Donald Trump’s trip to China ended with the gap between the “American narrative” of this trip and the “strategic reality of China” never being so clear. The US President left Beijing while, contrary to his numerous claims, he not only failed to make tangible achievements in the vital cases of Iran and Taiwan, but also China’s official behavior and positions presented a clear picture of the world’s transition from a unilateralist to a multilateralist order. This trip can be judged not on the basis of joint statements, but on the basis of four axes of conflict: the nuclear case and the Strait of Hormuz, Taiwan, economic cooperation, and Trump’s domestic legitimacy crisis.
Publish dateSunday 17 May 2026 - 08:49
Story Code : 354919
Paper Tiger in the Forbidden City; Why Did Trump Leave Beijing Empty-Handed?
Seyyed Abbas Hosseini
1. Economic achievement or “rescue mission” for the domestic crisis of the US?
Trump traveled to Beijing with a delegation of 30 business leaders as the US economy grappled with the fallout from his belligerent policies against Iran and the ongoing energy supply chain crisis.
Analysts described the trip as a “psychological operation to contain a domestic crisis” rather than a trade mission.
Fake claims and an unconfirmed response:
Trump claimed that major deals had been signed, including the purchase of 200 Boeing aircraft and agricultural products. However, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesman explicitly refused to confirm these agreements, emphasizing only the leaders’ general “consensus.” This gap between Trump’s narrative and the Chinese’s approving silence showed that Beijing is in a privileged position as an actor that does not need to deliver economic concessions to gain political legitimacy.
Promise to lift sanctions; a green light under the shadow of necessity:
On his way back, Trump promised to “consider lifting sanctions on Chinese oil companies that buy Iranian oil.” This promise was not an initiative, but an implicit admission of the failure of maximum pressure and the urgent need of the US energy market for stability that could only be possible by respecting the economic relations between China and Iran.
2. The Iran File; China’s Strong Wall of “No” Against Trump’s Extravagance
The most important test of this trip was Trump’s attempt to drag China into the pressure camp on Iran; an attempt that met with complete failure and China, as an independent power, imposed its own red lines.
Opposition to the Strait of Hormuz Narrative:
Trump and Rubio claimed that China opposed the militarization of the Strait of Hormuz and demanded its reopening. However, the Chinese Foreign Ministry’s statement responded to this narrative by condemning the US and Israeli military aggression and calling the principle of war illegal. Beijing cleverly separated the “necessity of keeping the Strait open” from the “legitimacy of Iran’s defensive actions” and placed itself on the “right side of history.”
Nothing on paper:
Reports, including an Al Jazeera analysis, have stated that “there is nothing official on paper to suggest that Beijing is going to take action on Iran.” This means that China has refused to play the role of regional gendarme for the US. Beijing has proven that its engagement in the 25-year-old document with Iran goes beyond Washington’s occasional and tactical pressures.
Exploiting security, not crisis:
While advocating an immediate ceasefire and a diplomatic solution, China has effectively spoken from the position of a power interested in the security of the Persian Gulf; a power that ensures global energy stability, but in doing so has made Washington the main responsible for the insecurity.
3. Taiwan’s red alert; Trump’s fearful silence
In the Great Hall of the People talks, it was Xi Jinping, not Trump, who set the agenda for Taiwan. Xi’s blunt warning that “mishandling this issue will lead to military conflict” was not a threat that Trump could neutralize with a smile and a compliment.
“I’m not talking about this”:
Trump’s response to reporters about defending Taiwan in the event of a Chinese attack showed the weakest possible stance: forced strategic silence. By admitting that Xi Jinping had also asked the question, and that he had not answered, Trump effectively showed that Washington had lost its capacity for military and political maneuvering in the face of China’s first red line. This silence was a major defeat for the principle of “strategic ambiguity” in America and a victory for Beijing’s “resolute transparency.”
4. The reverse achievement; when Trump became the preacher of the “Chinese Renaissance”
The greatest achievement of this trip for China was not economic concessions, but the consolidation of the image of an equal power in the global media. Trump’s forced praise of Xi as a “great leader” in a situation where Beijing did not back down from its positions one iota, solidified the proposition that respect in the new world order is achieved not by surrender, but by “saying no” and standing firm.
Reflection of the multipolar order:
The coincidence of this trip with the announcement of the finalization of Putin’s visit to Beijing and China’s support for Iran at the BRICS and Shanghai summits effectively placed Washington under siege by an emerging power bloc. Trump went to Beijing to escape the isolation caused by the warmongering in West Asia and Ukraine, but China used the trip to demonstrate its leadership in the anti-unilateralist bloc.
Conclusion: Beijing; the winner without points
Trump’s trip to China should be called a “trip without achievements” for the White House. Trump was unable to convince Beijing to put pressure on Iran, nor did he achieve a new balance in Taiwan, nor did he even receive official recognition for his alleged economic achievements. In contrast, China showed that in the transitional world order, it is these independent actors, relying on their endogenous power, who set the agenda. Trump was forced to praise Beijing for managing the crises arising from his unilateralism, but returned empty-handed.
Trump traveled to Beijing with a delegation of 30 business leaders as the US economy grappled with the fallout from his belligerent policies against Iran and the ongoing energy supply chain crisis.
Analysts described the trip as a “psychological operation to contain a domestic crisis” rather than a trade mission.
Fake claims and an unconfirmed response:
Trump claimed that major deals had been signed, including the purchase of 200 Boeing aircraft and agricultural products. However, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesman explicitly refused to confirm these agreements, emphasizing only the leaders’ general “consensus.” This gap between Trump’s narrative and the Chinese’s approving silence showed that Beijing is in a privileged position as an actor that does not need to deliver economic concessions to gain political legitimacy.
Promise to lift sanctions; a green light under the shadow of necessity:
On his way back, Trump promised to “consider lifting sanctions on Chinese oil companies that buy Iranian oil.” This promise was not an initiative, but an implicit admission of the failure of maximum pressure and the urgent need of the US energy market for stability that could only be possible by respecting the economic relations between China and Iran.
2. The Iran File; China’s Strong Wall of “No” Against Trump’s Extravagance
The most important test of this trip was Trump’s attempt to drag China into the pressure camp on Iran; an attempt that met with complete failure and China, as an independent power, imposed its own red lines.
Opposition to the Strait of Hormuz Narrative:
Trump and Rubio claimed that China opposed the militarization of the Strait of Hormuz and demanded its reopening. However, the Chinese Foreign Ministry’s statement responded to this narrative by condemning the US and Israeli military aggression and calling the principle of war illegal. Beijing cleverly separated the “necessity of keeping the Strait open” from the “legitimacy of Iran’s defensive actions” and placed itself on the “right side of history.”
Nothing on paper:
Reports, including an Al Jazeera analysis, have stated that “there is nothing official on paper to suggest that Beijing is going to take action on Iran.” This means that China has refused to play the role of regional gendarme for the US. Beijing has proven that its engagement in the 25-year-old document with Iran goes beyond Washington’s occasional and tactical pressures.
Exploiting security, not crisis:
While advocating an immediate ceasefire and a diplomatic solution, China has effectively spoken from the position of a power interested in the security of the Persian Gulf; a power that ensures global energy stability, but in doing so has made Washington the main responsible for the insecurity.
3. Taiwan’s red alert; Trump’s fearful silence
In the Great Hall of the People talks, it was Xi Jinping, not Trump, who set the agenda for Taiwan. Xi’s blunt warning that “mishandling this issue will lead to military conflict” was not a threat that Trump could neutralize with a smile and a compliment.
“I’m not talking about this”:
Trump’s response to reporters about defending Taiwan in the event of a Chinese attack showed the weakest possible stance: forced strategic silence. By admitting that Xi Jinping had also asked the question, and that he had not answered, Trump effectively showed that Washington had lost its capacity for military and political maneuvering in the face of China’s first red line. This silence was a major defeat for the principle of “strategic ambiguity” in America and a victory for Beijing’s “resolute transparency.”
4. The reverse achievement; when Trump became the preacher of the “Chinese Renaissance”
The greatest achievement of this trip for China was not economic concessions, but the consolidation of the image of an equal power in the global media. Trump’s forced praise of Xi as a “great leader” in a situation where Beijing did not back down from its positions one iota, solidified the proposition that respect in the new world order is achieved not by surrender, but by “saying no” and standing firm.
Reflection of the multipolar order:
The coincidence of this trip with the announcement of the finalization of Putin’s visit to Beijing and China’s support for Iran at the BRICS and Shanghai summits effectively placed Washington under siege by an emerging power bloc. Trump went to Beijing to escape the isolation caused by the warmongering in West Asia and Ukraine, but China used the trip to demonstrate its leadership in the anti-unilateralist bloc.
Conclusion: Beijing; the winner without points
Trump’s trip to China should be called a “trip without achievements” for the White House. Trump was unable to convince Beijing to put pressure on Iran, nor did he achieve a new balance in Taiwan, nor did he even receive official recognition for his alleged economic achievements. In contrast, China showed that in the transitional world order, it is these independent actors, relying on their endogenous power, who set the agenda. Trump was forced to praise Beijing for managing the crises arising from his unilateralism, but returned empty-handed.
avapress.net/vdca6yneo49nmo1.tgk4.html
Top hits
