Yves here. Michael Hudson has cautioned that the video linked below, featuring Iranian journalist Ali Alizadeh, has a sensational title that may be misleading. It’s essential to view the content critically. For those interested in viewing or listening, please visit:
Did Xi Really Trade Iran for Taiwan? | Michael Hudson.
Hudson begins by challenging the White House’s assertion that Xi Jinping provided extensive support to the U.S. to restore the status quo in the Strait of Hormuz. He highlights a pattern of the Trump administration misrepresenting or exaggerating statements made by foreign leaders. This has become so extensive that the Kremlin has revised its approach, opting to have Putin’s aide, Yuri Usahkov, brief the press promptly after calls with Trump, ensuring that the Russian perspective is communicated before any U.S. spin can take hold.
Hudson shares intriguing insights, suggesting that plans to fragment Iran date back to the 1960s, if not earlier.
Originally published at Jedaal English
AA – The U.S. summary of the Trump–Xi meeting claims Xi explicitly agreed on several points: the Strait of Hormuz must remain open without tolls, China opposes its militarization, and China would purchase more American oil to lessen reliance on Hormuz. However, the Chinese summary conveys a starkly different message, stating merely that the two leaders exchanged thoughts on the Middle East. Meanwhile, Xi Jinping seems more focused on Taiwan political capital.
Iranians watching this situation unfold are left wondering: Did Xi Jinping negotiate away Iran for Taiwan? Has our crucial strategic ally sold us out at the Great Hall of the People while our cities face blockades? What transpired in Beijing today?
MH – If you’ve been following Donald Trump and earlier U.S. negotiations with Iran, you’ll notice two distinct narratives. The American narrative typically suggests that the opposing side has agreed to total capitulation. In contrast, the other party consistently denies any such agreements.
This discrepancy indicates not merely a difference in language but also in meaning. For China, keeping the Strait of Hormuz open means facilitating ongoing trade—allowing both OPEC states and Iran to navigate the Strait and reach markets in Asia. This situation has been playing out recently, with Chinese vessels transit through the Strait of Hormuz and meeting Iran’s toll requirements, which Iran maintains are essential due to unjust attacks against it, violating both international law and UN rules.
Iran has sought to impose tolls on passing vessels as a pragmatic approach to obtaining reparations. With the UN lacking enforcement capability, Iran has had to adapt. Furthermore, the issue extends beyond just the Strait. After vessels leave the Strait, they face potential U.S. interception. Many ships have been forced to turn back, yet Iran is determined that enough will pass through, based on the belief that U.S. naval resources are insufficient to block all of them.
Iran’s perspective, echoed by China, reflects an opening of the Strait of Hormuz, despite Trump’s wish list that includes eliminating tolls—an absolute red line for Iran. Lessons drawn from Russia’s experience in Ukraine emphasize that red lines must be defended consistently. Iran is resolute not to let the U.S., Israel, or their allies continually push its boundaries in incremental steps.
As the conference concludes—allegedly tomorrow—you can expect to see the Chinese take on the events. Typically, joint reports are elusive, with an American version indicating triumph and a contrasting narrative from the other side, characterized as fantasy. Thus, it’s prudent to await Chinese insights and subsequent discussions with their diplomats.
AA – Despite certain apprehensions, many analysts find solace in Xi Jinping’s welcome of Trump’s visit and China’s openness to partnership, barring the Taiwan issue. This vision of multipolarity seems akin to a Cold War, a perspective you’ve been one of the first to articulate. How does China represent a departure from the Soviet Union, and why does it prioritize easing tensions with the U.S. over militaristic confrontations?
MH – A majority of countries, excluding the U.S., Israel, Germany, the U.K., and France, strive for reduced tensions. Host nations understand their role in global partnerships, advocating for reasonable resolutions. Their portrayal of “partnership” lays out principles vital for international trade, investment, banking, and military spending.
Their diplomatic style isn’t confrontational; rather, it leans towards resolving issues through logical discussions aimed at establishing global stability. In contrast, the U.S. resists such stability, as it equates to preserving the existing power dynamic. The U.S. has seen a decline in its once-dominant empire, losing its trade surpluses and manufacturing edge, becoming heavily indebted. Consequently, the latest U.S. National Security Strategy reflects a shift away from supporting a balanced multipolar world towards a more aggressive stance.
The U.S. now relies on its influence to disrupt the economies of other nations. It threatens trade sanctions, claiming that economic turmoil abroad can benefit the U.S., as seen with rising oil prices favoring American companies. This risk of global chaos serves to enhance U.S. dominance, disguised as self-sufficiency.
China’s focus on Taiwan suggests a strategic choice to anchor discussions in U.S.-Taiwan relations while remaining open to broader dialogues, marking their own version of a diplomatic Strait of Hormuz.
Take the issue of rare earth exports. The U.S. insists on resuming imports from China, but China refrains, recognizing the threat of providing materials that could be weaponized against them. This echoes the sentiment that capitalists might unwittingly support their enemies. Thus, China frames Taiwan as pivotal to discussions on international matters.
AA – Today, military.com reported on the Pentagon accelerating orders for 10,000 missiles due to diminished U.S. stockpiles. Ironically, American weaponry manufacturing heavily depends on Chinese resources. However, let’s delve deeper. Is the conflict with Iran rooted in the strategic designs of American empire, capitalism, or was it pushed by external forces like Israel—essentially tricked by Netanyahu? Given that the American stock market profits from this conflict, how do you perceive the root motivations—was there calculated planning, or simply a reaction to America’s decline, as suggested by Professor Desai?
MH – Strategic planning has undoubtedly existed. I participated in discussions 50 years ago about strategies against Iran while working with Herman Kahn at the Hudson Institute, where we discussed fragmenting Iran into smaller sections. Control over oil has always been a key strategy for U.S. global dominance.
For decades, the U.S. approach to oil control has intended to leverage its influence over nations that remain dependent on oil for industrial operations, agriculture, and energy needs. By monopolizing oil, the U.S. can exert pressure and drive countries into submission without military action. Sanctions against any nation seeking to trade with Iran are part of this control strategy.
The narrative that American interventions are driven by threats, like weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, invariably masks the underlying motive: securing oil reserves. The final target of U.S. military planning has consistently been Iran—the crowning jewel of Middle Eastern oil dominance.
Despite historical reluctance from previous administrations to engage militarily with Iran, largely due to unsuccessful past conflicts, optimism among strategists—particularly in Trump’s circle—has led to renewed willingness to confront Iran.
AA – Observing recent conflicts, it appears that differing approaches have emerged. For instance, while the rationales for military intervention were unfounded before, it seems Trump has internalized a more aggressive strategy towards Iran. Given the complexities surrounding these perceptions, how do you evaluate his approach relative to prior administrations?
MH – History shows a reluctance in previous administrations to engage with Iran following the deadly conflict during the Iran-Iraq War, which saw massive Iranian casualties. The approach had shifted back towards domination of Iran only after substantial military control was established across the region.
Trump’s administration, relying on a coterie of neoconservatives advocating for a hardline approach, embraced a belief in a military-backed resolution that would leverage Israel’s forces to establish control in the region, thereby facilitating U.S. policy goals.
AA – Your perspective is refreshing compared to mainstream interpretations, especially when news headlines focus on military casualties and technologies. Delving deeper into Iran’s recent quiet successes—like strategic maneuvering in the Strait and influencing oil markets—could provide a hopeful narrative. What has Iran truly achieved, beyond the immediate conflicts, since the onset of war?
MH – Iran has demonstrated resilience, opting to confront rather than capitulate to U.S. hegemony. They recognize that non-resistance equates to surrender to the U.S. program of regime change, which would rip the nation’s sovereignty away. Iran’s counterstrategy revolves around uniting other nations for mutual support.
To ensure their survival and oil exportation, Iran is rallying support from nations to counter U.S. dominance and sanctions. If other nations wish to access Iran’s oil, they need to advocate for Iran’s sovereignty and challenge U.S. authority over oil trade. Failure to support Iran may lead to greater global economic repercussions as severe as those experienced in the Great Depression.
Iran’s hardline stance aims to engage every nation in a dialogue about shared sovereignty: rejecting U.S. imposition and solidifying their independence, presenting a unified front against U.S. interventionism.
AA – To contextualize your insightful analysis, let’s address the financial structure of Iran’s economy, particularly the influence of the global financial system. What can Iran do internally to safeguard against external pressures while fostering an economy that prioritizes production and self-sufficiency over financialized models?
MH – Emulating Western financialization is detrimental. Instead, Iran should focus on productive investment rather than financial speculation. Prioritizing industrial growth over financial investments will enhance long-term sustainability and resilience against external pressures.
History shows that reliance on financialization undermines an economy, separating capital from productive capacity. Iran must refocus on its productive sectors, as excessive financial intervention can drain resources necessary for real economic growth.
Countries, particularly those with ties to U.S. educational institutions, may develop narratives that misconstrue economic principles. Iran should foster an understanding of the meaningful divergence between productive and financial capitalism to drive real growth.
