Trump Did This as Xi Arrived… and on Iran, Beijing Gave Nothing

"From the time of my first election in twenty sixteen, President Xi and I have forged a friendship. A truly great friendship." Washington needs Beijing. Washington is at risk of losing the last word in the Iran war. And precisely where it least expects it: in its own White House. For months, the Trump administration has been saying it wants to isolate Tehran economically and reopen the Strait of Hormuz. At every summit, this goal is announced all over again, most recently in May in Beijing.

But the reality looks completely different. Because anyone who wants to isolate Tehran needs, of all countries, the one that keeps the Iranian economy alive. And this reality is shifting the decision, piece by piece, to Beijing. Look at these pictures from the White House that are now going around the world. Xi Jinping stands at the podium, Donald Trump listens, and Xi says a sentence that makes Washington sit up: "It should be a race of catching up with one another.

Not a wrestle in which one either wins or loses. The interests of China and the United States are deeply intertwined. There is plenty of room for us to work together." Translated, that means Beijing is not coming as a petitioner, but as an equal power.

What lies behind these words can also be found in Washington's own intelligence reports. According to those reports, satellite images for Tehran came from the very country that Trump publicly celebrates as a great friend. And the numbers point in exactly the same direction. According to the newspaper The National, around ninety percent of Iran's sanctioned oil exports go to China. Where Washington imposes sanctions, Chinese refineries keep buying, tanker after tanker.

This is the story of a world power that is quietly giving up its leverage in the Middle East. To understand this story, it is enough to put the words next to the reality. Back in May, Trump flew to Beijing to talk about Iran and the Strait of Hormuz. Afterwards, he declared that Xi had agreed Iran must reopen the strait. The White House announced that the Strait of Hormuz must remain open to support the free flow of energy.

But in China's own summary of the meeting, neither Iran nor the strait appeared at all. Instead, the Chinese foreign ministry called the war a conflict that should never have happened and had no reason to continue. And on the day of Trump's return, the oil price rose by around three percent to about one hundred nine dollars. The numbers since then show the trend clearly. At its peak in October twenty twenty-four, China was taking almost one point nine million barrels of Iranian crude a day.

In July and August of this year, it was only around five hundred thirty thousand barrels via the Strait of Hormuz, forty-eight percent less than before the war. The war has made Washington's position worse on two fronts. On the trade front, the balance of power is surprisingly one-sided. Trump imposed a ten percent tariff on Chinese goods over fentanyl and another twelve and a half percent on goods from sixty trading partners over forced labor. Beijing responded with export restrictions on five rare earth metals and late last year threatened restrictions on seven more.

That is no coincidence. Rare earths are found in electric motors, electronics and military equipment, and that is exactly where Beijing holds the longer lever. On the energy front, everything hangs on a single strait. Around one fifth of the world's oil and gas supply flows through the Strait of Hormuz. As long as it is blocked, consumers all over the world pay the price.

Washington is waging this war, but someone else holds the key to the solution. That is exactly why Xi's sentence in the White House is so significant. We do not know exactly what was said behind closed doors. A single sentence is not yet proof, but it sums up the numbers you just heard in a few words. Whoever comes as a guest and speaks of a race among equals does not see himself as a junior partner.

And where Washington can no longer decide alone, a vacuum opens up. Beijing is not the only one who sees this vacuum. They know it in Washington too. In mid-September, the Wall Street Journal, citing American officials, reported an explosive finding. According to the report, Iran received high-resolution satellite images of an American base in Jordan from Chinese companies, both before and after an attack.

The base in question is Muwaffaq Salti in northeastern Jordan. In the Iranian attack in July, three American soldiers were killed there and four were wounded. The officials did not name the companies and did not accuse the Chinese government of ordering the assistance. Back in May, the Trump administration had sanctioned three Chinese satellite companies. Meentropy Technology, The Earth Eye and Chang Guang Satellite Technology. The reason given: their images enabled Iranian strikes on American troops in the Middle East.

Democratic Senator Elissa Slotkin was blunt. "For months, we have known that Chinese companies are helping the Iranian military target and attempt to kill U.S. troops." But the deeper concern in Washington is not about individual companies, it is about Beijing's role in the Gulf. To understand this concern, we need to go back a few years. On March twenty-seventh, twenty twenty-one, China and Iran signed a twenty-five-year cooperation agreement in Tehran.

It was signed by the foreign ministers Mohammad Javad Zarif and Wang Yi. The details were never published. Reports spoke of up to four hundred billion dollars in Chinese investment in return for steady oil supplies. In other words: for Beijing, Iran is not an ordinary customer, but a partner for decades. Against this backdrop, the satellite images take on a completely different weight. Two years later, on March tenth, twenty twenty-three, Beijing pulled off a diplomatic coup that hardly anyone had expected.

Saudi Arabia and Iran agreed in Beijing to restore their diplomatic relations, seven years after the break. Since then, China has been seen in the Gulf as a mediator that both sides talk to. Washington, on the other hand, is a party to the war in Tehran's eyes. How great the unease in Washington is can be seen from a Republican senator. Roger Wicker said: "Had the White House asked me for advice, I would have suggested the president not invite Xi Jinping to Washington for such a lavish welcome."

But the most revealing reaction is that of the president himself. Despite all the warnings, Trump drew no red line. Shortly before the summit, he said about Xi on board Air Force One: "I think he's behaved reasonably well, and we behave reasonably well." In international politics, that is not called strength. It is called dependence.

And this dependence does not stay on paper. Its first arena is the Strait of Hormuz itself. In May, the Iranian news agency Fars reported an arrangement allowing certain Chinese ships to pass through. What happened next can be read from the ship movements. Within a short time, around thirty ships passed through the strait, among them a Chinese tanker.

And that was not a one-off, but a system. Iran set up its own office for the strait, the Persian Gulf Strait Authority. Every ship has to declare its cargo, owner, destination and schedule there, and anyone considered hostile is not allowed through. Whoever cooperates with Tehran's navy gets through. Whoever treats Tehran as an enemy stays out. But the official passages are only the tip of the iceberg.

Beneath the surface runs a whole network of buyers, tankers and detours. Most of Iran's oil is bought by independent refineries in China's Shandong province, the so-called teapots. They work on thin margins and need exactly the cheap oil that Washington wants to ban. When Hormuz became unsafe, China's crude imports via the Red Sea rose in April to two point six two million barrels a day, an increase of two hundred twenty-eight percent. But this detour also has its limits, and that is exactly where it gets expensive.

By August, this volume had fallen back to around one point zero two million barrels. Anyone going around the Cape of Good Hope instead needs around fifty days instead of twenty-five to twenty-seven. Freight through the Suez Canal now costs ten to eleven dollars a barrel, more than twice as much as before the attacks. And this is where Europe comes into play. These freight costs do not stay in Asia.

They feed into the world market, where Germany also buys its oil. Beijing, on the other hand, has prepared. According to estimates, China holds one to one point four billion barrels of oil in storage. That is a cushion for several months. So Europe pays the bill on the world market, while Beijing can calmly wait. Now let's add the latest layer to this picture.

In October twenty twenty-five, Trump and Xi met in South Korea. In May twenty twenty-six, Trump traveled to Beijing, and now in September he is hosting Xi at the White House. The third in-person meeting in less than a year. The symbolism is already visible in the protocol. Xi is the first Chinese leader to come to the United States on an official state visit for a second time. The last time he was in Washington was in September twenty fifteen.

At the state dinner, Jeff Bezos, Sundar Pichai, Sam Altman and Elon Musk sat at the table. Taken individually, all of this is ordinary diplomacy. But layered on top of each other, a clear pattern emerges. Washington invites, rolls out the red carpet and courts, and Beijing lets itself be courted. That is exactly what Senator Wicker had warned against.

What makes this possible? At the start of this mechanism stands a single number: ninety percent. Since the West closed its doors to Iran, China has been its biggest trading partner and the buyer of around nine tenths of its sanctioned oil exports. No other buyer could replace these volumes. Seen from the other side, the asymmetry is clear.

For China, Iranian oil is only part of its supply; for Iran, China is almost the entire market. But this dependence shows most clearly in the negotiations with Washington itself. For Trump, this summit is no ordinary state visit. Before the war, the Strait of Hormuz was open. Today it is practically closed to most ships.

China's influence on Tehran was Trump's greatest hope of making up for this loss. But after three meetings in less than a year, there is no breakthrough on the Iran question. Beijing's answer looks more like a condition than an offer. Xi called for the United States and Iran to return to dialogue, and specifically to the framework agreement they had reached in June. That means the fourteen-point memorandum of understanding, which collapsed shortly afterwards.

For Washington, that means back to square one. At its core, Beijing's message is: "Talk to Tehran instead of isolating it." The real humiliation, however, lies not in the answer, but in the sequence of events. Right after the meeting in May, Trump himself said a remarkable sentence: "I'm not asking for any favors, because when you ask for favors, you have to do favors in return."

This time, Washington did ask. Trump called on China to help isolate Tehran and open the strait, but Beijing is hesitant to get involved. At the same time, Washington extended the trade truce, which was due to expire in November, until January tenth. The math is clear. Beijing's strategy is to wait, because the longer the war lasts, the more Washington needs China.

The same shift of power can be read from a single arms package. In December, the United States still approved arms sales to Taiwan worth eleven billion dollars, the largest ever. But a second package worth fourteen billion dollars has been on hold for months. In May, Trump postponed the final approval and called such sales a very good negotiating chip. Perhaps the most unsettling insight from this summit, however, concerns the time after the war.

Beijing no longer plans its role in the Gulf around Washington. It is planning for the region after this war. With the agreement in Tehran and the mediation between Riyadh and Tehran, Beijing has built ties on both sides of the Gulf. These ties are designed to last for decades, not for one term in office. Another detail completes the picture.

Since April, the United States has been blockading Iranian ports, and yet Chinese ships are still getting through the strait. And the president still calls Xi's behavior reasonable. So who is Beijing betting on? A look at Beijing's approach makes the method clear. China never bets on just one side.

It buys oil from Tehran, mediates with Riyadh and extends the trade truce with Washington, all at the same time. Even at the White House, Xi said that many global problems could hardly be solved without the United States and China. Beijing does not back any side out of loyalty, but because each side brings it an advantage. What China needs is neither a winner nor a loser in the Gulf. It needs a predictable region where the oil flows and the strait is open again.

That Beijing helps set the rules along the way is shown by the official statements. On the Taiwan question, Beijing has once again made its red line clear. According to Xinhua, Xi urged Trump to oppose Taiwanese independence and to handle the issue prudently. And Americans are divided. In an Economist and YouGov poll in May, thirty-six percent prioritized good relations with Beijing, and thirty-five percent prioritized protecting Taiwan. Fewer than forty percent supported military force to stop China from taking control of Taiwan.

On Iran, too, Beijing sets the agenda. In May, according to Trump, Xi assured him that China would not supply military equipment to Iran. That was all. To this day, Beijing refuses to join a common front against Tehran. Put all of this together, and the picture is complete.

China is not Iran's ally in the war. It is its economic lifeline. Even where criticism is voiced in Washington, this hierarchy is confirmed. Not even Trump's own party is united. Senator Rand Paul said: "I'm glad this meeting is happening. Diplomacy is key." Talk more, war less.

What Washington puts on the table is tariffs, sanctions and a war it cannot end on its own. What Beijing puts on the table is patience, oil purchases and a direct line to Tehran. In other words: Washington delivers the problems, and Beijing manages the solutions. Where does this road lead? Three developments are conceivable for the coming months.

The most likely is a continuation of what we are seeing right now: a creeping shift. No ship is sunk, but with every summit Washington gives up a piece of leverage and Beijing gains one. Beijing openly taking Tehran's side is unlikely and also unnecessary, because influence without responsibility is far more profitable. The second possibility: Washington and Tehran return to the June framework, as Xi is demanding. His declared goal is a comprehensive agreement that also covers the nuclear issue. Beijing would then have a seat at the table without having sent a single soldier.

No one declares war, and yet one morning the last word in the Gulf is no longer spoken in Washington. And then there is the extreme scenario: a clash over Taiwan and Hormuz at the same time. But Beijing drew its red line on Taiwan itself, and Washington is holding back its arms package. Such a clash makes sense for neither side. All three paths have one thing in common: Beijing does not need to hurry. Its strategy is to wait, and time is working for China.

Now let's test this thesis fairly against the strongest objections. First: at the White House, Xi explicitly spoke out in favor of dialogue and peace. He said that the sovereignty and security of all countries should be respected and that all parties should stay committed to peaceful solutions. Second: China is paying for this war too. Its imports of Iranian oil have fallen by almost half, and its tankers are taking longer and more expensive routes. Even the detour via the Red Sea collapsed by sixty-one percent from April to August. So the real weakness is not Beijing's strength, but Washington's dependence.

Third: Beijing did not force Washington to ask for help, because the United States and Israel started this war themselves in February. And back in May, Beijing had already declared that this war should never have happened. Pointing the finger at Beijing covers up Washington's own mistakes. China is not taking the Gulf away from Washington. Washington is letting it slip out of its own hands. Washington can still say no. The arms package for Taiwan has been postponed, not cancelled, and the tariffs remain in place. Dependence is not yet surrender. So what remains of this picture? One of the oldest ironies in history.

Washington started this war on February twenty-eighth to show strength, and seven months later it stands before Beijing with a request. Trump's own sentence from May, that he was not asking for any favors, now sounds like an echo from another time. The war has chained Washington to China, and this dependence is costing it its leverage in the Gulf. Now you see the whole picture. Washington's own officials link Chinese satellite images to a deadly attack, and the president calls Xi's behavior reasonable. A Republican senator would not have invited Xi at all, and the White House is waiting at Beijing's door for an answer that is not coming. The Gulf does not belong to China today, and perhaps not tomorrow either.

But who shapes a region is decided not only by aircraft carriers, but also by who buys the oil and who everyone is talking to. This is not a war story. No one is firing a shot, no one is crossing a border. It is the story of a world power quietly giving up its influence. And this handover has already begun. What do you think? Tell us in the comments. This is FR Report. We go deeper than the headlines in every video.

Don't forget to subscribe to the channel and turn on the bell.