Yesterday, the Republican-majority Senate joined the Republican-majority House in passing a symbolic rebuke of Republican President Trump’s Iran War. This rebuke was not spurred by the launching of a war without congressional authorization (the first bombs dropped almost four months ago). It was not spurred by President Trump threatening to escalate the conflict dramatically by putting American boots on the ground in Iran.
No, the catalyst that pushed congressional anger over the top appears to be the diplomatic breakthrough of the signing of a recent Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the United States and Iran. Which begs the question — has everyone lost their damn minds?
A sane soul would greet news of an agreement to reopen the Strait of Hormuz with guarded optimism, but sane souls are in short supply. In their place, a cavalcade of Cassandras pounced with delight, reading their darkest fears into 14 bullet points. Iran War supporters screeched that Trump snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Opponents seized upon the agreement as further proof that the war was misbegotten from the jump. In confusing a narrow interim agreement with an ultimate settlement, both groups committed the same category error.
For what it’s worth, I was hardly eager to go to war with Iran. Had President Trump asked my thoughts, I would have urged restraint out of fear that the risks of war outweighed potential gains. I don&#8217;t feel that way anymore: the potential upside remains immensely consequential, and the downside has been milder than any analyst anticipated. But I also won’t pretend a positive outcome is guaranteed. The enemy gets a vote, and the Iranian regime has ably leveraged its relative strengths. What I am confident of is narrower and more durable: that the unrelenting gloom is wholly unwarranted.
I offer no promise that my read will be borne out, but it is considerably more presumptuous to insist that the future will be a straight-line continuation of the present. This has been, and remains, a multi-turn process; conflict resolution is achieved by building trust in small increments, under the credible threat of a return to violence. What the MOU laid out is about the smallest increment possible to remove the most pressing constraint on the West, while surrendering none of our optionality.
Remember, a memorandum of understanding is an opening position, not a last will and testament. Substantively, the MOU amounts to little more than &#8220;Hormuz-for-Hormuz&#8221;: Iran ceases its attacks on commercial shipping in the strait, and the United States lifts its naval blockade. Considering that closing the Strait — and the resulting roiling of global energy markets — was the strongest arrow in Tehran&#8217;s quiver, this is an Iranian concession hiding under a triumphant cloak. The false triumph is both useful and telling — the more regime thugs beat their chests and proclaim victory, the more convinced I become that they’re steeling for the bitter pills hardliners must swallow on the way to a productive peace.
The reality is that a window of relief is a net loss for Iran. Every day that passes is a day where global crude and LNG reserves recover and storage gets topped up, a day of progress on pipelines bypassing Hormuz, a day that lowers prices at the pump and relieves domestic political pressures — in short, a day where Iran’s ability to slam the strait shut loses its menace. In exchange, a reprieve or relief of sanctions at this stage will give Iran, at best, a penny on the dollar for what they’ve lost in this war.
As we go forward, could the Iranian regime violate, renege, or backslide on commitments? Absolutely. In fact, assume it as your base case; the critics are absolutely right to distrust the Iranian side. Where those parsing the verbiage of the MOU go wrong is in their second, unstated assumption: that Donald Trump, of all people, will cling to the letter of any agreement the moment it stops suiting him.
That blind spot about Trump’s nature sits atop a deeper one about the war itself. The frustration among the war&#8217;s supporters rests on a flattering fiction: that the Revolutionary Guard was moments away from collapse, and simply doing more of the same would produce total victory. (This was a plausible scenario at the outset, but not proven out.) The mirror-image conviction animating the war&#8217;s opponents — that we&#8217;ve merely clawed our way back to a worse version of the prewar status quo — is no better supported. Categorical claims rooted in a single moment frozen in time are almost always wrong, and they are especially wrong with a president whose only constants are Diet Coke and long red ties.
That&#8217;s the part the doomsayers keep tripping over: they&#8217;ve misread the main actor. Trump is a fluid operator with a pragmatic, iterative style. He has no compunction about turning on a dime when a tactic isn&#8217;t working, and that very habit is what fuels critics’ suspicion that he pivoted to peace because the war was failing. That reading misses the whole trick: on a core conviction, Trump keeps the destination fixed even as he swaps his vehicle. He didn&#8217;t abandon tariffs when the Supreme Court struck down one of his tools for imposing them; he believes in tariffs, so he simply found another route. Mistaking a change of tactics for a change of strategy is the original sin of nearly every pundit predicting what Trump will do next.
Which brings us to the actual strategy. Some behavior can be coerced, and at the outset there was a Venezuela-like possibility that just sticks would do the trick. Yet the first months of the conflict made clear that reaching an acceptable end state cannot be achieved by coercion alone. The next logical turn is to the carrots, while keeping the sticks close at hand — silver, in other words, with the lead never far from reach. Critics are right that this is where Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) comparisons are most apt: both the MOU and the JCPOA contained sanctions relief and a firm commitment by Iran to neither procure nor pursue nuclear weapons. The JCPOA also held an implicit wager that drawing Iran into deeper economic integration would moderate the regime over time. October 7th showed the failure of that approach.
What’s different now is the destruction of Iran’s economy and evisceration of its industrial base to the tune of anywhere from $500 billion to $1 trillion in losses. Combining this damage with the magnitude of the potential upside, alongside a motivated Gulf committed to seeing it through, and a real change in regime direction is not just possible but a logical path for Iran to pursue.
Paradoxically, the extent to which the Iranians have removed all doubt as to their willingness to burn the region down has heightened the incentive of their neighbors to do everything possible to forestall such a future. The potential $300 billion pot of reconstruction gold at the end of the rainbow is burden-sharing by those most at risk if the strategy fails. At the risk of mixing metallurgical metaphors, that’s a hell of a lot of silver for the Iranians to consider — enough to drive a durable wedge between the true believers and those responsive to earthly incentives.
The MOU may be a narrow solution to a narrow problem, but it is a narrow solution that pries open a far wider, far grander, and strategically seismic possibility: turning Iran off its present course and speed as the foremost multiplier of malevolence in a region that remains vital to the global economy. The ultimate consequence of a malign Iran extends far beyond chaos in the Middle East: with Venezuela out and Cuba teetering, Iran is the last misfit state outside the Pacific that China could use to horizontally escalate a violent great-power conflict with the U.S. Trump and his team understand this; Iran was never just about Iran, but the axis Tehran anchors in the Gulf.
The severe domestic political consequences of this war are self-evident in polling and approval ratings; Trump acknowledged not only knowing the risks but also expecting far worse when he made the decision to go to war. There was always going to be a maturity mismatch between the short-term political cost to the Trump administration and the long-term potential strategic reward of knocking Iran off a violent course and forestalling a Great Power catastrophe. In normal times, a leader who sets out on a path he believes is right, fully aware of the electoral backlash it will bring, would be admired for their political courage.
But we don’t live in normal times, and none of this guarantees the ending. Tehran may renege; the talks may collapse; the doomsayers may yet be vindicated. But that is precisely the point — it is an ending no one has reached. Politicians bowing to cynical interests to call the war a defeat is forcing a conclusion we have yet to reach, a bewildering move while our adversary is lowering their only weapon of consequence.
***
Peter Meijer served as the U.S. representative for Michigan&#8217;s 3rd congressional district from 2021 to 2023.

Trump Signs Order Directing Customs Crackdown Amid Trade Gaps

Peter Meijer: Relax, Trump is Handling Iran

DW Opinion

Foreign Policy

Iran Nuclear Deal

Iran war

Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

Middle East

Trump Administration

On Wednesday, President Donald Trump <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/china/trump-thanks-chinas-xi-russias-putin-being-neutral-iran-war-2026-06-17/">thanked China</a> for remaining neutral in the Iran war. This drew pushback <a href="https://www.foxbusiness.com/video/6398750706112">from China watchers,</a> and it’s easy to see why.
China has outwardly stayed on the sidelines of the Iran conflict, but behind the scenes, it’s been working to help the regime survive. They’ve <a href="https://asia.nikkei.com/politics/international-relations/china-widens-oil-purchases-to-extend-influence-from-us-to-iran">continued to purchase</a> Iranian oil and reportedly even <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/13/us/politics/china-iran-weapons-trump-xi.html">sent Tehran military equipment</a>.
But the president’s graciousness toward China was prudent geopolitics. It was also evidence that Trump knows he’s been successful at blunting the country’s once unstoppable ascendance.
No doubt China remains a serious threat, and there’s much work to be done. But in important ways, Trump’s policy has had an impact.
Take the Chinese economy, where, behind the scenes, red lights are flashing. Chinese consumer demand has lagged for years, slowing the country’s vaunted retail sector. Last month, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/16/business/china-retail-sales.html">Chinese retail sales fell year over year</a> for the first time since the COVID pandemic.
This belt-tightening was triggered by the popping of China’s immense real estate bubble, which erased trillions in household wealth, as well as a <a href="https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/chinas-weak-job-market-stirs-032154183.html">persistently weak job market</a>. It’s so serious as to be reflected in the upper ranks. Lavish wines and expensive banquets among the Communist Party elite have <a href="https://www.mundoamerica.com/news/2026/06/18/6a33bfe8e4d4d844598b45a7.html">been banned</a>, an austere show of solidarity with suffering Chinese.
If Chinese consumers aren’t spending as they used to, Beijing will need to rely on foreigners to buy its exports. This is where they’ve run headlong into the Trump playbook. As <a href="https://www.foreignaffairs.com/china/china-pulling-ladder-behind-it">Shoumitro Chatterjee and Arvind Subramanian note,</a> U.S. “tariffs, bans, and national security restrictions have blunted Chinese import competition by fiat.”
The United States is the most lucrative consumer market in the world, and that market is far more walled off to China than it used to be. It’s also not just the Americans. European Union top diplomat Kaja Kallas recently <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/us-china-and-russia-prefer-a-divided-europe-kallas-warns/">called European dependence</a> on China a “disease,” signaling a drawback from the EU’s historically softer China policy.
Decades of Chinese economic coercion are finally catching up with Beijing. Take rare earth metals, <a href="https://www.csis.org/analysis/what-chinas-ban-rare-earths-processing-technology-exports-means">90% of which are refined in China</a>, an undeniable advantage in a crucial resource. Not only has the U.S. been bolstering its own rare earths industry — <a href="https://miningdigital.com/news/pentagon-backs-us-1bn-rare-earth-processing-push">backed by extensive government funding</a> — but the EU <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/can-europe-recycle-rare-earths-to-cut-china-reliance/video-77584766">is starting</a> to do the same.
The snowball effect of all this — lagging consumer demand, a toxic real estate sector, U.S. and European resistance — has been to take the shine off China’s reputation as a global boomtown. Foreign investment in China, once the lifeblood of the country’s economy, <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/20/economy/china-fdi-jan-decline-intl-hnk">plummeted by 27% last year</a> to its lowest level since 2016.
President Trump’s plan to leverage trade fairness measures against China was once laughed at. Yet almost a decade later, it looks like the Trump strategy is working.
Of course, China still brings other powerful advantages to the table. The country has a formidable tech sector, and many believe it is currently winning the AI race.
America needs to ensure that AI is developing responsibly and in ways that strengthen human flourishing, protect workers, and uphold human dignity. Achieving these goals becomes far harder if the future of artificial intelligence is shaped in Beijing rather than Washington, D.C.
But the United States is pushing back here, too. When President Trump <a href="https://www.hpe.com/us/en/newsroom/press-release/2025/06/hpe-and-juniper-networks-reach-settlement-with-us-department-of-justice.html">greenlit a merger</a> between U.S. tech companies Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE) and Juniper Networks, he <a href="https://www.axios.com/2025/07/30/merger-hpe-juniper-networks-national-security">reportedly had China</a> at the front of his mind. Specifically, he was thinking of Huawei — the Chinese conglomerate that is banned in the U.S. for national security reasons and dominates China&#8217;s domestic AI chip market — a rival America now has the scale to compete against.
The administration has also moved aggressively to accelerate AI infrastructure at home, streamlining approvals for new data centers and the energy projects needed to power them. It’s telling that China has reportedly <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2026/06/10/openai-china-ai-data-centers-report-00957612">launched influence campaigns</a> to try to stop data center construction in the United States. Unfortunately, many on the Left and Right have been duped by these misinformation campaigns, which clearly demand the administration’s attention before they get out of control.
While China continues to rely on state-directed industrial policy, the United States is leveraging its private-sector strengths to expand the computing capacity that will help determine the future of artificial intelligence.
The United States remains the globe’s undisputed heavyweight in tech. It leads the way in innovation, attracts the most highly educated talent, and has the strongest venture capital base.
All of which leaves China at a systemic disadvantage. A slowing domestic economy can’t support a wannabe superpower. An increasingly shunned export market can’t make up the difference.
There’s no point in being naïve about China’s role in the Iran war. But given the United States’ fortunes on China lately, it can perhaps be excused.
***
Rick Santorum is co-chair of Bipartisan Policy Center’s Task Force on Paid Family Leave. He served as a United States senator from Pennsylvania from 1995 to 2007.

TOPSHOT-CHINA-EXPO2010

Rick Santorum: China Remains a Threat But the Cracks Are Showing

Communist China

Energy Policy

Oil policy

These are unprecedented times in politics, and they include unprecedented decisions on the part of political leaders – none more so than what J.D. Vance decided to do this week, in the midst of a book tour where no one talked about his book.
The vice president of the United States, the odds-on favorite to be the next presidential nominee of the Republican Party, decided to unequivocally bet his reputation and his future electoral prospects on an extremely vague and uncertain deal with Iran — one which if it comes to fruition (a doubtful matter itself) would result in tens and potentially hundreds of billions of dollars flowing to the regime of the new Ayatollah.
From the perspective of Washington Republicans, this is a move by a vice president who wants a political win. Having felt his skeptical views about the Iran conflict and other foreign policy actions largely ignored by President Trump, here was an opportunity for narrative success: a potential “forever war”, unpopular particularly with working-class Independent and younger Republican voters, brought to an end in a sweeping act of diplomatic acumen by the young veteran of past conflict.
The story is a compelling one. Instead of his potential presidential competitor, Marco Rubio, solving this problem, it would be Vance who stepped in to lower energy prices, relieve the pain on American working families, and also bail out nervous Republicans on Capitol Hill fighting to keep their jobs and their majority. And if you disagree, you favor — as he put it to Megyn Kelly — &#8220;[E]ndless conflict. They want this to go on until every bomb has been dropped or until every Iranian is dead.&#8221;
There is not enough straw in the world to build a man this size. But as for the deal, the devil is in the details, and they are not minor details: Immediate ability for the Iranians to move oil and profit from it; a vaporware rebuilding fund, sure to be filled with corrupt interests and repurposed for the usual items on the Ayatollah’s grocery list; unenforceable demands that rely on a pinkie swear — sorry, “gentleman’s agreement” — from the religious zealots who rule the country.
On Thursday, the vice president answered a question from The Daily Wire in the White House briefing room with a casual list of things that could bring resumed military action against Iran for violations of the memorandum of understanding:
<blockquote>
It&#8217;s just going to be a holistic approach where we look at their behavior. Are they funding terrorism? Are they leading attacks on other people? Are they trying to get centrifuges to redevelop their nuclear weapons program? There are all these questions that we&#8217;re going to ask about whether they&#8217;ve actually changed their behavior. Do they allow the inspectors in, as they have said they would do, or do they refuse to allow those inspectors in? A whole host of things we&#8217;re going to see, working towards a very successful resolution of this process. But again, it takes two to tango. And what the President is just saying is that we maintain economic, diplomatic, and military leverage that nobody else in the world has. So if the Iranians want to change, great — we&#8217;re going to help them. If they don&#8217;t change, we still got all the cards.
</blockquote>
The problems with this answer are obvious and numerous. If you have all the cards, why the capitulation? The Iranian regime has never, including during the latest operations, stopped funding terrorism through its proxies. Leading attacks on other people is part of their daily routine. The situation in Lebanon is impossible to guarantee. And as for future commitments to inspectors and changed behavior, the Ayatollah has no term limit — he can just wait a year or two and return to the regime’s behavior — and what then? Would a future President Gavin Newsom resume military action? Would a President J.D. Vance?
As an advocate for this new Iran deal, the vice president deployed his usual Yale Law skill: turn the situation into a false choice between boots on the ground, American casualties, and forever war, or this deal. What is the alternative? You may recognize the same rhetorical tics from an equally eloquent and unlikely Oval Office decisionmaker. At least this one has the virtue of coming after a near-decimation of the Iranian ballistic missile arsenal — but if that’s all this was about, why do they stand to reap all the financial benefits?
Vance clearly believes in this deal. His former Senate colleagues who supported Operation Epic Fury don’t understand the nature of it and resent the lack of any read-in on the details. Behind the scenes, several admit they view the deal and the follow-on negotiation as laughable, a punt that is unlikely to actually come to fruition, scoffing at the idea of a $300 billion fund and assuming that bombs will be falling again in months.
One Senator confided that they believed Vance was nuking his future political prospects by tying himself so closely to a major foreign policy endeavor that looks, for all appearances, like a doomed effort at “trust, but only verify if we have to.” It is a perspective echoed by others — but of course, they are making assumptions based on facts not yet in evidence, and for some, it’s a silver lining to a bad resolution.
Most vice presidents don’t have to stake their future political prospects on a major decision. But Vance’s political career was so brief prior to joining the 2024 ticket that this essentially amounts to the biggest thing he’s ever owned. How this deal turns out could end up being one of the biggest questions for him on the debate stage in two years’ time. That places an enormous amount of faith in the Iranians.
The vice president is clear about where he’s placed his trust. We’ll see how much that’s worth.

Vice President  Vance Holds News Conference At White House

JD Vance’s Big Iran Gamble

2026 midterm

JD Vance

What the hell is going on with these negotiations with Iran?
They&#8217;re not over. In many ways, they have not really begun.
This is President Trump as a pragmatist. I may disagree with him, but that&#8217;s what&#8217;s going on.
Let&#8217;s start with the basics. First: The opening of the Iran war was good and righteous and militarily successful. The president of the United States went after the military capabilities of the Iranian regime, took out the top level of the entire Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Iranian regime itself, including the Ayatollah, destroyed their air force, destroyed their navy, destroyed the vast majority of their ballistic missile launchers and facilities to develop new ballistic missile launchers.
All of that was very good.
Second, the memorandum of understanding (MOU) that President Trump just signed, if taken at face value, is a total mess, a massive problem.
Third, we probably should not take the MOU at face value, because it&#8217;s not the end of the story; what&#8217;s in the MOU is not where things are likely to go.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/the-ben-shapiro-show-2448?elementPosition=0&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=Recent+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-981859" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner.avif" alt="" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner.avif 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner-300x50.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner-768x128.jpg 768w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>
Why exactly did President Trump sign this crappy memorandum of understanding with Iran?
The answer is because the elections are in a few months, and he&#8217;s worried about the economy. This is not a secret. The president said yesterday:
<blockquote>I didn&#8217;t want to see economic catastrophe. If you kept this going, that could have happened. But all I know is every time we talked about the possibility of peace, the stock market shot up like a rocket ship. It never went down. They didn&#8217;t like it, the people. You know, the stock market is more brilliant than anybody there is, including the people on this stage other than me. 
Every time we said something amazing like “We&#8217;re going to settle,” it would go up. And every time we said something negative like &#8220;We&#8217;re not going to be able to settle,” it would go down very big.</blockquote>
The stock market will always choose the option least likely to lead to conflict because conflict is costly. That does not mean the conflict is immoral or wrong, but that&#8217;s the reason why the president did all of this.
The president was being told by people near him that if he had bombed Kharg Island or the South Pars gas field, it would have caused some sort of international depression.
This is President Trump being a pragmatist, but I heartily disagree with his pragmatic assessment of the situation. I&#8217;ve made that clear for months. I think it was a gigantic mistake to implement a ceasefire back in April. I think we should have bombed Kharg Island and ended the war.
Yes, it would have caused an economic shock — and then that shock would have ended, and the Iranian regime would have ended.
But President Trump didn&#8217;t want to do that. He was concerned about oil prices in the midterms.
What does that mean for what comes next? The president is deeply concerned about the country&#8217;s economic health right before the election. He believes that if the economy is doing better and oil prices are lower, then perhaps Republicans hold the House.
This means that after the midterms, President Trump may begin enforcing red lines. The president was threatening just that yesterday, saying if Iran doesn’t honor the agreement, “We&#8217;ll probably go back to bombing them until they honor it.&#8221;
The vice president says that he hopes that Iran is not lying, but he doesn&#8217;t trust anyone.
If he doesn&#8217;t trust anyone, this MOU isn&#8217;t a great idea.
The MOU is not, in fact, a deal to end the war. It is a memorandum of understanding, which is a vague term sheet.
With all of that said, I think the optics on this MOU suck. I think the president is making a huge mistake by signing this MOU, because we could have lowered gas prices without signing a comprehensive MOU.
If you wanted to bribe the Iranians to temporarily open the Strait — which is effectively what this does — we could have done it by just walking away from the Strait and letting them toll the ships, which would be the practical effect of the MOU.
My biggest problem with the memorandum of understanding is not the terms themselves, because I think the vast majority of those terms will never be implemented or come to pass.
My problem is the optics, and I hope that the Iranian optics win is temporary. Because here&#8217;s the thing: We wrecked them. We handed them one of the greatest losses in human history. We literally killed their entire leadership class, did it again, and destroyed their entire air force, navy, and ballistic missile launchers. We put their economy on life support. We blockaded all of their ships.
We projected power. It made America look strong.
And now, because of this, it looks as though we just allowed a nation without nuclear weapons, a nation of Islamic tyranny that just murdered tens of thousands of its own citizens, a nation without nuclear weapons, functional air force, functional navy, and functional ballistic missile arsenal, to call the shots.
That’s a mistake. It&#8217;s a mistake I trust the president will reverse because he&#8217;s a pragmatist.
I don&#8217;t think President Trump wants to look weak right now. He does look weak. I trust that after the midterms, he will course-correct and reestablish America&#8217;s credible threat of force. For now, however, it&#8217;s not a good look. Even if we understand the pragmatic concerns about oil prices, it just isn&#8217;t a great look.
Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the speaker of the Parliament of Iran, a mass-murdering piece of trash, was walking around grinning ear to ear, declaring that what they wanted to achieve through military action they got through negotiation  — several times over.
The Iranians believe they won the negotiation. They are grinning about it. Is that a good optics look for the United States?
The answer, of course, is no.
The MOU is just an empty piece of paper. It says that the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran undertake to respect each other&#8217;s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
That&#8217;s weird, because the Islamic Republic of Iran still chants &#8220;Death to America.&#8221; And as far as the territorial integrity of Iran, what happens when Iran initiates a gigantic terror war in the Middle East?
None of this will become a full agreement. This is most likely to end up like the Gaza peace deal. The president helped broker a deal where stage one was going to be the release of all of the hostages alive and dead, and an Israeli pullback to particular areas.
Stage two was underpants gnomes. Stage three was world peace. A bunch of stuff was supposed to happen in stage two. The Palestinians were going to moderate. Hamas was going to turn over its guns.
Garbage. None of that ever happened. We are still at stage two and we will be at stage two forever, because stage one was the whole thing.
The MOU will be the same thing. The only thing that will actually happen here is that oil will flow out of the Strait, and we will bribe them to do it, and they will toll things.
If I don&#8217;t believe that the rest of the MOU is ever going to become reality, including, for example, a $300 billion investment fund, then why bother focusing on it?
The answer is that if you do not wish for this MOU to become reality, there must be pushback against its terms.
A full deal that looks like the MOU would be a disaster. It would leave Iran permanently in control of what people have described as an “economic nuclear weapon,” the Strait, that they could close any time. It would give them hundreds of billions of dollars so they could later develop a bomb, all while allowing them to fund terrorism and rebuild their ballistic missiles.
It would be bad not just because of what Iran would do, but also because of the signal it would send to the rest of the world that a ragtag group of terrorists can push the most powerful military and the most militant president off the ball with some mines and some drones and some ugly words.
What do you think China would then do about the Taiwan Strait or Taiwan itself? What do you think an expansionist Russia would do about the Baltics?
If you would like a world where America loses its global foothold — and there are some who actively want this — then make the MOU a full deal.
I know that President Trump, as a pragmatist, is right most of the time that actions matter, but words really don&#8217;t.
But when it comes to the signals he sends to the rest of the world about America&#8217;s role in the world, there’s a basic truth.
Words do matter.

Flags of the USA and Iran

Why Trump Signed The Agreement With Iran

Ben Shapiro

Opinion

Strait of Hormuz

President Trump says we have a deal with Iran, an amazing deal for us and our allies.
The Iranians say they have a deal with the United States, the worst possible deal for them and their allies.
You know who doesn&#8217;t have the deal? Any of us.
We do not have words. We do not have the text.
I&#8217;m not about to take anybody&#8217;s word for it when there&#8217;s clearly no solid information for any of us to look at.
As I&#8217;ve been saying for months, war is a simple calculus. It is about which side can take more pain. That&#8217;s it. If I can take more pain than you, I win. Even if you win on an absolute level, you inflict more pain on me on an absolute level than I inflict on you, that doesn&#8217;t matter. You don&#8217;t actually win until the other side has experienced pain beyond what they are willing to bear.
If the other side is willing to undergo the pain of having all of their limbs lopped off, and you&#8217;re only willing to undergo the pain of a hangnail, the other side must only inflict minor pain; in order to win, you must inflict massive pain.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ben-shapiro-show-ep-2445?elementPosition=0&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=Recent+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-981859" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner.avif" alt="" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner.avif 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner-300x50.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner-768x128.jpg 768w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>
This was always the imbalance between the United States and Iran in this whole deal. The United States had to lop off all the arms, all the legs, eviscerate the leadership, make it so that Iran could not rise again in order to achieve what we want in a deal. Iran, in order to exert pressure on us, basically had to fire some drones and missiles at shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and at some oil fields.
What would a good long-term deal look like? Let&#8217;s point out that nothing that&#8217;s going on right now is a long-term deal. What we have right now is called a “memorandum of understanding.” Supposedly, it is a 60-day memorandum of understanding, which is kicking the can down the road because none of the major issues have been solved in this memorandum of understanding.
Let&#8217;s talk about what a great deal would look like for the United States, according to the administration&#8217;s list: No nuclear weapons or development or facilities, no ballistic missile development, no funding of terror apparatus abroad, and opening the Strait of Hormuz permanently without tolls.
Then, when all of those have been verified, we could talk about opening up the economy. That&#8217;s what a good deal would look like for the United States.
What would a bad deal — meaning a good deal for Iran — look like?
First, continuation of nuclear development, even if it&#8217;s pushed off, even if it&#8217;s slower; maintenance of nuclear facilities, capacity to keep nuclear material in the country.
Second, ballistic missile development revitalized; no sanctions on ballistic missile development, and money flowing into the country that could be used for additional ballistic missile development, which would create that umbrella of defense and offense that would prevent action to get rid of their nukes.
Third, continued funding of terrorism abroad, the rebuilding of the terror apparatus that Iran had prior to October 7, Hamas in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and terrorist groups in Iraq. If they got more money coming in and they could continue to fund terrorism, that would be a win for them.
Fourth, continued Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz, basically being told by Iran or given the tacit threat that any time things went wrong, Iran could shut down the world economy again and again.
Fifth, the biggest one, much more funding is going into Iran. Remember, before this war, Iran was basically on its last economic legs. The Iranian rial had spiked from 42,000 per American dollar to 1 million per American dollar. That was before the war. Their economy was falling apart. That&#8217;s why you had these gigantic riots in the streets, which ended with the Iranians shooting some 42,000 people in a weekend. So if more money goes into Iran, that is a win for Iran.
That&#8217;s the long-term standard.
I&#8217;m setting the standards up front so we know what we&#8217;re talking about. That’s because one of the things that I don&#8217;t like when we talk about good deal/bad deal is being vague about what we are saying.
To reiterate the five conditions for a good deal for the United States: No nukes, no ballistic missile development, no funding of terrorism abroad, opening the Strait permanently without tolling, and then theoretically opening up the economy.
What would the best deal for the Iranians look like?
First, continued nuclear development, even covert nuclear development, which would mean maintaining their nuclear facilities in-country, with all supposed watering down of nuclear material to be done in Iran, then continuing to cheat and hide. Second: Ballistic missile development. Third: Funding of terrorism abroad. Fourth: Continued control over the Strait. Fifth: More funding going into Iran.
What we have here, according to the Trump administration and Iran, is a memorandum of understanding, a temporary agreement.
What would a good temporary agreement look like for the United States? There are three options: Good, mediocre, and bad.
A good temporary agreement would look like anything that facilitated a good permanent agreement; whatever got us toward the goal of no nukes, no ballistics, no funding of terrorism, and opening the Strait permanently.
A mediocre temporary deal would ensure that Iran doesn&#8217;t get any of the things that it wants long-term, but it wouldn&#8217;t achieve all the good stuff, so it wouldn&#8217;t disarm them of nuclear weapons or ballistic missiles, but it would not release a bunch of money to them and might temporarily open up the Strait a little bit. It might release a small amount of money to them, and then we would go home, but we would leave the sanctions in place, which is the most important thing. Not opening the Iranian economy, not allowing them to tie their activity to terrorist groups in the region, and not allowing them to rebuild their ballistic missile facilities with our money.
A mediocre deal would basically be us packing up our stuff and going home. Why would that be mediocre and not great? Because we&#8217;ve done an enormous amount of damage to Iran&#8217;s facilities. We&#8217;ve already set them back tremendously. If we go home right now, then Iran will maintain some vestigial control over the Strait, will not permanently get rid of the Iranian nuclear program, and will not eliminate their ballistic missile capacity. It won&#8217;t prevent their funding of terrorism.
What would a bad temporary agreement look like? It would not only leave their nuclear development intact but also incentivize it. It would allow them to allocate more money to ballistic missiles. It would allow them to extend their terrorist reach, and it would allow full-scale, continued Iranian control over the Strait.
Which is it?
We don&#8217;t know. We literally do not know because the administration has not and will not release the text right now, which they should.
I&#8217;m happy to analyze a deal once I know what&#8217;s in it. I cannot analyze a deal for or against until I know what the hell is in the deal.
You don&#8217;t know what a good deal looks like just because one side says good and the other says bad. Right now, we have two sides telling two very, very different stories. You have President Trump saying he got a good, temporary agreement, and J.D. Vance saying that it&#8217;s a brilliant temporary agreement. You have Iran saying that it&#8217;s a very, very bad temporary agreement.
My hunch is that the temporary agreement doesn&#8217;t do much at all. Basically, the temporary agreement might be the mediocre scenario: We leave, they get a little bit of cash to open up the Strait of Hormuz, not enough to really revitalize their economy; the sanctions remain on them; we never get to any further negotiation on a nuclear weapons deal; we never get to any further negotiation on ballistics or terrorism, and they don&#8217;t get fully reintegrated into the world economy.
If that&#8217;s the end of the war, this goes with a whimper, not a bang. We would be saying, “You know what? We did enough. We&#8217;re out.”
We don&#8217;t know because we don&#8217;t have the text of the deal.

GettyImages-2269545205

The Iran Deal’s Biggest Secret

Iran

President Trump

The U.S.-South Korea alliance is one of America’s most important partnerships in the world. For over seven decades, it has kept the peace on the Korean Peninsula, deterred North Korean aggression, and countered Chinese and Russian influence in Northeast Asia. Nearly 28,000 American troops stand shoulder-to-shoulder with South Korean forces in defense of freedom.
The vibrant trilateral security relationship of South Korea, Japan, and the U.S. is a critical backstop to growing security threats in the Asia-Pacific region.
Economically, the U.S.-South Korea relationship is equally vital. American companies invest billions in South Korea, while Korean firms have poured billions into the U.S. — creating tens of thousands of American jobs at Hyundai, Samsung, LG, and SK Hynix plants from Georgia to Texas.
President Donald Trump and President Lee Jae-myung have forged a friendship that has strengthened this alliance at a critical moment. Their direct engagement has produced tangible progress on security cooperation, trade issues, and regional stability. That hard-earned rapport is a valuable asset for both nations.
Even so, recent incidents involving major American companies operating in South Korea risk putting this friendship and the broader partnership under unnecessary strain. Major U.S. technology companies such as Meta, Netflix, Apple, and others have faced discriminatory regulatory scrutiny and actions for years. Over the past six months, Coupang, the Seattle-based NYSE-listed e-commerce giant that has poured billions of dollars of FDI into Korea and created more than 100,000 Korean jobs, has faced threats of severe civil and even criminal penalties following a limited 2025 data breach that has been fully resolved with no risk or damage to customers.
Starbucks Korea is facing similar political theater. In May 2026, a tone-deaf marketing campaign tied to the anniversary of the Gwangju Uprising triggered a firestorm of criticism, boycotts, and government pressure that ultimately forced the local CEO’s resignation. What should have been handled as a corporate messaging misstep became a nationalist crusade, with officials and activists treating a longtime American investor like a political enemy.
While every country has the right and responsibility to enforce its laws, the scale and tone of these episodes have raised legitimate concerns among U.S. investors and policymakers about fairness and consistency. Even Korea’s National Security Adviser, Wi Sung-lac, acknowledged in April that the Coupang dispute is affecting U.S.-Korea security consultations — underscoring how quickly commercial disputes can spill over into the broader alliance.
These cases matter because they erode the confidence and goodwill that underpins the entire U.S.-South Korea relationship. For U.S. companies looking to invest, grow, and compete in Korea — just as Korean companies look to invest, grow, and compete in the U.S. — the perception and reality of a reliable, rules-based political and economic market is critically important and in the interests of Koreans and Americans alike.
While rhetoric and actions among political leaders in both countries have escalated in recent months, there is still an opportunity to defuse these needless disputes.
President Lee has an opportunity to lead by ensuring transparent, non-discriminatory regulation and resolving these matters in a spirit of partnership. By embracing U.S. companies like Coupang and Starbucks — just as the U.S. has embraced Korean companies — President Lee can remove a longstanding and growing irritant in the bilateral relationship and safeguard the alliance that benefits both nations.
The challenges facing the alliance are too serious to allow these internal frictions to fester or grow. North Korea continues to expand its nuclear and missile programs. China’s military modernization and economic coercion grow more assertive. There is no time for the United States and South Korea to let business disputes weaken a partnership that has delivered security and prosperity to both countries for more than 70 years. South Korea should embrace this opportunity and recalibrate its crusade against U.S. firms.
President Lee’s personal friendship with President Trump offers a strong foundation. By addressing these concerns promptly and fairly, he can turn potential friction into further proof that the U.S.-South Korea alliance remains rock-solid. The relationship is too valuable to let it be strained. The time to reinforce it is now.
***
Fred Fleitz served as Chief of Staff of the National Security Council during President Trump’s first term. He spent 25 years in national security positions at the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the State Department, and on the staff of the House Intelligence Committee. He is author of <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/fredfleitz.com/__;!!F0Stn7g!GLCaLhnO0AC-43caBSKdRabbsrM7TjLVvs9sSodUOTBF3_4c39VXchsV5Z0SBOxQwOTjv2cIXeQMYPe2nFYu$">North Korea, Nuclear Brinkmanship, and the Oval Office,</a> which was just released by Texas A&amp;M Press.

American and South Korean flag standing on the table

The U.S.-South Korea Alliance Is Worth More Than Recent Trivial Conflicts

South Korea

(Reuters) — NATO accused Moscow on Friday of reckless behavior and pledged to &#8220;defend every inch of Allied territory&#8221; after Romania said a Russian drone had crashed into a civilian apartment block in the alliance member state during an attack on neighboring Ukraine.
Romania&#8217;s defense ministry said a woman and a child suffered minor injuries in Galati near the border with Ukraine overnight after radar tracked a Russian drone entering Romanian airspace.
Photos from the scene showed charred and damaged brickwork on the roof of the 10-story apartment block which Romanian authorities said was hit by a drone that exploded on impact, tearing through a top-floor flat.
Russia&#8217;s TASS news agency cited Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, who said President Vladimir Putin had been informed about the incident.
<div id="attachment_1104439" style="width: 857px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1104439" class="size-large wp-image-1104439" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/05/2026-05-29T065911Z_1_LYNXMPEM4S0DZ_RTROPTP_4_UKRAINE-CRISIS-ROMANIA-DRONES-1-847x576.jpg" alt="" width="847" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/05/2026-05-29T065911Z_1_LYNXMPEM4S0DZ_RTROPTP_4_UKRAINE-CRISIS-ROMANIA-DRONES-1-847x576.jpg 847w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/05/2026-05-29T065911Z_1_LYNXMPEM4S0DZ_RTROPTP_4_UKRAINE-CRISIS-ROMANIA-DRONES-1-300x204.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/05/2026-05-29T065911Z_1_LYNXMPEM4S0DZ_RTROPTP_4_UKRAINE-CRISIS-ROMANIA-DRONES-1-768x522.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/05/2026-05-29T065911Z_1_LYNXMPEM4S0DZ_RTROPTP_4_UKRAINE-CRISIS-ROMANIA-DRONES-1.jpg 1200w" sizes=" (max-width: 847px) 100vw, 847px" />A Romanian law enforcement officer works on the site of an explosion at a residential block of flats following a drone hit close to the border with Ukraine, in Galati, Romania, May 29, 2026. Inquam Photos/George Calin via REUTERS</div>
Separately, Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chair of Russia&#8217;s powerful Security Council, warned European leaders that drones would continue to stray into their countries and prevent their populations from sleeping peacefully.
It was the first time a densely populated area in a NATO country had been hit causing injuries during Russia&#8217;s war in Ukraine, and the incident is likely to increase tensions on the alliance&#8217;s eastern flank as member states worry about the war spilling over their borders.
&#8220;Russia’s reckless behavior is a danger to us all,&#8221; NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said on X after speaking by phone to Romanian President Nicusor Dan, whose country is in both the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the European Union.
&#8220;I affirmed that NATO stands ready to defend every inch of Allied territory,&#8221; he said, without making any mention of triggering NATO&#8216;s mutual defense clause. &#8220;We will continue to enhance our readiness to deter and defend against any threat, including from drones.&#8221;
Dan said the Russian consulate in the southeastern city of Constanta would be closed and the consul expelled.
TASS quoted Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova as saying Moscow would respond swiftly to Bucharest&#8217;s decision to close the consulate.
Romania, which shares a 400-mile land border with Ukraine, said Russian drones had breached its airspace 28 times since Moscow began attacking Ukrainian ports across the Danube River following its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
Stephen Evelyn, a 44-year-old American citizen who lives in Galati, called it &#8220;another provocation by the Russians&#8221;.
&#8220;I don&#8217;t believe this was an accident, this has happened too many times for the Russians to be doing this by accident,&#8221; he said. &#8220;Either that or they&#8217;re highly incompetent at waging war, but NATO needs to do something about this.&#8221;
There have been multiple airspace incursions into NATO airspace since Moscow invaded Ukraine, most notably when more than 20 Russian drones entered Poland&#8217;s airspace on the night of September 9-10.
In recent weeks Ukrainian drones have strayed into Baltic countries&#8217; airspace, sowing confusion and raising tensions with Russia.
Romania has asked NATO allies to deploy additional anti-drone capabilities to Romania, with official sources saying Bucharest needs low-altitude radars and interceptor drones. A NATO spokesperson said on Friday &#8220;potential additional defensive measures are considered.&#8221;
Local authorities in southern Ukraine said Izmail port in the Odesa region, across the border from Galati, had come under attack from drones early on Friday.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Kyiv was ready to support Romania &#8220;in whatever way is necessary&#8221;.
<div id="attachment_1104441" style="width: 659px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1104441" class="size-large wp-image-1104441" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/05/2026-05-29T054159Z_1_LYNXMPEM4S0AI_RTROPTP_4_UKRAINE-CRISIS-ROMANIA-DRONES-649x576.jpg" alt="" width="649" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/05/2026-05-29T054159Z_1_LYNXMPEM4S0AI_RTROPTP_4_UKRAINE-CRISIS-ROMANIA-DRONES-649x576.jpg 649w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/05/2026-05-29T054159Z_1_LYNXMPEM4S0AI_RTROPTP_4_UKRAINE-CRISIS-ROMANIA-DRONES-300x266.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/05/2026-05-29T054159Z_1_LYNXMPEM4S0AI_RTROPTP_4_UKRAINE-CRISIS-ROMANIA-DRONES-768x682.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/05/2026-05-29T054159Z_1_LYNXMPEM4S0AI_RTROPTP_4_UKRAINE-CRISIS-ROMANIA-DRONES.jpg 1200w" sizes=" (max-width: 649px) 100vw, 649px" />A fire burns on the roof of a 10-story block of flats after a drone crashed into the building, causing an explosion and injuring two people, near the border with Ukraine, in Galati, Romania, in this handout image released on May 29, 2026. Romanian Department for Emergency Situations (DSU)/Handout via REUTERS</div>
The Romanian defense ministry said two F-16 fighter jets had been scrambled and a military helicopter was sent to monitor the attack, with the pilots authorized to shoot down any drones without endangering inhabited areas. The residents of border counties Braila, Galati and Tulcea were warned to take cover.
The drone was in Romania&#8217;s airspace for four minutes and flew at a low altitude for 6.2 miles, making it difficult for radar to detect, Romanian Brigadier General Gheorghe Maxim said.
He told a press conference that although the U.S. anti-drone system Merops is operational in Romania it is not yet fully integrated with national air defenses and it would have been too risky to use in a city.
In addition to the woman and her child who were taken to hospital with minor injuries, two people were treated on the scene for panic attacks and 70 were evacuated from the apartment block, local authorities said.
Deputy Interior Minister Raed Arafat, who is in charge of the emergency response agency, told private broadcaster Digi24 that the drone affected two building stairwells, an elevator shaft and damaged five cars.
A drone also damaged an electricity pole and a household annex in Galati in April.
In a separate incident, a drone without an explosive charge was found in northwestern Romania, state TVR broadcaster said late on Thursday, citing local authorities.
(Reporting by George Calin in Galati, Luiza Ilie in Bucharest, Jekaterina Golubkova in Tokyo, Alan Charlish, Pawel Florkiewicz and Anna Wlodarczak-Semczuk in Warsaw, Jason Hovet in Prague and Lily Bayer in Brussels; Editing by Jacqueline Wong, Kate Mayberry and Timothy Heritage)

ROMANIA-NATO-DEFENCE-EXERCISE

NATO Sends Clear Message To Russia After Attack On Member Nation

NATO

Russia

Ukraine-Russia War

In a very literal sense, Taiwan is moving westward toward China, and there’s nothing that can be done about it. The tectonic plates that have shifted over millions of years, creating the island’s mountain terrain, are also driving it slowly and irrevocably toward the mainland. That notoriously craggy terrain is expected to act as a deterrent to any attack from the People’s Liberation Army from across the Taiwan Strait, a lane of the Pacific which runs as narrow as 100 miles and for the most part shallower than 100 meters. For the People’s Republic of China, Taiwan lies just out of reach. It is the military equivalent of skipping a smooth rock.
Taiwan’s position as a locus of China’s ambitions go beyond the temptation of seizing hold of the island’s burgeoning chip industry. It is the path to becoming a true ocean-ruling power, breaking out of the chain of Western-allied archipelagos that run along the Pacific Ring of Fire. To extend the PLA’s untested forces and grasp Taiwan isn’t just a matter of national pride to further the One China policy. It is a giant step toward the global dominance China’s leader, Xi Jinping, wants to transform into an inevitability — his lifetime’s legacy for the PRC.
For critics who have questioned the interests of the United States in its military support for Taiwan, the explosion of the semiconductor industry came at an unfortunate time. Beyond the obvious American interest in defending against the expansion of China’s brutal communist regime, Taiwan is now dominating the global foundry of chips — including more than 60 percent of the market overall, and 90 percent of the most advanced versions, central to the pursuit of artificial intelligence dominance. Taiwan&#8217;s innovations made their independence essential at exactly the same time protectionists and isolationists wanted to press the case the island is utterly dispensible.
How very inconvenient.
The question that confronts Donald Trump now as he wings his way to the long-anticipated meeting with Xi Jinping is how clearly he will make that importance known. There is no security, market, or historical incentive at this point to concede the long-held position of the United States toward Taiwan — bolstered most recently in a December package that included $11 billion in weapons for the island. But there is the question of how dedicated the Taiwanese are to their own defense, after the opposition to Taiwan’s president — who holds the largest portion of legislative seats — nixed a major package that would’ve significantly increased their defense spending, opting for a half measure that cut back on domestic drone production and their air defense systems. The opposition’s leader, Cheng Li-wun, has courted accusations that she’s working to diminish the island’s deterrence capability — a storyline that only grew after she chose to <a href="https://breakingdefense.com/2026/05/taiwans-parliament-passes-pared-back-supplementary-defense-budget/">meet</a> with Xi Jinping in person last month.
For the people of Taiwan, there is also the question of time. Opposition to the acceptance of China taking over their republic is largely the view of older members of society, and the youngest people on the island seem increasingly open to the idea. The constant influence of PRC-backed social media campaigns and outreach efforts to exert soft power over the minds of youths absolutely has something to do with this. For a population that is facing a gargantuan decline — their fertility rate fell to the lowest in the world last year at 0.7 — perhaps all China will have to do is wait them out.
The PRC has telegraphed its Taiwan-related intent for this meeting all along. It wants to tempt Donald Trump by appealing to his personal vision as a peacemaker — particularly in the context of the Iran conflict — by asking for an alteration to stated U.S. policy, or just to have the president declare publicly that he opposes Taiwan’s independence. The propaganda victory alone would send a shudder through the island’s political leadership and would be a coup for Xi Jinping, even if it may seem like a low-cost offering from President Trump for potential economic gain.
In this context, the meeting this week takes on a whole new importance when it comes to dictating the future — not just for AI in the West, but for Donald Trump’s legacy as a world leader. He has restored a hardened focus on America’s interests, particularly in the Western Hemisphere. As dedicated as he is to ending Iran’s chances at becoming a nuclear power, some of his advisors might use that effort’s uncertainty as a justification for sacrificing America’s interests in Taiwan.
If there’s one thing we know about this president, it’s that, as much as he listens to those around him, he keeps his own counsel on the right path forward. There is no wisdom in being remembered as the president who gave China what it craves most. And in a brutal sense, so long as the PRC’s energy is directed at this one infuriatingly productive mountainous island the size of West Virginia, it is spending less time on everything else it would like to do to become the global superpower of Xi Jinping’s dreams. Trump is a gambler, wagering the cost of breaking norms and diplomatic rituals on his, and America’s, strength. Today, that is a cost worth paying.

TOPSHOT-TAIWAN-SKOREA-US-CHINA-DIPLOMACY

Trump Holds The Future Of Taiwan In His Hands

China

Taiwan

China is not just America&#8217;s geopolitical opponent; they are our geopolitical enemy. They have been our geopolitical enemies since the establishment of the Chinese Communist regime in 1949.
We may have spent decades pretending that this isn&#8217;t true; Richard Nixon famously moved to open China as a way of separating China from the Soviet Union, and some neoliberals may have opened our markets to Chinese goods, hoping that free markets would lead to political moderation, but all that time, China was still our enemy.
The People&#8217;s Republic of China is a historically mass-murdering, currently terrorist-supporting, surveillance state of unprecedented proportions directed at destroying America&#8217;s global hegemony.
And they&#8217;re taking the long view. They can wait us out. They are taking advantage of our openness in order to defeat us. Whether it&#8217;s stealing literally tens of billions of dollars in intellectual property, stacking American universities with Chinese operatives, or infiltrating our political system, China is our geopolitical enemy.
This came to the fore in 2020, when China unleashed the Wuhan virus on the rest of humanity by lying and pretending that it was not transmissible from human to human, and by lying to the W.H.O., which was basically a Chinese front organization at that point.
Many folks have pointed out that we have supply chains that lead back to China, and we need to find ways to actually decouple from China.
So what should we be doing?
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ben-shapiro-ep-2424?elementPosition=1&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=Recent+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-981859" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner.avif" alt="" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner.avif 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner-300x50.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner-768x128.jpg 768w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>
We need to use both the carrot and the stick. That means we need to cut good trade deals with countries such as Canada. We need to cut better trade deals with all of the people who might move toward China but might move toward us.
We need to isolate China by flexing our economic power. The way you flex your economic power isn&#8217;t just about telling people they can&#8217;t access our markets unless we get better access to theirs. The way that you flex your economic power is by cutting deals that isolate China.
You tell countries: Pick between us. You can either have access to American markets or to Chinese manufacturing. Those are your choices.
If we utilized our power in this way, we could isolate China.
We can also cut off their sources of revenue and power. President Donald Trump has been doing this with alacrity. If you look at Trump&#8217;s foreign policy and what he has been doing, much of it is directed at minimizing Chinese power and influence. The operation against Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela was designed to cut off a chief source of oil revenue for China.
Much of what is directed against Iran is actually directed against China. China receives 10-15% of its oil imports from Iran.
Isolating Iran cuts off a source of power and revenue for China. Helping Ukraine to defeat Russia in Ukraine is a way of cutting off a support base for China, because Russia is basically a giant gas station for China at this point.
What else can we do? Strengthen our own economy.
One of the big problems we have is the massive dependency in the United States on China buying our debt. China owns trillions of dollars in American debt. They buy American bonds. The tacit threat in doing so is that, at a certain strategic point, they could flood the market with those American bonds.
They could take a loss. They could cram that down on their own citizens, just make their own citizens poorer. They don&#8217;t really care about their citizens.
This is a stark reminder that if you wish to be a world power, you cannot be a bloated welfare state.
I know that there&#8217;s a third rail of American politics, and that third rail of American politics is all of the entitlement programs. President Trump and his administration have taken the position that the entitlement programs in the United States require no systemic changes.
The problem with that perspective is that when you bloat your own economy, when you create enormous anchors on the American ship of state, it is very difficult to move in the ways you need to move.
Our debt is a huge problem. What we should be doing is getting lean and mean in terms of how we actually run our ship of state. We should make our economy more innovative, lower taxes, and cut down the bloated welfare state.
Finally, we badly need to cut off China&#8217;s avenues for stealing our IP and destroying our institutions. One easy way to do that: Zero Chinese foreign exchange students. Zero.
I understand that there is a strong incentive for our university systems to bring in Chinese foreign exchange students, since foreign students pay full freight while American students pay a discounted rate.
We should not be importing students from places that hate the United States in order to study at our universities. Period. End of story. I do not care whether those are students from Iran, and I do not care whether those are students from sub-Saharan Africa. I don&#8217;t care whether they are students from China; it doesn&#8217;t matter.
Bringing people to the United States to access our systems and then going back to their home countries is a gigantic mistake. There is no upside for us. It is all downside.
To pretend that some geopolitical enemies do not take advantage of our openness here in the United States to harm us is nonsense. They absolutely do.
All of these things are possible — and necessary.

How America Became Blind To China’s Long Game

The Enemy America Helped Build Into A Global Superpower

President Donald Trump is headed to China this week, and according to the legacy media, he is in a weak position. He has no cards to play. The Chinese have the upper hand.
This is total crap. President Trump has spent a decade totally reshaping the global power map. China is in trouble, and Trump is heading into the summit in a power position on every front.
Go back 10 years. Everyone said that China would be dominant 10 years ago.
Wrong.
Today, the Left and the woke Right — which is basically the New Left —  say that America should cede global power to “multi-polarity,” which means China and Russia.
That&#8217;s not just stupid. It makes them useful idiots for the world&#8217;s worst regimes.
According to some sources, China is overconfident. They believe that they have the upper hand. The Chinese government is allowing people in China to see what&#8217;s happening in America, and because that coverage is often negative about America, it&#8217;s reinforcing the Chinese government&#8217;s perception of its own strength.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ben-shapiro-ep-2423?elementPosition=1&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=Recent+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-981859" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner.avif" alt="" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner.avif 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner-300x50.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner-768x128.jpg 768w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>
Now, Trump is headed to China, and our beloved legacy media is chanting that multi-polarity is happening.
Wrong.
China is in its weakest global position in at least a couple of decades.
China is an awful, terrible, autocratic, economically fascist, one-party state. They&#8217;ve had serious systemic problems for years, decades, even up to today. Those problems have been masked over the last three decades or so by China&#8217;s shift from a completely closed economy in the 1970s to one that engages with world markets, moving from communism at home to a form of mercantilism under the predecessors of Xi Jinping.
There are always moronic economists here in the West who are in love with the idea of a mercantilist, centralized state, meaning a state in which the government directs where private money should be spent and determines which trade deals can be made. Everything is government-sponsored. Everything is government-subsidized. Everything is government-regulated.
A lot of economists love this stuff because it gives them the illusion of control.
But China is not the economic powerhouse they&#8217;re making it out to be.
China can direct its economy in a few different directions with serious power, and it can take whatever it has of its economy, cobble that together, and then can punch in one direction.
For example, if they want to generate extraordinary levels of power, they can build many nuclear plants or dig for coal, and they don&#8217;t care about the environmental effects.
Thus, they can really out-produce us in terms of energy. And they can build some new cars that are pretty competitive by stealing and adapting Western technology, which they do.
But let us be real. The Chinese economy is not truly competitive with the American economy in any serious sense. Their products are not better than ours. Their services are not better than ours. Their economy is not better than ours. Not even close.
They lack innovation. So they can build these gigantic labs, and they can force a bunch of people into those labs, but when you don&#8217;t have free markets, you have a problem. The system of free markets allows for better products and services because of competition.
You want to know why every major AI company is located in the United States? Because they&#8217;re all competing with each other. In fact, many of them are located a few blocks from one another in Silicon Valley. That is not atypical in a free market economy.
China has a serious debt problem. They hide their debt problem by stealing money from their citizens.
We&#8217;re always hearing about the Chinese military; they have a gigantic nuclear arsenal. But technologically speaking, they are far behind the United States now. Maybe they can pick it up, but not if they&#8217;re also lagging in AI, which is why we need to win the AI race.
The only thing that can solve China&#8217;s demographic, productivity, and military problems is winning the AI race.
This is why it&#8217;s so stupid when you see people from the Left to the woke Right making the case for AI in the United States to be set back.
It&#8217;s nuts. That would hand global power to the Chinese.
You&#8217;re constantly hearing about China&#8217;s gigantic army. It’s huge, but manpower isn&#8217;t everything, as we saw in the Ukraine war.
Similar to Russia’s, the Chinese military isn&#8217;t up to snuff. China relies on older, less sophisticated chips. What&#8217;s more, China doesn&#8217;t yet have the capacity to project deepwater power. They have many boats in their navy, which is effective in coastal zones, but they have no capacity to project power beyond those zones.
China&#8217;s entire governmental system is built around a lack of competition. The problem with Chinese centralized control is that it cannot produce innovation or building or thriving.
President Trump knows all of this, and he has been spending the last 10 years putting the screws to China. It is the through line of his foreign policy.
People look at Trump&#8217;s foreign policy and ask, &#8220;What&#8217;s he doing in Iran? I don&#8217;t understand what he’s doing in Venezuela. I don&#8217;t understand what he’s doing with Japan.&#8221;
All of it is oriented to China. All of it.
President Trump is opportunistic in foreign policy terms. He waits for an opportunity to arise, and then he takes advantage of it.
A dozen years ago, people were talking about China’s Belt and Road Initiative, or what they called the Silk Road Initiative. It was designed to basically create massive debt traps for countries. China would give them free money, but it wasn&#8217;t free; it would come with constraints. Those countries that were poor would take the loans, and then Beijing would basically foreclose on the loans and take control of property in strategic areas.
Countries were joining because they saw free money.
But it turns out the countries have been withdrawing from the Belt and Road Initiative, and even Chinese investment in the Belt and Road has been dropping precipitously.
The reality is that when it comes to the economic battle between China and the United States, we have the upper hand.

Trump_Xi

Trump’s Biggest Advantage Over China Is Obvious

While there won’t be bombs dropping, President Donald Trump’s upcoming visit to China will be no walk in the park. While trade remains a thorn in U.S.-Chinese relations, there is more underneath the surface. If Trump wants to advance America’s interests in Beijing, there are topics he needs to address.
Human rights is one of those issues. Millions of people are suffering under the oppression of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Christians in particular are subject to arrests, torture, and indefinite detention without a trial or access to a lawyer.
The case of Pastor Ezra Jin typifies the anti-Christian discrimination of the CCP. <a href="https://www.npr.org/2025/10/12/nx-s1-5571936/zion-church-ezra-jin-arrest-china-christian">Arrested</a> in October, along with dozens of church members, Pastor Jin has been imprisoned without charges since then. In addition, the CCP is <a href="https://www.wsj.com/world/china/china-targets-lawyers-defending-jailed-christian-leaders-6d0d72c8">harassing</a> his lawyer, eliminating whatever chance Jin has of getting a fair trial. Thankfully, the public pressure campaign led by Jin’s daughter, Senate staffer Grace Jin Drexel, has brought Jin’s case to President Trump’s attention. Trump <a href="https://x.com/juliamanch/status/2052547613816213512?s=46">promised</a> that he would bring up Pastor Jin’s case in his meeting with Xi Jinping.
Another prominent case Trump will ask Xi about is Hong Kong businessman Jimmy Lai. Lai, a British passport holder, was <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8d5pl34vv0o">sentenced</a> to 20 years in prison for his pro-democracy activism. A virtual death sentence for the nearly eighty-year-old Lai. Hong Kongers were promised a high degree of autonomy after the city&#8217;s handover to China.
The central government in Beijing has spent the time since the handover gradually erasing freedom in Hong Kong. Instead of taking his British passport and fleeing the city, Lai stayed and fought for Hong Kong, leading to his arrest in 2020. Like with Pastor Jin, Trump said on multiple occasions that he would try to secure Lai’s freedom. Should he succeed, this would not only be a moral victory, but it would also establish the United States’ status as the defender of global liberty.
It may feel like ancient history at this point, but we are just over a year into Trump’s Liberation Day trade war — the next topic sure to be discussed. China was targeted more than any other nation, with tariff rates <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/china/us-president-trumps-renewed-trade-war-with-china-2026-05-06/">exceeding</a> 100% at one point. Despite the tariffs, China remains one of the U.S.’s largest trading partners. With the economy straining due to the war in Iran, Trump is feeling pressure to score an economic victory.
Despite this, Trump should not sign a trade deal with China that does not benefit the U.S. For one thing, China has a history of failing to honor international agreements. Aside from the aforementioned Joint Declaration, China <a href="https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economics/2022/china-bought-none-extra-200-billion-us-exports-trumps-trade-deal">failed</a> to fulfill commitments it made under the trade deal signed during the first Trump administration. With that in mind, Trump would be wise to take any promises from Beijing with a grain of salt.
Trump needs to remember on his trip that China isn’t a prospective partner; they are a geopolitical threat. For starters, China continues threatening the source of <a href="https://www.npr.org/2025/12/01/nx-s1-5620992/tsmc-chipmaker-expands-beyond-taiwan">90% of the world’s advanced computer chips</a>: Taiwan. If China conquers Taiwan, they gain a stranglehold on critical tech and leverage over a global economy dependent on advanced chips.
China’s saber-rattling isn’t limited to Taiwan; they are also threatening neighbors like Japan and the Philippines. China illegitimately asserts sovereignty over territory that is well within the exclusive economic zones of its neighbors. To get around this, China is building islands to claim territory in the South China Sea as its own. Xi wants Trump to abandon America’s allies in Tokyo and Manila. Trump can’t let them.
The danger from China isn’t limited to what goes on outside the U.S.; the threat is already within our borders. Counterintelligence operations focus heavily on Chinese operatives, with dozens of arrests being made against Chinese nationals for spying. Moreover, China is one of the largest purveyors of <a href="https://www.wsj.com/opinion/china-is-attacking-citizens-on-american-soil-84cd6ee0">transnational repression</a> (TNP), whereby China harasses or suppresses dissidents living abroad. To protect the freedom of its citizens, Trump made clear to Xi that this is unacceptable.
These are weighty issues the Trump administration has to address. Any of these issues may be enough for China to balk at any trade negotiations. The president should not let this risk intimidate him. For one thing, they are too important to sacrifice for the sake of a trade deal. Second, the U.S. doesn’t need to sacrifice its values to appease China. Despite China’s growth, the United States remains the world’s largest economy and doesn’t need to sacrifice core interests to appease China.
President Trump has a full plate with the war in Iran causing economic and political pain. His trip to Beijing may be a tempting opportunity to score a win on the foreign policy front. If the president wants his trip to be successful, he needs to keep human rights and national security in mind.
***
<a href="https://www.joinyv.org/talent/matthew-cookson">Matt Cookson</a> is an alumnus of the Young Voices Contributor Program and was a Middle East History and Policy Fellow with Young Voices. He also works in the supply chain for a U.S. Defense Contractor. His commentary has appeared in the Mises Institute, Real Clear Politics, the National Interest, Providence Magazine, China Source, and the Idaho Freedom Foundation. You can follow him on X @<a href="https://x.com/MattCookson95">MattCookson95</a> and Substack @<a href="https://substack.com/@thewaythecookiecrumbles?utm_source=user-menu">thewaythecookiecrumbles</a>.

TOPSHOT-SKOREA-US-CHINA-DIPLOMACY

Trump’s Non-Negotiables For ‘Art Of The Deal’ China Trip

Xi Jinping

Iran keeps finding out the hard way that President Donald Trump’s foreign policy playbook does not leave a lot of room for stalling, bluffing, or endless empty negotiations.
As the regime weighs whether to respond to Trump’s latest nuclear proposal, officials and defense experts are openly warning what comes next if Tehran tries to drag this out too long: more crushing economic pressure, expanded military strikes, and a systematic dismantling of Iran’s ability to threaten the region.
Speaking Saturday morning to reporters, our commander-in-chief said he expects to hear from Iran “very soon” regarding the latest United States peace proposal and suggested Tehran still “very much” wants to reach a lasting agreement.
The president sounded cautiously optimistic but also made clear he is watching closely to see whether Iran is serious or simply trying to buy time, a tactic the regime has used throughout Operation Epic Fury.
“We&#8217;re getting a letter [from Iran] supposedly tonight, so we&#8217;ll see how that goes,” Trump told reporters Friday evening from his golf club in Virginia.
When asked whether Iran could be intentionally dragging out negotiations, Trump responded bluntly: “I don&#8217;t know. We&#8217;ll find out soon enough.”
That uncertainty is exactly why the situation still feels like it could explode at any moment.
Behind the scenes, negotiators are reportedly trying to piece together a preliminary framework tied to Iran’s nuclear program and possible sanctions relief. But former military officials say neither side actually trusts the other.
Meanwhile, the pressure campaign on Tehran has not exactly disappeared.
Just days after Iran launched missiles toward the UAE’s Fujairah Port, United States forces struck Iran’s Qeshm port and Bandar Abbas near the Strait of Hormuz.
Officials insist the operation did not officially restart the war or end the ceasefire, but it sent a very clear message that America is still holding the bigger stick.
And according to defense experts, Trump is intentionally keeping Iran guessing about how far he is willing to go.
If negotiations collapse, experts say the U.S. would likely begin by targeting the systems Iran relies on to intimidate the Middle East and threaten global shipping lanes.
That includes ballistic missiles, Revolutionary Guard infrastructure, command centers, naval attack boats, and air defense systems.
One major target would almost certainly be Iran’s fast attack boat fleet in the Strait of Hormuz, which Tehran has long used to harass oil tankers and pressure the global economy.
At the same time, Trump appears to be tightening the economic screws even further.
Some experts say a maritime blockade alone could slowly suffocate Iran’s oil exports and leave the regime economically cornered within months.
Others warn that if Iran refuses to deal, the next phase could become much more painful.
Trump has already warned Iran that America could target key energy infrastructure and export hubs if Tehran continues pushing toward a nuclear weapon.
The contrast with previous administrations is hard to miss.
Instead of pallets of cash, endless appeasement, and weak red lines, Trump is signaling that Iran has two choices: negotiate seriously or watch America squeeze the regime even harder from every direction possible.

Trump_Pigeon

The Iran Letter Trump Is Waiting For Could Decide What Happens Next

Operation Epic Fury

Menu