Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

China’s position on Iran, Hormuz remains unchanged

Al Mayadeen | May 15, 2026

China moved on Friday to publicly reaffirm its longstanding position on Iran after speculation and conflicting reports circulated regarding Beijing’s stance during recent regional tensions, with the Chinese Foreign Ministry publishing a full statement outlining its official position.

Asian diplomatic sources told Al Mayadeen that Washington is expected to continue promoting claims that it succeeded in persuading Beijing to pressure Iran, particularly following recent US-China discussions surrounding the Strait of Hormuz and the Iranian nuclear file.

The sources said that the growing American rhetoric regarding “the Iranian nuclear issue” or claims of an agreement with Beijing on keeping the Strait of Hormuz open “without fees” are merely “attempts at media flooding and covering up the essence of the matter.”

China’s position on Iran clear, unchanged

The sources stressed that China’s position toward Iran “is clear and unchanged,” dismissing reports suggesting a shift in Beijing’s stance as false. They noted that China deliberately refrained from discussing Iran publicly during earlier talks before later issuing a full Foreign Ministry statement outlining its official position in detail.

Beijing continues to oppose the possession of nuclear weapons while simultaneously supporting Iran’s right to the peaceful use of uranium and civilian nuclear technology. China also maintains its longstanding position in favor of keeping the Strait of Hormuz open and preventing its militarization, while supporting Iran’s rights as a coastal state bordering the strategic waterway.

The sources added that “China buying oil or gas from the United States is nothing new because China diversifies its energy sources, but no one can replace Iranian oil or Hormuz energy imports, which constitute 45 percent of its energy needs.”

They further noted that China continues to support the creation of a joint regional security structure among Gulf states without outside interference, describing Beijing’s current “calm rhetoric” as an attempt to contain the “arrogance” of US President Donald Trump and his allies while creating conditions for a broader agreement through mutually beneficial economic incentives.

The sources noted that narratives suggesting a major Chinese shift against Iran are either inaccurate, deliberately misleading, or attempts to present recent diplomatic developments in the best possible light for Washington.

Trump, Xi, agree to address each other’s concerns

Meanwhile, Chinese President Xi Jinping and US President Donald Trump held extensive discussions on bilateral and global issues and reached a series of new common understandings, China’s Foreign Ministry said Friday, as Beijing called for accelerated diplomacy between the United States and Iran.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian said the two leaders agreed to address each other’s concerns and enhance communication and coordination on international and regional affairs, describing the talks as a step toward building a “constructive and stable strategic relationship” between China and the US.

Commenting on ongoing US-Iran negotiations, the Chinese Foreign Ministry stressed that a comprehensive and lasting ceasefire should be achieved “as soon as possible,” adding that a rapid resolution would benefit the United States, Iran, regional countries, and the broader international community.

“The war between Iran and the United States should not have erupted in the first place, and there is no need for it to continue,” the ministry said.

Beijing reiterated its longstanding position that dialogue and negotiations remain the best path forward, warning against military escalation and emphasizing that “a military solution is not the answer.”

“Now that the door to dialogue has been opened, it should not be closed again,” the ministry said, calling for efforts to consolidate momentum toward de-escalation. China also said it would continue working with the international community to provide greater support for peace talks between the US and Iran.

May 15, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , | Comments Off on China’s position on Iran, Hormuz remains unchanged

Trump Visits Beijing In a World Washington No Longer Controls

By Joseph Solis-Mullen | The Libertarian Institute | May 14, 2026

When President Donald Trump arrived in Beijing yesterday for his summit with Xi Jinping, much of the American foreign policy establishment framed the meeting through the familiar lens of “great power competition.” Analysts will scrutinize every handshake, communiqué, and trade announcement for signs that Washington is either “standing up” to China or “conceding” ground to its principal rival.

But the more important reality is that the summit will likely underscore just how much the balance of leverage has shifted over the past several years—and how little appetite Beijing has for rescuing Washington from the consequences of its own strategic blunders.

The prevailing assumption in Washington remains that China is an aggressive revisionist power poised to overturn the international order through military expansion and economic coercion. Yet the actual picture is considerably more complicated. Beijing’s posture today looks less like that of a state eager for global confrontation and more like that of a rising commercial empire patiently exploiting American overextension.

That overextension is now impossible to ignore.

Washington’s latest entanglement in Iran has once again demonstrated the limits of American power projection. Years of interventionism, sanctions escalation, proxy commitments, and military signaling have produced precisely what critics of U.S. foreign policy long warned about: another unstable regional crisis with no clear off-ramp and no coherent strategic objective.

And notably, China has shown almost no interest in helping Washington navigate the mess.

Despite endless warnings from hawks that Beijing and Tehran are inseparable strategic partners, China’s actual behavior has been far more restrained and transactional. Beijing benefits from Iranian energy flows and prefers regional stability, but it has little reason to actively bail out an American foreign policy establishment that helped create the crisis in the first place. From Beijing’s perspective, every additional dollar and hour Washington spends bogged down in the Middle East is a dollar and hour not spent in East Asia.

That reality carries profound implications for Taiwan.

For years, American policymakers have insisted that Washington could effectively deter—or if necessary defeat—a Chinese effort to forcibly reunify Taiwan with the mainland. Yet recent events reveal how implausible that confidence increasingly appears. If the United States struggles to maintain readiness, logistics, and political cohesion while managing comparatively limited Middle Eastern operations thousands of miles from China, what exactly convinces anyone that it could successfully wage and sustain a high-intensity conflict directly off the Chinese coast?

The uncomfortable truth is that Beijing likely sees America’s Iran difficulties not as a warning, but as confirmation of long-standing Chinese assumptions about U.S. decline and strategic exhaustion.

China, meanwhile, has continued strengthening the areas that matter most in long-term competition: trade, industrial capacity, and monetary influence.

Over the past year especially, Beijing has deepened commercial ties throughout the Global South while accelerating efforts to denominate trade outside the dollar system. None of this means the dollar is about to collapse tomorrow, as breathless commentators sometimes claim. But it does mean that Washington’s ability to weaponize the global financial system is gradually eroding at the margins.

That erosion matters because American coercive power increasingly depends less on productive economic strength and more on financial leverage, sanctions architecture, and control of chokepoints. China understands this perfectly, which is why it has spent years systematically reducing vulnerabilities while building leverage of its own.

Perhaps nowhere is that leverage more obvious than in rare earths processing.

Washington often speaks as though China’s dominance in rare earth supply chains is merely an unfortunate market distortion that can easily be corrected with sufficient industrial policy. In reality, Beijing possesses something far more significant: a near-stranglehold on the processing infrastructure necessary to convert raw materials into usable industrial inputs for advanced manufacturing, electronics, defense systems, and green technologies.

This gives China a remarkably effective whip hand.

Even modest Chinese export restrictions over the past year have demonstrated how fragile Western supply chains remain. Despite years of rhetoric about “reshoring” and “de-risking,” the United States still lacks the capacity to rapidly replace China’s processing ecosystem. Building mines is difficult enough. Replicating decades of accumulated industrial infrastructure, refining expertise, environmental tolerance, and integrated supply chains is another matter entirely.

This reality may help explain why the Trump-Xi summit will likely focus less on ideological confrontation and more on managed coexistence.

Speculation about some form of institutionalized “Board of Trade” arrangement, floated by Michael Froman at the Council on Foreign Relations, may sound fanciful at first glance, but it fits the emerging logic of the relationship. Neither side appears genuinely interested in comprehensive economic decoupling because neither side can actually afford it. The likely trajectory instead is selective compartmentalization, with tariffs and controls in sectors deemed strategic, combined with continued deep integration elsewhere.

Ironically, such arrangements would represent a tacit admission that decades of maximalist rhetoric from Washington about fundamentally remaking China’s economic system have failed.

And that failure may be the central story to watch in Beijing.

For all the alarmism surrounding the so-called “China threat,” the summit may ultimately reveal something much simpler. Beijing increasingly believes time is on its side, while Washington appears trapped between military overextension abroad, industrial weakness at home, and a foreign policy establishment still struggling to distinguish genuine national interests from ideological crusades.

Trump may well secure commercial deals, soybean purchases, aircraft orders, or even the outline of some new trade-management framework—but beneath the symbolism and spectacle, the larger reality will remain unchanged.

China does not appear eager for war with the United States.

It simply appears increasingly confident that it can outlast it.

May 14, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , | Comments Off on Trump Visits Beijing In a World Washington No Longer Controls

Col Douglas Macgregor: If We Go Back To BOMBING IRAN

Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – May 12, 2026

May 12, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Video, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Comments Off on Col Douglas Macgregor: If We Go Back To BOMBING IRAN

China rejects Israel’s ‘groundless’ allegation of missile support for Iran

Press TV – May 12, 2026

China has rejected Israel’s claims that Beijing provided support to Iran in manufacturing missiles.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun told reporters on Tuesday that the accusations “are not grounded in facts.”

Beijing, he said, is “committed to promoting de-escalation and peace talks to bring about an end to the conflict” between Iran and the United States.

“We have made China’s position clear on multiple occasions. As a responsible major country, China always fulfills its due international obligations,” he added.

In an interview with CBS, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed that during the joint US-Israeli aggression against Iran, China “gave a certain amount of support and particular components for missile manufacturing.”

Asked whether such support was continuing, he said, “Could be. Could be,” without providing further information.

Netanyahu’s controversial remarks came ahead of a planned visit to Beijing by US President Donald Trump.

The Chinese foreign ministry spokesman also condemned recent US sanctions on 12 individuals and entities over their alleged links to Iran, saying Beijing firmly opposes “unilateral sanctions.”

Guo said that the current “pressing priority” in West Asia is to “prevent, by all means, a relapse in fighting, rather than exploit the situation to throw mud at China.”

The US Treasury Department has imposed sanctions on 12 individuals and companies, several of them based in China and Hong Kong, for their alleged involvement in helping Iran “obtain weapons and the raw materials” necessary for its Shahed drones and ballistic missiles.

The department also threatened to take action against any foreign entities supporting what it called “illicit Iranian commerce,” including airlines, and to implement secondary sanctions on foreign financial institutions that assist Iran, even those connected to China’s independent oil refineries.

China, however, pushed back against the sanctions on Chinese refiners buying Iranian crude, invoking a “blocking rule” for the first time last week, directing companies not to comply with US sanctions.

May 12, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on China rejects Israel’s ‘groundless’ allegation of missile support for Iran

Why did Washington impose sanctions on China before the Trump-Xi summit?

By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – May 12, 2026

New U.S. sanctions against Chinese companies just before Donald Trump’s visit to Beijing highlight the growing tendency to use economic pressure as a primary instrument of American diplomacy.

Donald Trump plans to visit China from May 13 to 15. His baggage includes a load of sanctions instead of concessions. Days before his visit to China, Washington imposed fresh sanctions on mainland Chinese and Hong Kong-linked firms accused of helping Iran procure drone and missile-related components. The message is unmistakable: the United States wants to negotiate from a position of pressure. But coercion before diplomacy often produces the opposite effect. Rather than strengthening Washington’s leverage over Beijing, the move risks hardening Chinese resistance, deepening China-Iran ties, and accelerating the erosion of America’s sanctions power in an increasingly multipolar world.

Coercion as Diplomacy

The timing tells the story. On May 8, the US Treasury announced sanctions on 10 individuals and companies — several based in China and Hong Kong — accused of facilitating Iran’s acquisition of materials used in Shahed drones and ballistic missile programmes. According to the Treasury Department, some firms allegedly supplied insulation materials and procurement services linked to Iran’s military-industrial network. Reuters reported that the sanctions came just days before Trump’s scheduled meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing. And, just as Trump flew to China, the US imposed further sanctions on entities involved in shipping Iranian oil to China, hitting China’s energy demands.

The logic behind the move is relatively straightforward. Trump appears determined to avoid entering Beijing looking conciliatory or desperate for stabilization in US-China relations. He wants to completely dodge the impression that the US has lost in Iran. By imposing sanctions beforehand, Washington is signaling that dialogue with China will not come at the expense of American pressure campaigns against Iran or broader national security concerns. The sanctions also serve a domestic political purpose. Trump can portray himself as simultaneously engaging China diplomatically while remaining “tough” on both Beijing and Tehran.

This reflects a broader pattern in Trump-era diplomacy: negotiation through escalation. Whether on tariffs, NATO burden-sharing, or Iran, Trump has frequently relied on pressure tactics to create bargaining leverage before high-level meetings. The assumption is that economic coercion raises the costs of resistance and therefore increases the incentives for compromise. But this strategy works only if the other side believes accommodation is less costly than defiance. That assumption is becoming increasingly questionable in the case of China.

Beijing’s reaction was immediate and predictable. China’s Foreign Ministry condemned the sanctions as “illegal unilateral measures” and pledged to defend the legitimate interests of Chinese companies. Rather than creating diplomatic flexibility, the sanctions may have narrowed Xi Jinping’s room for maneuver by making concessions appear politically submissive.

This is an important point often overlooked in Washington. Chinese leaders do not interpret pre-summmit sanctions merely as tactical bargaining instruments; they typically view them as public demonstrations of coercion designed to humiliate China before negotiations even begin. In such circumstances, compromise becomes politically costly because it risks reinforcing perceptions of weakness both domestically and internationally. That dynamic is particularly significant today because US-China relations are no longer defined by strategic ambiguity or selective competition. They are increasingly viewed in both capitals as a systemic rivalry involving trade, technology, finance, security, and ideology simultaneously. In that environment, sanctions cease to look like isolated policy tools and instead become part of a broader containment strategy.

The Limits of Economic Pressure

The deeper problem for Washington is that sanctions may no longer carry the same coercive power they once supposedly did.

For decades, the United States relied on its dominance over the global financial system to compel compliance from adversaries and third parties alike. Access to the dollar system, Western banking networks, and US markets gave Washington enormous leverage. Secondary sanctions became, at least from Washington’s perspective, one of the most effective tools of American statecraft. But the geopolitical environment has changed significantly.

China today possesses far greater economic resilience than most previous sanctions targets. It also has stronger incentives to resist American pressure because compliance increasingly carries strategic costs of its own. Beijing sees Iran not merely as an isolated Middle Eastern partner but as part of a broader network of states capable of constraining US influence across multiple regions.

China remains Iran’s largest oil customer despite years of American sanctions. Under these conditions, China is unlikely to fully cooperate with Washington’s “maximum pressure” campaign against Tehran. Indeed, repeated sanctions may actually be accelerating China’s determination to build sanctions-resistant economic structures. Beijing has already expanded the use of alternative payment systems, encouraged yuan-denominated trade, and adopted legal mechanisms allowing Chinese firms to challenge or ignore certain foreign sanctions regimes. Each new round of American penalties reinforces the Chinese perception that dependence on US-controlled financial systems constitutes a strategic vulnerability.

There is also growing evidence that sanctions enforcement is producing diminishing returns. The United States has repeatedly sanctioned Chinese and Hong Kong-linked firms accused of helping Iran procure drone components over the past several years. Yet the procurement networks continue adapting through shell companies, intermediaries, and rerouted supply chains.

A 2025 report in the South China Morning Post described the process as a “whack-a-mole exercise,” noting how Iranian procurement networks rapidly reorganized after earlier sanctions targeted Hong Kong-based front companies. The persistence of these networks suggests that sanctions may disrupt transactions temporarily without fundamentally changing the underlying strategic calculations of either China or Iran.

This matters because coercive tools derive much of their effectiveness from credibility. If the targeted state concludes that sanctions are manageable, adaptable, or largely symbolic, then the deterrent value of future sanctions declines substantially.

A More Fragmented Geopolitical Order

The sanctions also reveal a broader contradiction in contemporary American foreign policy. Washington increasingly wants two incompatible outcomes at the same time: strategic competition with China and selective cooperation with China. The Trump administration appears to believe that it can compartmentalize the relationship — sanctioning Chinese entities over Iran while simultaneously seeking Chinese cooperation on trade, regional stability, or maritime security. But the relationship has become too securitized for neat compartmentalization.

From Beijing’s perspective, sanctions on Chinese firms are not disconnected technical measures. They are part of a larger American strategy aimed at constraining China’s economic and geopolitical rise. Under those conditions, even limited cooperation with Washington becomes politically sensitive inside China.

Ironically, the sanctions may therefore deepen exactly the alignment Washington seeks to weaken. China, Iran, and Russia increasingly share a common interest in reducing exposure to US-led financial and strategic pressure. They do not constitute a formal alliance, but they are moving toward greater coordination because American coercive policies create shared incentives for resistance.

This does not mean sanctions are entirely ineffective. They can still raise transaction costs, complicate procurement networks, and signal political resolve. But the era in which sanctions alone could fundamentally reshape the behavior of major powers may be fading.

The more important question now is whether Washington is adapting quickly enough to that reality. If the United States continues relying on sanctions as its primary instrument of geopolitical leverage, it may unintentionally accelerate the fragmentation of the very international order that once made those sanctions so powerful.

Trump may arrive in Beijing believing he has strengthened his negotiating hand. Yet Xi Jinping is likely to interpret the sanctions differently: not as leverage for compromise, but as evidence that Washington increasingly views pressure itself as diplomacy, and that coercion is likely to remain a key feature of US ties with China. And when coercion becomes the default language of international politics, major powers rarely move toward accommodation. They prepare instead for a world in which confrontation is permanent.

Salman Rafi Sheikh is aresearch analyst of international relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs.

Follow new articles on our Telegram channel

May 12, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on Why did Washington impose sanctions on China before the Trump-Xi summit?

China issues first prohibition order to safeguard international trade order under rule of law

People’s Daily | May 3, 2026

China’s Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) on Saturday issued a prohibition order in accordance with Rules on Counteracting Unjustified Extraterritorial Application of Foreign Legislation and Other Measures (the 2021 Blocking Rules), which explicitly stated that China shall not recognize, enforce, or give effect to the unilateral sanctions imposed by the US, which listed five Chinese petrochemical enterprises on the Specially Designated Nationals List and imposed asset freezes and transaction bans on grounds of alleged oil transactions with Iran.

This move marks a crucial step for China’s foreign-related legal tools to move from institutional framework to practical enforcement. Leveraging the power of the rule of law, China has delivered a targeted response to US long-arm jurisdiction. The move defends the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese enterprises while heeding the international community’s widespread call to oppose hegemony, injecting justice into efforts to safeguard the international economic order.

China values its relations with the US and emphasizes that the essence of China-US economic and trade relations is mutual benefit and win-win outcomes. China advocates resolving concerns through dialogue on an equal-footing. However, since 2025, the US has imposed sanctions on Chinese refining, shipping and port enterprises under the pretext of “involvement in Iranian oil transactions,” freezing assets and prohibiting transactions. Under such circumstances, China’s issuance of the prohibition order in accordance with the Blocking Rules is a necessary measure to safeguard its national and corporate interests. Meanwhile, the Blocking Rules provide various institutional arrangements to steadily protect the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese citizens, legal persons and other organizations.

The US’ arbitrary imposition of unilateral sanctions and reckless pursuit of “long-arm jurisdiction” constituted hegemonic practices that breach sovereign boundaries and coerce the global market. By placing its domestic law above international law and wantonly interfering in the normal economic and trade activities of enterprises in other countries, such actions completely violate the basic principle of sovereign equality in international relations and have long faced resolute opposition from the international community.

As early as 1996, the European Union adopted the Council Regulation protecting against the effects of the extra-territorial application of legislation adopted by a third country, blocking the extra-territorial application of the US Helms-Burton Act and D’Amato Act, which restricted trade with Cuba, Iran, and other countries. Today, the US has escalated its abuse of secondary sanctions, wielding the sanctions stick against law-abiding Chinese enterprises. This seriously infringes upon the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese business entities and disrupted the stability of the global energy supply chain. In the face of hegemonic pressure, China’s issuance of a prohibition order in accordance with the law conforms to international practice and does not affect China’s assumption and fulfillment of its international obligations.

In recent years, in response to the evolving international economic and trade landscape, China has strengthened the development of its foreign-related legal system. It has established a series of legal tools, including the Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law, the Rules on Countering Foreign States’ Unlawful Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Measures, and the 2021 Blocking Rules. Laws such as the Foreign Trade Law, Export Control Law, and Foreign Investment Law have also been strengthened with provisions to safeguard the international economic and trade order, protect national sovereignty, security, and development interests, and defend the legitimate rights and interests of foreign trade operators. These legal instruments complement one another, each with its own emphasis, working together synergistically.

By issuing the prohibition order, China upholds the approach of countering hegemony with rules and defending fairness with the rule of law. It neither escalated confrontation nor made compromises, but instead negates the extraterritorial effect of the illegal US sanctions through lawful and compliant means, restoring international law to its original principle of sovereign equality. This measure not only provides relief to the affected enterprises and ensures the security of domestic industrial and supply chains, but also offers a practical example for the international community to resist unilateral bullying and oppose “long-arm jurisdiction.” It demonstrates China’s responsibility as a major country in upholding justice and defending order.

China has always advocated resolving international differences through equal dialogue, firmly upholding the multilateral trading system, and promoting inclusive economic globalization that benefits all. In the face of the countercurrent of unilateralism, China will continue to make full use of its foreign-related legal toolkit, remain resolute and be adept at defending its interests. While resolutely safeguarding its own sovereignty, security, and development interests, China will join hands with all peace-loving and rule‑of‑law-abiding countries to resist hegemonic acts and jointly promote the building of a more just, equitable, inclusive, and mutually beneficial global economic governance system.

This was compiled based on an article published in the “Chisu Jinsheng” economic commentary column of the People’s Daily on May 3, 2026. This is the translation of the Global Times English edition.

May 3, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on China issues first prohibition order to safeguard international trade order under rule of law

US blockade crumbles as Iran turns to overland routes

Press TV – April 30, 2026

As the US intensifies its inhuman sanctions and seeks to stifle Iran’s economy through an illegal naval blockade, Tehran has made strategic adjustments.

Pakistan formally activated a new transit corridor through Iran on Friday, announcing that the inaugural shipment including frozen meat bound for Tashkent, Uzbekistan had been dispatched via the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and Iranian overland routes.

The country designated six transit routes, including multiple key corridors connecting ports and border points inside Pakistan, forming a wide network for overland trade into Iran in a bid to bypass the maritime trade routes in the Persian Gulf.

The order, which took effect on April 25, aims to ease the logjam at Karachi Port and Port Qasim, where more than 3,000 Iran-bound containers have been stuck due to the ongoing US naval blockade of Iranian ports.

By using the new corridor, officials estimate travel time to the Iranian border will drop from 18 hours to just three hours, which in turn will lower logistics costs for regional traders.

The designated routes create a land bridge between Pakistan’s deep-sea ports and the Iranian border, offering a lifeline for third-country goods that would otherwise be vulnerable to US naval piracy at sea.

For China, the world’s largest oil importer and the destination for an estimated 90 percent of Iran’s crude exports before the current war, the opening of overland alternatives carries acute strategic significance.

With the US Navy enforcing an illegal cordon at the mouth of the Gulf of Oman since April 13, the maritime route that once carried one-fifth of global petroleum has been hijacked by an armed naval raid and subjected to systematic plunder.

The blockade’s primary target has always been as much about Beijing as Tehran. China purchases roughly 13 to 15 percent of its crude oil imports from Iran, volumes that before the war exceeded 1.38 million barrels per day.

Iranian crude, often trans-shipped through Malaysia and other intermediaries, feeds China’s independent “teapot” refineries and helps underpin Beijing’s energy security.

The Trump administration has made no secret of its intent to sever this flow. On April 23, Washington imposed sanctions on Hengli Petrochemical’s Dalian refinery, one of China’s largest independent processors, with 400,000 barrels per day capacity, alongside roughly 40 shipping companies and tankers involved in Iranian oil transport.

In a draconian announcement, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent warned that the US would constrict “the network of vessels, intermediaries and buyers Iran relies on to move its oil to global markets”.

Yet even as the American piracy tightens, the physical blockade is showing gaps. Satellite imagery and tracking data have revealed that several Iranian-flagged vessels under sanctions had sailed out of the Persian Gulf.

While tankers maneuver, Iran’s top diplomat has been building the political architecture for overland alternatives. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi embarked on a high-stakes tour on April 23, travelling twice to Pakistan for consultations and to coordinate the corridor activation before heading to Oman and finally to Russia.

In Islamabad, the discussions reportedly focused on key issues, the details of which are not specified. But the tangible outcome was the corridor itself.

Pakistan’s new transit routes, connecting Gwadar, Karachi and Port Qasim to the border crossings of Gabd and Taftan, provide Iran with immediate access to CPEC’s road and rail infrastructure.

Gwadar was built with Chinese loans and Chinese labor precisely as a hedge against maritime chokepoints. Now, with the Sea of Oman effectively closed, goods moving overland from Iran to Gwadar can connect to Chinese markets via the CPEC network, bypassing the US Navy entirely.

On April 27, Araghchi met with President Vladimir Putin in St Petersburg for talks lasting more than 90 minutes. The Iranian foreign minister described the discussions as covering “all issues, both in bilateral relations and regional issues, as well as the issue of war and aggression by the US and Zionist regimes”.

According to media reports, the Russian president said Moscow “will do what it can to support the interests of Iran and other regional countries and help bring peace to West Asia as soon as possible”.

He added that “not only Russia, but now the whole world is admiring the Iranian people for their resistance against America”.

While Russia and Iran signed framework agreements on the International North-South Transport Corridor years ago, the current crisis has given those plans new urgency.

Araghchi used the St Petersburg meeting to reaffirm that Tehran views its relationship with Moscow as a “strategic partnership” that will continue “with greater strength and breadth”.

For China, Russia’s role is complementary. The INSTC offers a route from Mumbai to Moscow via Iranian rail links, a path that, if fully operationalized, would give Chinese goods another overland alternative to maritime shipping.

More immediately, Russia’s diplomatic cover complicates any US effort to pressure Pakistan or other neighbors into closing their borders to Iranian trade.

The central question for Washington is whether maritime piracy can achieve what missiles and airstrikes failed to deliver. After the US-Israeli strikes on Iran on February 28, it became clear that bombing alone would not bring down the country to its knees.

The blockade represents a shift to economic suffocation aiming to squeeze Iran’s oil revenues. But the strategy carries costs. Global oil prices remain elevated near $120 per barrel, stoking inflationary pressures across the US, Europe and beyond.

More fundamentally, the blockade’s success depends on land routes remaining closed. Pakistan’s activation of the transit corridor, Russia’s support, and China’s quiet integration of Gwadar into its supply chain collectively suggest that Tehran is building an overland escape hatch that the US Navy cannot interdict under any circumstance.

“Whenever there are sanctions or blockades, there will also be workarounds, whether informal channels or other flexible arrangements,” Wang Yiwei, director of Renmin University’s Institute of International Affairs, told The Straits Times. “The key question we should be asking is: can this blockade actually be sustained?”

For now, the answer appears uncertain but with each new overland corridor, Iran is proving impossible to seal and China unlikely to be starved.

April 30, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on US blockade crumbles as Iran turns to overland routes

US squares up to China over Panama Canal

RT | April 29, 2026

The US has announced a six-nation coalition aimed at pressuring China to relinquish its interests in two ports in the Panama Canal, accusing Beijing of infringing on Panama’s sovereignty and politicizing global trade. China has called the claims “baseless.”

The development is part of a pattern of US efforts to push China out of Latin America. The US National Security Strategy calls for non-Western “competitors” to be prevented from owning or controlling key assets in the Western Hemisphere.

Last year, US President Donald Trump claimed that China is “operating the Panama Canal” and threatened to “take it back.”

The US State Department issued a joint statement on Tuesday with Bolivia, Costa Rica, Guyana, Paraguay, and Trinidad and Tobago, saying they support Panama against what they describe as external pressure from China.

”Any attempts to undermine Panama’s sovereignty are a threat to us all,” the statement read, adding that Panama “must remain free from any undue external pressure,” and that freedom in the region is “non-negotiable.”

China rejected the accusations, with the Foreign Ministry hitting back on Wednesday against what it called a smear campaign.

”It is the United States that is politicizing and over-securitizing the port issue… hypocritically posturing and spreading rumors and smears everywhere,” spokesman Lin Jian said, dismissing the claims as “baseless and a complete distortion of facts.”

Lin urged the countries involved not to “be deceived or used by forces with ulterior motives” regarding the port inspections, which he said were conducted lawfully.

The US-led campaign follows a ruling in January by Panama’s Supreme Court that annulled contracts held by a subsidiary of Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison Holdings for the Balboa and Cristobal, two key ports at the canal’s entrances – a move that the US has backed.

The Chinese company, which managed the terminals for nearly three decades, has contested the ruling, alleging unlawful expropriation, and has launched international arbitration, seeking over $2 billion in reparations.

April 29, 2026 Posted by | Sinophobia | , , , | Comments Off on US squares up to China over Panama Canal

China discovers 225 large, medium-sized crude oil, natural gas fields from 2021 to 2025: Ministry of Natural Resources

Global Times | April 29, 2026

China’s Ministry of Natural Resources said on Wednesday that during the 14th Five-Year Plan (2021-25) period, 225 large and medium-sized crude oil and natural gas fields were discovered, including 13 oil fields with reserves exceeding 100 million tons and 26 gas fields with reserves exceeding 100 billion cubic meters.

The ministry said that, during period, in collaboration with relevant departments, it made oil and gas the top priority of the new round of strategic mineral exploration breakthroughs, with a cumulative investment of nearly 450 billion yuan ($65.81 billion), and vowed to resolutely ensure that China’s energy supply remains firmly within its own control.

The remarks were made at the regular press briefing held by the ministry, which introduces the achievements of China’s new round of strategic mineral exploration breakthroughs, including the oil and gas resources.

The ministry said the newly proven geological reserves of petroleum and hydrocarbon natural gas rose by 51.7 percent and 44.2 percent, respectively, compared to the last year of the 13th Five-Year Plan (2016-20) period.

Newly proven geological reserves of deep coal-bed methane exceeded 1 trillion cubic meters, surpassing the total cumulative proven reserves of shallow coal-bed methane in history.

In 2025, there reported shale oil proven geological reserves scatter across five major basins and eight oil fields, accounting for 38 percent of the year’s new proven crude oil reserves. Unconventional oil and natural gas exploration has become a new engine driving high-growth increases, according to the ministry.

In 2025, China’s crude oil production hit a record high of 216 million tons. Natural gas output exceeded 260 billion cubic meters, rising by over 10 billion cubic meters annually for nine straight years. Shale oil output topped 8.5 million tons, and shale gas remained above 27 billion cubic meters, providing key support for increasing reserves and production.

Total oil and gas production reached 420 million tons of oil equivalent, making a vital contribution to national energy security, the ministry said.

In the deep-sea sector, the ultra-deep-water gas field, Deep Sea No. 1 was successfully brought into production, positioning China among the world’s leaders in deep-water oil and gas exploration and development. Total offshore oil and gas output surpassed 90 million tons of oil equivalent, representing a major substantive breakthrough in the strategic expansion of exploration from shallow to deep strata and from land to sea.

The significance of the oil and gas exploration breakthroughs achieved during the 14th Five-Year Plan period goes beyond mere numerical growth in reserves and production, Niu Li, an official from the ministry, said.

More importantly, “we have extended our exploration reach into deeper and more challenging frontiers, expanding the space for exploration and development, and firmly placing the initiative for energy security in our own hands,” Niu added.

Moving forward, “we will continue to advance oil and gas exploration and development, consolidate the positive trend of stable oil and increased gas,” and resolutely ensure that China’s energy supply remains firmly within its own control, Niu said.

April 29, 2026 Posted by | Economics | | Comments Off on China discovers 225 large, medium-sized crude oil, natural gas fields from 2021 to 2025: Ministry of Natural Resources

No More Bombs for Iran, Economic War Instead?

By Larry C. Johnson | SONAR21 | April 29, 2026

Trump assembled his national security team in Washington on Monday afternoon to figure out how to respond to Iran’s latest missive delivered via Pakistan — i.e., end the blockade and then we’ll talk about other issues. The Wall Street Journal reports that Trump opted for economic warfare against Iran as it carried less risk, instead of resuming bombing or trying to exit the conflict. That’s the good news. However, President Trump also instructed White House aides to prepare for an extended blockade on Iran.

Before I explain why that is a foolish, unworkable policy that will fail, let’s look at what Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent had to say:

“The Treasury Department, through Economic Fury, has targeted Iran’s international shadow banking infrastructure, access to crypto, shadow fleet, weapons procurement networks, funding for terrorist proxies in the region, and independent Chinese “teapot” refineries that support Iran’s oil trade. These actions have disrupted tens of billions of dollars in revenue that would be used to fund terrorism.

Under President Trump’s’ maximum pressure campaign, Tehran’s inflation has doubled and its currency has rapidly depreciated.

Kharg Island, Iran’s primary oil export terminal, is soon nearing storage capacity, which will force the regime to reduce oil production, resulting in an additional approximately $170 million per day in lost revenue, and causing permanent damage to Iran’s oil infrastructure. Treasury will continue to exert maximum pressure and any person, vessel, or entity facilitating illicit flows to Tehran risks exposure to U.S. sanctions.”

Notwithstanding the US blockade, Iran continues to fill oil tankers that are sailing out of the Persian Gulf. Iran has continued loading oil onto tankers even as the US blocks their route out. With no large volumes clearly circumventing the blockade, the loaded crude is largely filling up tankers Iran has available in the region. At least two fully laden Iranian tankers — the Hero II and Hedy — sailed out of the Persian Gulf and past the US blockade on April 20, part of a flotilla that has ferried roughly 9 million barrels of oil to market. Most tankers hauling Iranian barrels routinely sail with their automatic position signals disabled.

Since the start of the conflict, at least 52 “ghost fleet” tankers laden with Iranian oil have left the Persian Gulf, some broadcasting their signals and others operating clandestinely. These tankers are en route to Malaysia to conduct ship-to-ship transfers with other vessels bound for China.

Here is the problem the US faces in trying to impose a blockade: If the US stops an Iranian vessel and takes control of it, then the US Navy must assign one ship to accompany it to a location the US controls. The US does not have enough US Navy ships to carry out such a mission on a broad scale. All Iran needs to do is load up 20 tankers and send them to sea simultaneously. The US may be able to stop two or three, but the rest will penetrate the blockade and arrive at their respective destinations.

What about imports for Iran? According to the Fars News Agency, Pakistan has opened six corridors with Iran to bypass the US blockade. More than 3,000 containers bound for Iran are being transited over land.

Ironically, even though it is Iran that effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz, the US bragging about its blockade of the Strait takes the onus off of Iran as the rest of the world begins to suffer a massive economic contraction from the Strait being closed.

Instead of suffering the wrath of nations deprived of oil and LNG from the Persian Gulf, Iran will buy itself some much needed support as it allows ships heading toward friendly nations to pass through the Strait in numbers that will make it impossible for the US Navy to stop them.

If my friend — Alex at Reporterfy — is correct, the global economy is going to face major headwinds that will be more damaging than the economic crisis of 2008. At that point the US will face major pressure to end the blockade, which is more symbolic than substantive, and renew negotiations with Iran. Iran for its part is not going to beg for relief… Iran has the full backing, including economic support, from Russia and China. Scott Bessent is deluding himself and misleading Trump by insisting that his version of economic warfare will force Iran, Russia and China to bend the knee to Washington. Ain’t going to happen. … videos

April 29, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on No More Bombs for Iran, Economic War Instead?

John Mearsheimer: U.S. Expands Iran War & Divorces Europe

Glenn Diesen | April 22, 2026

Prof. John Mearsheimer argues that the failure to make peace with Iran can dramatically widen the war in the Middle East, while the rift with Europe and other allies widen. John J. Mearsheimer is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, where he has taught since 1982.

Elbridge Colby speech

Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen:

Support the research by Prof. Glenn Diesen:

Books by Prof. Glenn Diesen

April 22, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Russophobia, Video, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , | Comments Off on John Mearsheimer: U.S. Expands Iran War & Divorces Europe

China blames US for diplomatic impasse with Iran, urges it to show ‘sincerity’ in talks

Press TV – April 21, 2026

China has called on the United States to demonstrate “sincerity” in resolving its prolonged standoff with Iran over its nuclear program, while censuring the joint US-Israeli military aggression against the country.

In its latest Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) report, Beijing said that Washington is responsible for the current diplomatic impasse with Tehran.

The national report on the implementation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons was made public online by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Monday.

According to the report, the US and Israel’s military aggression against Iran, both in June 2025 and on February 28, “seriously violated international law and the purposes of the UN Charter.”

In the report, Beijing described Washington’s unilateral withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) as the “root cause” of the current diplomatic standoff between the US and Iran.

During his first term in 2018, US President Donald Trump withdrew from the nuclear deal, branding it “the worst deal ever.” Trump claimed that he was seeking stronger terms.

The US and Israel attacked Iranian nuclear and military sites in June 2025, even as indirect negotiations were underway between Tehran and Washington regarding Iran’s peaceful nuclear program.

Seven months later, the two enemies launched a new wave of aggression against the country on February 28, again as Iran and the US were on the verge of finalizing a new nuclear agreement.

Tehran asserts its legal right under the NPT to develop nuclear technology for energy production, medical research, and scientific advancement.

The US and its allies, however, accuse Iran of seeking the technical capability to produce a nuclear weapon.

Tehran has consistently maintained that it regards weapons of mass destruction as a threat to humanity and has never included them in its defense doctrine, even in the face of direct military aggression.

On April 11–12, Pakistan hosted talks between the US and Iran after brokering a two-week ceasefire on April 8, which is set to expire on April 22.

The high-level talks, however, ended without an agreement. Now reports say a US delegation is headed to Islamabad for the second round of talks with Tehran. Iran has said it has not plans to take part in new negotiations.

Iranian Parliament Speaker and lead negotiator Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf said on Monday that Tehran will not accept negotiations “under the shadow of threats.”

He said, “by imposing a blockade and violating the ceasefire,” Trump intends “to turn the negotiating table into a table of surrender or to justify renewed warmongering.”

The uncertainty shrouding the next round of talks escalated after the US Navy targeted an Iranian merchant vessel in the Sea of Oman on Sunday.

Iran’s military condemned the incident as a “criminal operation” and “maritime piracy.”

In a Monday statement, Chinese Foreign Ministry voiced “concern over the forced interception of relevant vessel by the US,” warning that the situation in the Strait of Hormuz is sensitive and complex.

The Iranian-flagged cargo ship Touska had been travelling from China.

April 21, 2026 Posted by | Economics, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , | Comments Off on China blames US for diplomatic impasse with Iran, urges it to show ‘sincerity’ in talks

« Previous Entries