both leaders quietly retired the narrative. What they care about most sits in the grey area in between: trade, energy, Iran, supply chains, agriculture and Chinese international students.
The bet is that the grey will keep expanding. If it does, the Cold War tactics of the past decade will lose their grip. Less chip-export brinkmanship. Fewer tariff retaliations. Quieter security frictions. None of it is guaranteed.
The grey holds only if both sides keep their nerve.
The bet rests on a structural reality. Both superpowers are slowing.
China’s growth has decelerated from the highs of the 2000s, weighed down by demographics, a property correction and US tech restrictions.
America’s productivity is real, but its consumer is exhausted, its public debt unprecedented, and its industrial base in semiconductors and rare earths dangerously exposed.
In a slowing world, the cost of confrontation rises. Xi’s “Chinese Dream” of a high-tech, sustainable economy needs continued access to American capital and innovation. Trump’s “Make America Great Again” needs access to the largest consumer market on Earth.
The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has tightened the screws further. With Iranian oil crippled, Beijing needs the energy flow uninterrupted, and Trump has the leverage. Both leaders know it.
Xi made the convergence explicit at the banquet, in a single line that will be re-read for months: “Achieving the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation and making America great again can go hand in hand.”
It was the first time the leader of the Chinese Communist Party has publicly endorsed an American political slogan. Trump raised his glass.
After nearly a decade of trade wars and chip-export controls, both sides have arrived at the same conclusion. Neither can win.
And the worst case scenario is already playing out. Both leaders are increasingly distrusted by the rest of the world. That makes the bilateral alignment more valuable to each of them, not less.
A decade ago, Beijing was the rising party seeking acknowledgement. This week, Xi sat across from Trump as a co-equal. Trump accepted the framing.
The unipolar moment ended somewhere between the 2008 financial crisis and Donald Trump’s second inauguration. This week in Beijing was the formal recognition of it.
Where the grey ends
There remains one structural risk: Taiwan.
Xi was unusually pointed on the issue during the bilateral, warning Trump that mishandling Taiwan would push the relationship “into an extremely dangerous situation” of “collision and conflict”.
Beijing chose to release these comments while Trump was still in the country. The framework of strategic stability does not extend to what China considers its red line.
The toasts themselves contained no mention of Taiwan. The hard line was for the bilateral, the soft line for the cameras.
Trump, asked about Taiwan at the Temple of Heaven, deflected with “China is beautiful” and changed the subject. That is not endorsement. But nor is it the unconditional defence Taipei would want to hear.
The new bipolar order, then, is not a stable equilibrium. It is a managed one. It depends on each side resisting the temptation to test the other on the one issue where both have publicly committed to no compromise.
For Australia and other middle powers, the implications run deep. The strategic competition framework that Canberra used to align with Washington has been quietly retired in favour of something messier and more transactional.
The two superpowers have now stood side by side and called themselves partners, friends, co-stewards of the giant ship of human history.
America and China are no longer enemies-in-waiting. They are two slowing giants who have agreed, in Beijing this week, that they need each other more than they once admitted.
The rest of the world has been preparing for a cold war. It has been handed a partnership of necessity between two superpowers who have both reached the limits of confrontation.
That is the order we now live in. And the rest of us will have to adjust.
Trump‑Xi summit: Cautious Progress On Trade, Ties And Some ‘Win‑Wins’.
But importantly, Xi and Trump agreed to establish a Board of Trade and Board of Investment – intended to create a pathway forward to more trade in the months to come.
May 16, 2026 , Yan Bennett for the Conversation, https://scheerpost.com/2026/05/16/trump-xi-summit-cautious-progress-on-trade-ties-and-some-win-wins/
President Donald Trump departed China on May 15, 2026, after a two-day summit with Chinese leader Xi Jinping that was scrutinized from every angle for clues on where the relationship is heading.
Trump hailed the trip as “incredible,” while Xi remarked that it marked a “new bilateral relationship.” Other observers were a little less enthusiastic, noting that no major breakthroughs were evident at the highly anticipated meeting of the world’s two most powerful political leaders.
The Conversation turned to Yan Bennett, an expert in U.S.-China relations and author of “American Policy Discourses on China,” to provide her three big takeaways from the summit.
Taiwan: Tough(ish) talk but status quo in place
No one really expected there to be movement on Taiwan – which mainland China lays claims over – although it is clear that Beijing would like the United States to make a firmer stance against the island moving toward a declaration of independence, or for the U.S. to expressly demand reunification.
So what we got was Beijing reiterating that Taiwan remained a priority and a core interest. Xi did this on the first day of the summit, noting that the Taiwan “question” remained “the most important issue in China-U.S. relations,” and that any mishandling of it could lead to “clashes and even conflicts.”
But this was aimed at two things. First, Xi has a domestic audience he needs to address, and Taiwan has long been important to Chinese rhetoric. The Chinese Communist Party has around 100 million members, many of whom would have expected Xi to talk tough on Taiwan – and it was those people he was largely talking to.
But he was also signaling to the U.S. that it shouldn’t support Taiwanese independence. And that won’t ruffle any feathers in Washington. Indeed, the 2025 National Security Strategy stressed that the U.S. opposed unilateral action on Taiwan from “either party” – a signal to Beijing that it opposed Taiwan declaring independence.
Trump did mention arms deals to Taiwan. But the U.S.’s declaratory policy since the Reagan administration is that it doesn’t allow Beijing to enter discussions about what weapons Washington sells to Taiwan. And that hasn’t changed at all, nor has the U.S.’s treaty commitment to Taiwan since 1979 that requires the U.S. to provide Taiwan with defensive weapons to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability.
Rhetoric aside, everyone is happy with the status quo on Taiwan – it is in no one’s interest for it to change.
But talk of Taiwan has been muddied a little by Xi’s determination to modernize the People’s Liberation Army. The Chinese president has laid out a series of benchmarks including that the PLA should be capable of invading Taiwan by 2027. This has been misinterpreted in the U.S. under the so-called “Davidson window” – a concept that has it that China is intent on invading by that time.
In reality, China is nowhere near able to do so. It doesn’t have a “blue water navy” able to operate without port assistance, and the island is incredibly difficult to invade – it only has two places where you can land, and only at certain times of the year. It is also very mountainous. Taiwan is also slowly building its defenses – and learning a lot from Ukraine’s war with Russia – with the intention of becoming “indigestable” to China.
Xi’s modernization timeline also states that the PLA should be a “world class military” – taken to be a peer to the U.S. – by 2049. But the fact that it spends more on internal security than it does on defense indicates where the CCP’s true interests lay – in domestic security rather than external capabilities.
Trade: Tamped down expectations
The big picture is that the U.S. and China have been trying to restabilize what was until fairly recently a very good relationship in terms of economic ties.
Both sides have clear priorities to that extent. China wants to regain the American market it had in the 1990s and early 2000s – and certainly reverse the trend since 2018’s trade war.
Trump since his first administration has made it clear that he sees Chinese control over supply chains and the trade imbalance as a national security issue. Washington also wants to address unfair trade practices, such as the requirement that American companies hand over blueprints, trade secrets, customer lists, marketing plans and more to operate.
So what was achieved in the summit? On the surface, very little. There was some movement on sales of U.S. beef to China. And Trump announced that Beijing would buy 200 aircraft from Boeing – lower than the 500 that had been earlier touted in media reports. And several Chinese companies agreed to buy Nvidia microchips – a continuation of a process that began in late 2025.
That doesn’t seem much, and it was telling that Trump himself wasn’t being very “Trumpian” on what could be achieved during the summit. He wasn’t promising the moon.
A lot of focus will be on technology. China is about 18 months behind the U.S. in microchip development. Some have questioned whether U.S. companies should be selling chips to China, amid fears that China could steal the intellectual property and be able to use higher-technology chips for defense reasons. The U.S. position is it can’t allow Huawei – China’s telecom giant – to take over the whole Chinese market, so it will only allow the sale of what it considers appropriate-level Nvidia chips.
Military matters: Washington wants to talk
During the Cold War, the Soviet Union and the U.S. always kept the military lines of communications open to avert a catastrophic incident. This hasn’t been the case with Beijing and Washington. We saw that in 2001 when a U.S. aircraft collided with a Chinese jet; and again over the “Chinese spy balloon incident” in 2023.
Washington is seeking to open up a line of communication on military matters, and that is probably why U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth was there in Beijing. Indeed, it is highly unusual for a defense secretary to be at such a summit.
Not that Trump believes he needs China’s help on military matters. He made that clear when asked about possible Beijing assistance prior to the summit.
In fact, little news came out of the summit on Iran. China has criticized the U.S. over the war, but has also quietly been telling Tehran to stop bombing Gulf countries.
Despite some commentary suggesting that Beijing benefits from the U.S. being bogged down in the Middle East, what Xi will want is a resolution before the economic fallout bites in China.
China’s stockpile of Iranian oil will only last a few more weeks and then oil price rises will hit China like a brick.
Trump overseeing decline of US world dominance…and that’s good

Walt Zlotow West Suburban Peace Coalition Glen Ellyn IL, 16 May 26
The global economic consequences of Trump’s failed war on Iran have yet to be fully realized. But even if Trump surrenders to Iran’s sensible demands today, they will degrade the world economy for months to come.
Trump is utterly trapped because he cannot win with either his current blockade or renewed bombing campaign. All US bases in the Gulf States are damaged or destroyed. Gulf States oil infrastructure is degraded. Should Trump renew bombing, Iran will completely destroy them, finish off US bases, and resume degrading Israeli infrastructure as well.
The Gulf States will never again put their full security in US military might. It has proven a complete failure in winning a war against their imagined enemy Iran. America’s Asian allies Japan the Philippians, Taiwan and others now realize the limits of US power and credibility. European NATO countries are coming to the same conclusion as Trump has largely left them on their own to continue their futile effort to push Russia out of Ukraine.
As horrendous as the Iran war’s consequences are, the decline of US world dominance is an outcome we should welcome. China has passed up the US both economically and politically, in part because they have used investment, not intimidation, economic sanctions and yes, bombings to exert their power on the world stage. Outside of Israel, most countries are moving toward multi power polarity as evidenced by BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization rather than rely on, even prostrate themselves before US military might.
There is a long way to go before America fully realizes the folly of its quest to rule the world using violence. We’re still bombing countries posting no threat to the US whatsoever. Trump has bombed Somalia over 60 times this year tho most Americans couldn’t find it on a map, much less fear its non existent threat. We killed over a hundred to depose and kidnap Venezuelan President Maduro. We’ve killing Cubans with our grotesque economic sanctions, including cutting off most their oil imports. We’re still providing intelligence and military aid for Ukraine to continue its war with Russia. Of course, worst of all we have not given up on destroying Iran and may resume the futile bombing at any moment.
But US world dominance is inexorably eroding due to its refusal to pivot from war to peace to resolve international disputes. If somehow, some way America accepts this reality of a new world order without US dominance, we can thank, in part, President Trump for making that shift with his launching a war too far against Iran.
‘He asked if I would defend them’: Trump shares key details of Xi meeting
Michael Koziol, 16 May, 26, https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/he-asked-if-i-would-defend-them-trump-shares-key-details-of-xi-meeting-20260516-p5zxnw.html
Washington: Xi Jinping asked directly whether the US would defend Taiwan in a war, Donald Trump said, as he divulged key details of his conversations with the Chinese president while flying home from the high-stakes meeting in Beijing.
The two men also spoke “in great detail” about US arms sales to Taiwan, which China would like to stop, and which Trump has not committed to continuing. He said he would make that decision soon, after speaking with the leader of Taiwan.
“President Xi and I talked a lot about Taiwan … he’s against very much what they’re doing,” Trump said aboard Air Force One.
“He does not want to see a fight for independence because that would be a very strong confrontation … I didn’t make a comment on it, I heard him out. I have a lot of respect for him.”
Asked by a reporter whether he would defend Taiwan, Trump said he would not answer – maintaining the long-standing US position of strategic ambiguity. He said he gave the same response to Xi.
“He asked me if I would defend them. I said, ‘I don’t talk about that’. There’s only one person that knows that. You know who it is? Me.”
In December, the Trump administration approved a record $US11.1 billion ($15.5 billion) arms package for the self-governing democracy (over which China claims sovereignty). But the president has delayed approval of another package worth up to $US14 billion.
Trump indicated he did not feel bound by the so-called “six assurances” given to Taiwan in 1982 under then president Ronald Reagan, one of which was that the US would not consult China about arms sales to Taiwan.
“1982 is a long way, that’s a big, far distance away,” he told reporters on the plane. “[Xi] brought that up, he talked about that to me – so what am I gonna do, say, ‘I don’t want to talk to you about it because I have an agreement that was signed in 1982?’
“I made no commitment either way. I’ll make a determination over the next fairly short period of time. I have to speak to the person – you know who he is – that is running Taiwan.”
Trump said he and Xi also discussed lifting US sanctions on Chinese oil companies that buy oil from Iran, and would decide in the next few days.
The US president’s account of his conversations with his counterpart were far more detailed than the summary given by the Chinese foreign minister, Wang Yi, when answering questions from state-affiliated news agencies.
Wang said the two men spent nine hours together across their several encounters, which included the bilateral meeting, a banquet dinner, a visit to the Temple of Heaven and tea/lunch at Xi’s Zhongnanhai compound.
He emphasised the centrality of the Taiwan question, repeating Xi’s message that “if handled poorly, the two countries will clash, pushing the entire Sino-US relationship into a very dangerous situation”.
Wang added that China hoped the US would take “concrete actions” to safeguard the relationship, which the Chinese are now framing as being one of “constructive strategic stability”.
On Iran, Trump said he did not seek Xi’s assistance in pressuring Tehran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz – but that he believed China would lean on its partner regardless, as Beijing also wanted the passage open and free.
“I’m not asking for any favours, ’cos when you ask for favours you need to do favours in return. We don’t need favours,” Trump said.
He also lashed out at journalists on Air Force One, accusing The New York Times’ veteran correspondent David Sanger of treason after he asserted Trump had failed to achieve the political changes he sought in Iran.
“I had a total military victory. But the fake news, guys like you, write incorrectly. You’re a fake guy,” Trump said to Sanger.
“You should know better, David. You know better. Your editors tell you what to write, and you write it, and you should be ashamed of yourself. I actually think it’s treason.”
He also clashed with a BBC journalist who asked about the missile strike on an Iranian girls’ school at the beginning of the war, which reportedly killed about 175 people.
The US has not taken responsibility despite a New York Times report saying a preliminary investigation confirmed it was an American missile. Trump said it remained under investigation.
Meanwhile, the US State Department announced Israel and Lebanon would extend their ceasefire by a further 45 days following two days of talks in Washington.
Israel is not at war with Lebanon but struck targets associated with the Iran-backed Hezbollah terrorist group in the country, including the capital Beirut, during the war against Iran.
It has continued its strikes leading up to this week’s talks, despite the ceasefire that began on April 16. Lebanon’s Health Ministry said 22 people were killed in attacks on Wednesday, including eight children.
The Washington talks represent the first high-level diplomatic relations between Israel and Lebanon for more than 30 years. State Department spokesman Tommy Piggott said political negotiations would resume in early June and a security discussion would be added on May 29.
While the Beijing summit did not produce many immediate tangible outcomes, Trump said China agreed to buy 200 aircraft from American manufacturer Boeing – less than the 500 the firm initially hoped for – and up to 750 “if they do a good job”
This summit was just “the beginning”, he said, noting he and Xi could meet as many as four times this year. Trump has invited Xi to the White House on September 24 – during the United Nations General Assembly’s high-level week – and Beijing confirmed the Chinese leader would visit the US in the northern autumn.
The two leaders could also meet at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in China in November, and the G20 world leaders’ summit December, hosted at the Trump National Doral resort in Miami.
with Lisa Visentin, Reuters
This Is The REAL Reason For Trump’s Visit To China.

May 14, 2026, Joshua Scheer, https://scheerpost.com/2026/05/14/this-is-the-real-reason-for-trumps-visit-to-china/
Donald Trump didn’t arrive in Beijing as the leader of a confident superpower. He arrived like a salesman carrying a collapsing empire on his back — flanked not by diplomats or peace negotiators, but by Silicon Valley monopolists, Wall Street vultures, and billionaire oligarchs desperate to keep their fortunes alive. Elon Musk. Jensen Huang. Larry Fink. Tim Cook. Blackstone. Goldman Sachs. The entire spectacle looked less like diplomacy and more like a corporate hostage negotiation staged on behalf of an American ruling class suddenly realizing it may have lost the economic war it started.
In this blistering breakdown, Ben Norton argues that Trump’s China summit exposes a geopolitical reality Washington refuses to admit publicly: the U.S. trade war backfired, China adapted, and America’s corporate elite now need Beijing far more than Beijing needs them. As the war on Iran drives inflation higher, supply chains fracture, and rare earth shortages threaten both Silicon Valley and the Pentagon, Trump’s anti-China rhetoric is quietly giving way to panic, flattery, and desperation. The result is an extraordinary image of imperial decline — an American president openly traveling with oligarchs to plead for access to the very economic system Washington spent years trying to cripple.
The best line of all from Ben may be this: “Nothing screams ‘we are an oligarchy’ more than taking oligarchs instead of diplomats to a diplomatic mission.”
And he’s right. We are living in an oligarchy — one where billionaires ride on Air Force One while working people are left paying for inflation, war, tariffs, and economic collapse. The masks are gone. Corporate CEOs now sit beside presidents like unelected cabinet members, openly shaping foreign policy, trade policy, and even war itself.
As the country barrels toward another election in 2028, the deeper crisis is that most major candidates, regardless of party branding, still end up bowing before the same billionaire donor class. The slogans change. The marketing changes. But the power structure remains untouched.
Trump lands in Beijing with over a dozen western moguls in tow ahead of high-stakes talks with Xi
Elon Musk, Tim Cook, and top executives from Nvidia, Qualcomm, BlackRock, Goldman Sachs, Mastercard, Visa, Boeing, and Meta joined the US president
The Cradle, MAY 13, 2026
US President Donald Trump landed in Beijing on 13 May for a crucial meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping to address trade, technology, Taiwan, the war against Iran, and the Strait of Hormuz.
Met with red-carpet treatment in the Chinese capital, Trump was joined by a retinue of more than a dozen billionaires whose companies span major sectors of the US and global economies.
A total of 16 high-profile business leaders accompanied the US president, including Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk and Apple CEO Tim Cook, as well as CEOs from Nvidia, Qualcomm, BlackRock, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Mastercard, Visa, Boeing, and Meta Platforms President and Vice Chair Dina Powell McCormick.
Trump is scheduled to meet Xi after his first night in Beijing, with the visit centered on what both sides agree to be a crucial moment for the world’s two largest economies.
The US-Israeli war on Iran and the resulting global energy crisis are expected to weigh heavily on the talks.
The US President is expected to urge his Chinese counterpart to pressure Tehran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and move toward a peace deal, as China depends heavily on crude oil shipments through the waterway.
The talks are also expected to cover Taiwan, artificial intelligence, advanced chip exports, trade, and fentanyl, with both sides seeking concessions on long-running disputes that have strained relations between Washington and Beijing……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
The meeting also comes as Washington imposes new sanctions on a China–Iran oil network ahead of Trump’s Beijing visit, tightening efforts to choke off Tehran’s oil revenue while the US–Israeli war on the Islamic Republic and the Hormuz crisis strain global energy markets. https://thecradle.co/articles/trump-lands-in-beijing-with-over-a-dozen-western-moguls-in-tow-ahead-of-high-stakes-talks-with-xi
US-China Summit: A strategic moment for stabilizing bilateral relations

14 May 2026 AIMN Editorial , By Chen Ziqi, https://theaimn.net/us-china-summit-a-strategic-moment-for-stabilizing-bilateral-relations/
US President Donald Trump arrived in Beijing on Wednesday for a new round of face-to-face talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping from May 14 to 15, a meeting arriving at a particularly delicate moment in global politics and the international economy.
It marks the first in-person meeting between the two leaders since the Busan agreement last October, where both sides agreed to suspend further escalation of the US–China trade war for one year.
While a flare-up in the Middle East delayed this meeting by a month, the cooling of tensions with Iran has finally cleared the flight path for what many view as the most consequential diplomatic inflection point of 2026.
Amid a fragile global recovery and uncertainty in international markets, the Beijing meeting is being closely watched for whether both powers can move from “crisis management” to a more sustainable form of strategic equilibrium, with implications for broader global economic stability.
At their first meeting on Thursday morning, President Xi congratulated the United States on its 250th anniversary, while President Trump praised Xi as “a great leader,” setting a warm and friendly tone for the opening of the summit.
President Xi noted that China and the US should be partners, not rivals, empathizing the relationship between the two countries would have implications not only for their peoples, but also for the future of the world. President Trump addressed this is going to be the biggest summit, as top business delegation was with him.
A US official said the two sides are expected to continue discussions on establishing new mechanisms for trade and investment coordination, with cooperation in agriculture, aerospace, and energy also likely to feature prominently.
Beijing, meanwhile, has framed the visit as an opportunity to stabilize bilateral ties amid growing global uncertainty. In remarks on Monday, China’s Foreign Ministry emphasized the need to expand mutually beneficial cooperation, manage differences, and “inject greater stability and certainty into a turbulent and changing world.”
Guidance from strategic analysts
Beijing, meanwhile, has framed the visit as an opportunity to stabilize bilateral ties amid growing global uncertainty. In remarks on Monday, China’s Foreign Ministry emphasized the need to expand mutually beneficial cooperation, manage differences, and “inject greater stability and certainty into a turbulent and changing world.”
Analysts broadly agree that the summit reflects a shared near-term interest in stabilizing China–US relations, even as deeper strategic tensions remain unresolved.
Zhao Hai, director of the International Politics Program at the National Institute for Global Strategy, points out that the primary “product” of this summit needs to be predictability. For the private sector, the specific policy is often less damaging than the volatility of not knowing what the policy will be tomorrow.
This mirrors the “managed strategic competition” framework championed by former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. The goal in Beijing is not necessarily to bridge a decade-long trust deficit in a three-day summit, but to prevent further accidental escalation. He said that careful coordination and transparent dialogue are essential to maintaining stability over the long term.
Economic frictions and business impacts
While Chinese state media frame economic relations as both a stabilizing foundation and a key driver of broader China–US ties, US tariff policy continues to sit at the center of bilateral disagreement.
While Beijing views these measures as “unreasonable restrictions,” the Trump administration continues to utilize them as its primary tool of economic leverage.
John McLean, chairman of the China–UK Business Development Centre, noted that shifting US tariff policies are creating deep uncertainty, prompting many companies to delay or reconsider long-term investment plans.
The economic data, however, tells a more nuanced story of self-inflicted wounds. A recent study by the Kiel Institute, a leading German economic research body, found that foreign exporters absorb only about 4% of the tariff burden, with the remaining 96% falling on US business and consumers.
These findings underscore that while tariffs are often framed as protecting American industries, their indirect effects are influencing pricing, supply chains, and investment decisions.
For small and medium-sized enterprises, the consequences are particularly acute. Philip Crawley, who operates a laser equipment import business in California, reported that tariffs imposed last year cost his company millions, forcing it to slow operations, reduce employee pay, and postpone hiring plans.
Glen Calder, president of Calder Brothers in South Carolina, said his steel costs increased by 25% even before US tariffs took effect, as markets anticipated higher trade barriers.
Strategic competition may be conducted at the state level, but its economic consequences are frequently absorbed by businesses, workers, and consumers navigating unpredictable policy environments.
Continued investment interest in China
Perhaps the most surprising element of the current climate is the resilience of corporate interest. Despite these challenges, many US businesses continue to view China as a critical market.
According to the American Chamber of Commerce in China, around 60% of American companies still plan to invest in the Chinese market, reflecting enduring confidence in China’s economic opportunities.
The rationale is clear: China accounts for roughly 17% of global GDP, contributes about 30% of global economic growth, with a and is projected to export nearly $4 trillion in exports in 2025.
Its sheer economic scale and growth make it important for companies to overlook, providing strong incentives to maintain or expand investment even amid uncertainty.
Looking ahead: Cooperation and strategic stability
President Xi noted in today’s meeting that success in one is an opportunity for the other. China has maintained a relatively consistent stance toward Washington, rooted in the idea that the Pacific is large enough for both powers. This summit offers a rare window to clarify intentions and move beyond the zero-sum rhetoric that has dominated the 2020s.
Reducing uncertainty in trade, investment, and technology will benefit businesses and global markets alike, reinforcing long-term stability, which is a shared asset, not a concession. Reducing the “noise” in trade and technology isn’t just a win for diplomats. It’s the oxygen required for global markets to breathe again.
Chen Ziqi is a reporter from CGTN
Iran’s positions at the Non Proliferation Treaty Review Conference are rational – Ignoring them would weaken the treaty

By Syed Ali Zia Jaffery | Analysis | May 12, 2026, https://thebulletin.org/2026/05/irans-positions-at-the-npt-review-conference-are-rational-ignoring-them-would-weaken-the-treaty/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Nuclear%20winter%3A%20Why%20study%20it%20now%3F&utm_campaign=20260514%20Thursday%20Newsletter
In a working paper submitted to the ongoing Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran mentioned the US-Israeli attacks on its safeguarded nuclear facilities, calling for not only the unequivocal condemnation of such attacks but also legal accountability of the violators.
Iran submitted other working papers outlining its positions on the provision of negative security assurances, nuclear disarmament, establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, and the inalienable right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. These documents show that Tehran’s priorities within the NPT Review Process have, by and large, remained consistent. This consistency is justified, not least because each one of these issues is integral to the success of the treaty’s review process.
Attacks on safeguarded nuclear facilities. After bombing Iran’s safeguarded nuclear facilities in Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan in June 2025, the United States and Israel again struck these and other sites in March and April of 2026, including near the Bushehr nuclear power plant. Although the plant itself was not damaged and the perpetrator of the attack has not been confirmed, it is widely interpreted as an escalatory and illegal action. The fact that Israel—a non-NPT nuclear-armed state, in concert with the United States, an NPT nuclear-weapon state—brazenly attacked nuclear facilities of an NPT non-nuclear-weapon state significantly undermines the credibility of the treaty. Tehran might conclude that its NPT membership could not protect its nuclear installations from attacks by both a non-NPT malign actor and a nuclear-weapon state.
In addition, Iran could rightly refer to the treaty’s preamble, which underscores the need to ease tensions and improve international security. Tehran could also remind the world that Israel’s military actions against its nuclear sites are an anathema to the final documents of the 2000 and 2010 review conferences. The 2010 final document, in particular, was clear: “Attacks or threats of attack on nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful purposes jeopardize nuclear safety, have dangerous political, economic and environmental implications and raise serious concerns regarding the application of international law on the use of force in such cases, which could warrant appropriate action in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.”
More importantly, the targeted nuclear facilities in Isfahan, Natanz, Fordow, and Bushehr are all under the safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which are central to the success of the NPT. IAEA safeguards are the only mechanism through which the agency can verify that states parties comply with the NPT. Military strikes on such facilities, especially by non-NPT nuclear-armed states, severely erode the legitimacy of the treaty’s Article III on safeguards.
Iran concluded a comprehensive safeguards agreement with the IAEA in 1974, and it also implemented the Additional Protocol voluntarily between 2003 and 2006. Iran also applied and remained compliant with the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) until 2021, long after the first Trump administration unilaterally withdrew from the agreement in 2018 with no justification.
Negative security assurances and a nuclear-weapon-free zone. As an NPT state party being the target of nuclear-laden threats, Iran has rightly stressed the need for codifying and legalizing negative security assurances—the commitment that a nuclear-weapon state will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear-weapon state. It has long been argued that, pending complete, universal disarmament, non-nuclear-weapon states should be given legally-binding negative security assurances.
The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), the largest coalition of states within the NPT, also supports the provision of unconditional, irrevocable, and universal negative security assurances. However, the United States has balked at removing conditions and caveats while issuing such assurances. With nuclear risks increasing—including due to miscalculations—these incentives to remain nuclear-use-free must be unequivocal. To assuage concerns, the language must become firmer and stricter; words like “irrevocable” and “unconditional” must be made an integral part of all conversations on security assurances during the NPT review process.
Iran has also remained a leading advocate for a Nuclear-Weapon Free Zone in the Middle East. Through its working papers, statements, and other engagements, Tehran lamented the disregard for the 1995 resolution, which reaffirmed the need for establishing internationally recognized nuclear-weapon-free zones, and the 2010 final document. However, it is encouraging to note that NAM has supported calls for the establishment of these zones, including one in the Middle East. NAM has also expressed its wholehearted support for the first two sessions of the conference on the establishment of a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. Although these are welcome developments, the inability to bring Israel into the fold of the NPT will continue to militate against the possibility of establishing such a zone in the Middle East. Consequently, the non-adherence to the 1995 resolution will deal a severe blow to the already bruised treaty.
Inalienable right to use nuclear technology. As an NPT state party, Iran is well within its rights to use nuclear energy and other nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. This “inalienable right,” as mentioned in the treaty’s Article IV, does not preclude uranium enrichment or the reprocessing of plutonium for non-military reasons.
Alluding to its rights under the treaty, Iran has not only refused to dismantle its nuclear program or halt uranium enrichment, as the United States has asked repeatedly. Iran has remained firm on its indisputable, inalienable right to enrich, but has expressed willingness to negotiate on the level of enrichment. In a working paper on the issue, Iran has stressed the need for refraining from pursuing any action that impedes the development of a full nuclear fuel cycle for peaceful purposes.
Although this has been Tehran’s stance for a long time, it will become a bigger sticking point as the United States doubles down on seeking to stop Iran’s uranium enrichment. The resulting deadlock will only exacerbate differences between nuclear-weapon and non-nuclear-weapon states, with the latter losing confidence in the treaty’s capacity to ensure uninterrupted, non-discriminatory access to nuclear technology.
Iran’s core positions are not repugnant to the NPT, a treaty Tehran has not withdrawn from and continues to abide by. Tehran should be engaged with on these issues, not bombed and threatened with annihilation.
Trump says 20-year nuclear programme suspension by Iran would be enough

Robert Greenall, 16 May 26. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgkpnnen5dzo
US President Donald Trump has said he would accept a 20-year suspension by Iran of its nuclear programme, in what appears to be confirmation of a shift in position away from a demand for a total end to it.
Trump said it had to be a “real 20 years”. Previously he has called on Iran to permanently cease enriching uranium – a stage in making a weapon – and to be prevented from ever acquiring nuclear weapons.
But he also said his patience with Iran was running out, with no sign of a breakthrough in talks.
Israeli and US forces began massive air strikes on Iran on 28 February. A ceasefire in place since last month meant to facilitate talks has been largely observed, despite some exchanges of fire.
Pakistan has been playing the role of mediator.
However, both sides appear to be far apart, having rejected each other’s most recent proposals to end the war.
Iranian media said Tehran’s proposal had included an immediate end to the war on all fronts – an apparent reference to Israeli attacks against its Shia ally Hezbollah in Lebanon – a halt to the US naval blockade of Iranian ports and guarantees of no further attacks on Iran.
Speaking to reporters on Air Force One after talks in Beijing with Chinese President Xi Jinping, Trump said the two sides had agreed Tehran could not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon and must reopen the Strait of Hormuz, which it is currently blocking, prompting a rise in world oil prices.
When a reporter suggested that a 20-year suspension of Iran’s nuclear programme was not enough, he replied: “Twenty years is enough, but the level of guarantee from them, in other words it’s got to be a real 20 years.” He did no elaborate.
US media reported in April that during a session of talks in the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, Vice-President JD Vance had responded to an Iranian proposal to cease enrichment for five years by insisting on a minimum of 20 years.
However, this is thought to be the first time Trump himself has mentioned a 20-year timeframe.
In his first term as president, he withdrew from a 2015 nuclear agreement reached with Iran by the Obama administration. One of the reasons given was opposition to so-called “sunset clauses” that would have allowed some restrictions on Iran to expire over time.
Israel has so far not reacted to Trump’s remarks. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said that Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium must be “taken out” before the war against Iran can be considered over.
Netanyahu vehemently opposed the 2015 nuclear deal, partly on the grounds that the sunset clauses would leave open the possibility of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons and continuing to present a grave threat to Israel.
The risk of relying on EDF to deliver Europe’s nuclear renaissance

The group needs to cut costs and rejuvenate its reactor-building expertise. In
mid-March, France’s President Emmanuel Macron visited Penly in Normandy,
the site of two nuclear reactors due to start generating electricity from
2038. Donning a hi-vis coat and a white helmet, he hailed the “works of
the century”, saying France would “do for its children what our parents
did for us”.
Some 225km to the west, another nuclear power development
demonstrates how enormous that undertaking will be. Last December, the
Flamanville 3 reactor reached full power, 12 years after its scheduled
start-up date and costing seven times its original budget.
New reactors in
the UK have also been beset by delays and budget increases. EDF, the
state-owned company responsible for these projects, is Europe’s leading
nuclear power generator and, for many French, a potent symbol of the
country’s industrial and technological prowess. “There’s pride in the
industry, linked to nostalgia for a winning version of France,” says HEC
Paris professor François Gemenne.
But in the decades since France
commissioned its previous generation of reactors, EDF has mutated into a
sprawling, bureaucratic organisation. Its large workforce wields
considerable political influence. It often finds itself torn between its
own competing priorities and changing injunctions from a government that
has veered between cooling on nuclear and doubling down on it.
This backdrop makes the challenge of controlling costs and refining new
technology, while completing six new reactor units in France, plus four in
the UK over the next decade, all the more daunting. In an era of renewed
energy supply disruptions, EDF’s nuclear reactors are central to energy
security in France and, increasingly, across Europe.
As prices rise again
following the war in Iran, the task of renewing that fleet, and securing
nuclear’s place in a pan-European, low-carbon energy system, has taken on
even more importance. EDF has a lot to prove. The group has pinned its
fortunes on its own design for a water-pressurised reactor, but early
iterations in Finland and France came on stream more than a decade late and
more recent projects in the UK are also delayed.
EDF is also developing a
design for smaller reactors that might one day power data centres and
factories, although it faces competition from both established names such
as Rolls-Royce and Westinghouse and relatively new companies. The most
immediate test of EDF’s newer working methods will be the two reactors at
Sizewell C in the UK. These are supposed to be exact replicas of the
Hinkley Point C reactors in Somerset, which are currently due to enter
service in 2030.
FT 14th May 2026,
https://www.ft.com/content/4c48679b-edc3-4f81-b5be-9768fa2e63e5
Trump says US will not allow Iran to reach enriched uranium.

US president says Washington has the nuclear material in Iran ‘surveilled’ and will ‘blow up’ anyone who gets near it.
Al Jazeera Staff 10 May 2026, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/5/10/trump-says-us-will-not-allow-iran-to-reach-enriched-uranium
President Donald Trump has warned that the United States will target any Iranian trying to reach the country’s highly enriched uranium, saying that the nuclear material is under constant surveillance by the US military.
In an interview with the syndicated TV show Full Measure that aired on Sunday, Trump appeared to play down the significance of the uranium, which is believed to be buried under the rubble of nuclear facilities, remaining in Iran for now.
“We’ll get that at some point, whenever we want. We have it surveilled,” Trump said.
“I did a thing called Space Force, and they are watching. If somebody walked in, they can tell you his name, his address, the number of his badge … If anybody got near the place, we will know about it, and we’ll blow them up.”
Iran’s highly enriched uranium is one of the major sticking points between Washington and Tehran in ceasefire negotiations to end the 10-week US-Israel war on Iran.
The US wants Iran to transfer the uranium outside the country and completely shut down its nuclear programme, but Tehran has stressed that it will not give up its right to a domestic enrichment programme.
Several international media reports have said that the uranium remains under nuclear sites that the US bombed in June 2025, but Tehran has not confirmed the location of the nuclear material.
Last month, Trump announced that Iran had agreed to allow Washington to retrieve the uranium and bring it to the US – claims that Tehran quickly dismissed.
Trump told Reuters on April 17 that the US would work with Iran “at a nice leisurely pace, and go down and start excavating with big machinery” to retrieve the uranium stockpile at the sites.
Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei denied Trump’s claim. “Enriched uranium is as sacred to us as Iranian soil and will not be transferred anywhere under any circumstances,” he said.
Iran is estimated to have more than 400kg (882lb) of uranium enriched at 60 percent purity.
Uranium enrichment is a complex process of isolating and garnering the most radioactive variety – isotope – of the element to produce nuclear fuel.
When enriched to around 90 percent purity, uranium can be used to make nuclear weapons.
In 2015, Iran agreed to a multilateral deal that saw Tehran scale back its nuclear programme and cap its uranium enrichment at 3.67 percent under strict international supervision in exchange for lifting sanctions against its economy.
Trump nixed that agreement – known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – and started reimposing sanctions on Iran.
In response, Tehran – which denies seeking a nuclear weapon – began to advance its enrichment programme well beyond the limits set by the JCPOA.
Trump has argued that the ongoing conflict with Iran aims to prevent the country from acquiring a nuclear bomb.
Asked about the rising oil prices due to the war, Trump said: “We cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon because they’re crazy.”
The average price of one gallon (3.8 litres) of petrol or gasoline in the US has risen to more than $4.50 due to supply issues linked to the Iranian blockade in the Strait of Hormuz, fuelling inflation. It was less than $3 before the war.
Despite the truce that came into effect last month, skirmishes have erupted in the Gulf over the past week as the US continues to enforce a siege on Iranian ports amid Tehran’s Hormuz blockade.
Iranian state-affiliated news outlets reported on Sunday that Iran has delivered its response to the latest US proposal to end the war to Pakistan, which is mediating the talks.
But Trump said the war is not over while reiterating his claim that Iran has been “defeated”.
“They are defeated, but that doesn’t mean they’re done,” the US president said. “We could go in for two more weeks and do every single target. We have certain targets that we wanted, and we’ve done probably 70 percent of them, but we have other targets that we could conceivably hit.”
Trump’s deadly trap: By rejecting Iran’s proposal, US enters a strategic nightmare with no escape
Monday, 11 May 2026 , By Press TV Strategic Analysis Desk, https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2026/05/11/768410/trump-deadly-trap-rejecting-iran-proposal-us-enters-strategic-nightmare-no-escape
In a theatrical move that fooled no one, US President Donald Trump rejected Iran’s comprehensive plan to end the war he illegally imposed on the country 70 days ago.
The US president postured as a victor, dismissing Tehran’s proposal with the bluster of a leader who expects capitulation. But the reality on the ground tells a starkly different story.
By every measurable metric, America is the defeated party in the asymmetric war that was imposed on Iran amid the nuclear talks in Geneva on February 28. And his rejection of Iran’s terms in a social media post has not opened new options for Washington, but it has only trapped the US in a deadly three-way crossroads from which there is no easy escape.
Trump’s rejection of Iran’s plan, which was submitted early on Sunday through Pakistani mediators, is a grave strategic error as Americans hold no winning cards.
Iran’s proposal: Fundamental, natural, and uncompromising
Iran’s plan to permanently end the war was never meant to please Washington. It was designed to restore justice, recognize strategic realities, and secure Iran’s undeniable rights after the unprovoked military aggression against the country and maritime banditry.
The core elements of Iran’s proposal are not maximalist. They are rooted in natural and fundamental principles that any nation subjected to unprovoked aggression and holding the upper hand would rightfully insist upon:
- War reparations – Payment of damages and reparations by the aggressor for the destruction inflicted on Iran’s infrastructure, economy, and civilian population.
- Management of the Strait of Hormuz – Recognition of Iran’s sovereign control over this vital waterway, based on the mechanism already announced by Tehran.
- Lifting of sanctions – The complete removal of all oppressive and illegal sanctions that have targeted the Iranian people for decades.
- Release of frozen assets – The return of billions of dollars of Iranian assets illegally seized by the United States.
- Permanent end to the war – A cessation of hostilities not only against Iran but also against the entire resistance front, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and other allied forces across the region.
None of these demands is unreasonable or impractical. They are the basic entitlements of a nation that has been attacked, bombed, and subjected to economic warfare for nearly half a century. What Iran is asking for is not special treatment but justice.
The American non-offer: Irrelevant demands and nuclear obsession
In stark contrast to Iran’s focused, reasonable and practically sound proposal, the American counteroffer reads like a wish list written by someone who has lost sight of reality.
Washington’s plan has nothing to do with ending the war. Instead, it resurrects the long-dead nuclear file – demands that were irrelevant before the war and are absurd now.
The United States insists on:
Closure of Iran’s nuclear sites – A non-starter that Iran has rejected for decades.
- Long-term halt to enrichment – Effectively disabling Iran’s nuclear program for years to come, which is totally unacceptable to Iran.
- Transfer of enriched uranium to America – A humiliating demand that no sovereign nation would accept, least of all Iran.
What is striking about the American proposal is what it omits. There is no mention of the American responsibility for starting the war in the middle of nuclear diplomacy.
There is also no acknowledgment of the thousands of Iranian civilians killed in the 40-day aggression. There is no offer of reparations. There is no commitment to withdraw the occupation forces from the region. There is no guarantee against future aggression.
Washington simply pretends the war never happened and pivots back to its failed nuclear fixation to deflect attention from the real issue.
The posture of defeat: Trump’s fake victory pose
Trump rejected Iran’s plan while posing as the victor. But this is pure theater. International experts, military analysts, and even sober voices within Western capitals acknowledge what Trump refuses to admit – the United States lost the asymmetric war against Iran.
Consider the evidence. The US entered this war with ambitious objectives: “regime change,” destruction of Iran’s missile program, dismantling of nuclear facilities, and unrestricted access to the Strait of Hormuz.
None of these objectives has been achieved. Iran’s missile cities remain intact. Its nuclear program continues to make progress. Its control over the Strait of Hormuz has been consolidated. And the Iranian people, far from rising against their government, have poured into the streets by the millions to support the leadership and the armed forces.
Trump’s hallucinatory “victory” exists only in his own press releases. In the real world, the United States has been defeated on every front. And rejecting Iran’s proposal does not change that fact – it only prolongs Washington’s agony.
The three-way crossroads: All paths lead to disaster
By rejecting Iran’s plan, Trump has trapped the United States in a deadly strategic dilemma. He now faces three options and none of them are good:
- Resume full-scale war
This is the most dangerous path. Starting the war again would plunge the United States and its Israeli proxy into a “dark corridor” from which there may be no return.
Iran has not yet deployed all its strategic cards. Throughout the 40 days of war, Tehran fought with its eyes fixed on the possibility of an even larger confrontation. The weapons systems, tactics, and capabilities that Iran deliberately held back would be unleashed in a second round, if that actually happens.
The result would likely be far heavier defeats for the US-Israeli war machine, defeats that could become irreversible. Iran’s unrevealed cards, combined with the lessons learned from the first phase of the war, would make any renewed American military campaign a gamble with catastrophic odds.
- Accept Iran’s terms
This is the only path to ending the imposed war, but it requires Trump to swallow his pride and acknowledge defeat like someone who understands the ground realities.
The United States would have to pay reparations, accept Iran’s complete and sovereign control of the Strait of Hormuz, lift illegal sanctions, release frozen assets, and agree to a comprehensive end to the war on all fronts.
For a president who has built his political identity around “maximum pressure” and “America First,” this option is politically toxic. But rejecting it does not make it disappear. It remains the only sustainable exit from a war that Washington cannot win.
Continue the naval blockade
An ambiguous, indefinite naval blockade that neither ends the war nor escalates it decisively is the current situation. But this option is also unsustainable. Iran’s top military command has already made its position clear that for every vessel intercepted or attacked, American centers and American vessels will be struck.
The Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters has announced this equation publicly. It is not a threat but a binding warning. The continuation of the naval blockade will trigger Iranian responses that escalate incrementally but inevitably. There is no “safe” stalemate.
The economic dimension: A losing battle for Washington
The closure of the strategic waterway due to the war imposed on war and US maritime banditry and piracy has already sent shockwaves through global energy markets.
Oil prices have surged past $110 per barrel. Inflationary pressures are mounting across Europe, Asia, and the Americas. The continued naval blockade of Iran, coupled with Iranian retaliatory strikes on regional energy infrastructure, will only worsen these trends.
And who bears the blame? Global public opinion increasingly points to Washington. The United States started this war, and the United States rejected a reasonable peace plan.
The United States continues to strangle Iran’s economy while Iranian civilians suffer. The further economic indicators deteriorate, the more pressure will mount on Trump from domestic constituencies and international allies alike.
Iran understands this dynamic perfectly. Continued economic disruption is not a bug in Tehran’s strategy but a feature. Every day the war continues, the United States bleeds economically and reputationally.
Iran’s trap: No escape for the United States
World media have accurately described the current situation as “Iran’s trap” for the United States. It is a trap with no exit and Trump is yet to wrap his head around this reality.
Trump can neither win the war nor end it on acceptable terms. Resuming full-scale war invites catastrophic defeat. Accepting Iran’s proposal requires humiliating capitulation. Maintaining the status quo triggers escalating Iranian retaliation that systematically degrades American interests in the region.
This is the strategic nightmare that Trump has created for himself and his country. He started a war he could not win. He rejected a peace that would have ended it. And now he stands at a deadly three-way crossroads, with every direction leading to danger.
Iran, meanwhile, holds the strategic advantage. Tehran’s proposal remains on the table — reasonable, principled, and rooted in natural rights. But if the US chooses not to accept it, Iran is prepared to continue the war, escalate it, and inflict far heavier costs than anything seen in the first 40 days.
The choice is Washington’s. The consequences will be for Iran to impose. And history will record who acted with wisdom – and who walked willingly into a trap of their own making.
Blind Eyes at the United Nations While the U.S. Bombs for Nonproliferation

Iran’s civil nuclear program is lawful under NPT rules, and its representatives are here in New York attending the RevCon which runs until May 22. Still, one after another UN member representative used their ‘general debate’ time to attack Iran for its processing of uranium and Russia for its invasion of Ukraine, but not the United States for its unprovoked, internationally illegal war on Iran
John Laforge, May 8, 2026 https://www.counterpunch.org/2026/05/08/blind-eyes-at-the-united-nations-while-the-u-s-bombs-for-nonproliferation/
There is deadly irony in the juxtaposition of Trump’s ‘anti-nuclear war’ on Iran, and the ongoing United Nations Review Conference for the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, or NPT RevCon.
The decision to initiate a war of aggression against Iran killing thousands of civilians was made (among other public pretexts) in order to prevent Iran’s allegedly intended future construction of a nuclear weapon.
The 1970 NPT prohibits the development of nuclear weapons or the transfer of nuclear weapons among or between nations that ratify the treaty. The NPT has slowed the spread of such weapons, while pushing the spread of nuclear reactors. The U.S., Iran, and 187 other UN member states are parties to the NPT.
Iran’s civil nuclear program is lawful under NPT rules, and its representatives are here in New York attending the RevCon which runs until May 22. Still, one after another UN member representative used their ‘general debate’ time to attack Iran for its processing of uranium and Russia for its invasion of Ukraine, but not the United States for its unprovoked, internationally illegal war on Iran.
No friend or military ally of the United States except Israel was consulted or informed about the U.S.’s February 28 Middle East blitzkrieg — with plenty of reason. Trump’s war of distraction would never have been supported much less joined by U.S. allies because: 1) Iran’s nuclear facilities were “totally obliterated” in June 2025 by U.S. Air Force and Navy bombardments; and 2) the International Atomic Energy Agency — the UN body that oversees compliance with the NPT — has reported since 2025 that it has found no evidence of an ongoing Iranian nuclear weapons program.
The catastrophically ill-advised and criminal U.S. war on Iran had to be launched by surprise, without NATO, or UN or U.S. authorization, because the White House’s justifications were so easily debunked, and because the NPT is already working to stop the spread of nuclear arsenals.
During the first days of the NPT RevCon, member states spoke with a shocking and confounding display of double standards, with one after another condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and Iran’s alleged violations of NPT inspection rules, but not one criticizing the U.S. attack on Iran, its January 3rd bombing of Venezuela, or its June 2025 bombardment of Iran’s nuclear facilities. Argentina for example said, “This Review Conference is taking place against a backdrop that we cannot ignore …. the nuclear program of the Islamic Republic of Iran…,” while the Nordic States together singled out Russia, saying its “war of aggression against Ukraine is a blatant violation of international law, including the United Nations Charter….” The U.S. war on Iran was evidently aggression non grata.
The nuclear weapons states’ 56-year-long violation of the NPT’s Article VI — requiring good-faith efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons — was often bemoaned, but the U.S., U.K., Russian, Chinese, and French violators were never called out by name. (North Korea, India, Israel, and Pakistan have nuclear weapons but have not joined the NPT.) Likewise, open, ongoing U.S. violations of the Treaty’s Articles I and II — which forbid the U.S. transfer of nuclear weapons to non-nuclear States Parties including Germany, Italy, Holland, and Belgium — were ignored, while the European Union’s delegate said, “The EU condemns in the strongest possible way Russia’s … announced deployment of nuclear weapons in the territory of Belarus.”
Comically, a few ministers openly excused the U.S.’s Article I & II violations — its stationing of B61 thermonuclear gravity bombs at six air bases in Europe — as when the representative of the Nordic States, asserted that “NATO’s nuclear sharing arrangements are fully consistent with the NPT”. The 110-member Non-Aligned States Parties Group politely pushed back and condemned the practice, noting without naming names, “The Group reiterates its deep concern over … practices that run contrary to the principles and objectives of the Treaty such as … nuclear weapons sharing arrangements”.
The most brazenly selective and myopic presentation to date was the “Joint Statement on Russia’s Aggression Against Ukraine” signed by 43 NPT States Parties. The paper said, “Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine is a blatant violation of international law, including the UN Charter….” Every use of the word ‘Russia’ in the text could have been replaced with ‘the U.S.’ and still made perfect sense. The letter endorsed Ukraine’s but not Iran’s “independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity”; Ukraine’s but not Iran’s “inherent right to self-defense” in accordance with the UN Charter “against Russia’s”, but not the United States’ “ongoing illegal war of aggression.” The paper acknowledged the critical danger of attacking nuclear sites and condemned Russia, but not the U.S., both of whom continue to put “nuclear facilities at risk.” The group did manage to generally denounce “indiscriminate attacks that have resulted in civilian deaths and destruction of critical infrastructure….” Yet, the 43 states urged the General Assembly “to condemn Russia’s irresponsible nuclear rhetoric”, but not Trump’s mindless threat to bomb Iran “back to the Stone Ages” or his genocidal outburst that “a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again.”
For UN member states to ignore U.S. government violations of the UN Charter and the Laws of War is evidence of not just hypocrisy and double standards, but a submissiveness reminiscent of the groveling fear of state terrors of 1930s. More than just Spain’s PM Pedro Sánchez and Pope Leo XIV the have to stand up to the megalomaniacal madman of the hour. ### [905 words]
John LaForge is a Co-director of Nukewatch, a peace and environmental justice group in Wisconsin, and edits its newsletter.
Combatants must address root causes to end Ukraine, Iran wars

Walt Zlotow West Suburban Peace Coalition Glen Ellyn IL , 8 May 26
Ukraine cannot win its war with Russia, now in its 51st month. Why? Russia will never allow Ukraine to join NATO which would allow NATO nukes on Russia’s borders to weaken, isolate Russia from the European political economy. Nor will Russia give back the Donbas containing mostly Russian leaning Ukrainians being brutalized and killed for 8 years prior to the Russian invasion.
Isolating, weakening Russia while ignoring Russia’s security concerns represent the root causes of the war which for Russia is an existential threat to their national security. The Biden administration knew both threats would provoke a Russian invasion but did so anyway figuring war would weaken, if not collapse Russia.
The opposite occurred. Russia has prospered both economically and militarily while Ukraine is a failed state near collapse and totally supported by hundreds of billions in US, NATO aid. But even a trillion in aid will not prevent Ukraine’s inevitable defeat.
Russia always preferred the West negotiate the war’s root cause, their sensible security demands both for themselves and their Russian speaking Ukrainian brethren. While the US is not averse to this now, European NATO countries continue to pour tens of billions into the lost cause to weaken, isolate Russia. Therefore, Russia is committed to resolve the root causes of the war on the battlefield.
All this could have been avoided in November 2021 if the Biden administration had the decency and common sense to negotiate Russia’s national security interests, the root cause of their invasion three months later.
Failure to address the root causes of war also applies to the current US, Israeli war against Iran. For Israel the root cause of the war has nothing to do with Iran’s nuclear program which is not developing a nuclear weapon. It is simply Israel’s lust to destroy Iran as a hegemonic rival for Middle East supremacy. The US, supplying most of the fire power, has no dog in Israel’s quest. We can only lament that Israel exerts such malicious control over the Trump administration that it willingly engaged in suicidal war to please Israel.
Just like with Ukraine, the US attack had the opposite effect of a quick collapse of our imagined enemy. Iran prepared a robust defense that has largely destroyed US Gulf States bases, inflicted heavy damage on Israel and Gulf States oil infrastructure. Unless the root causes of Israel’s quest to destroy Iran and Iran’s determination to survive intact are addressed, the Strait of Hormuz will remain closed, possibly crashing the world economy.
The war in Ukraine now in its 51st month, and war in Iran now in its 3rd month, will not be resolved till the root causes of both are addressed. Neither the US, NATO nor Israel show any desire to bring peace by addressing them.
-
Archives
- June 2026 (19)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS





