{"id":3970,"date":"2025-06-24T15:54:16","date_gmt":"2025-06-24T07:54:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/crossthinktank.com\/?p=3970"},"modified":"2026-01-07T16:12:38","modified_gmt":"2026-01-07T08:12:38","slug":"orchestrated-military-strikes-in-iran-suggest-trump-is-still-focused-on-china-in-the-main","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/crossthinktank.com\/zh-hans\/orchestrated-military-strikes-in-iran-suggest-trump-is-still-focused-on-china-in-the-main\/","title":{"rendered":"Orchestrated military strikes in Iran suggest Trump is still focused on China in the main"},"content":{"rendered":"

US President Donald Trump’s Iran strikes were a signal to China not Tehran showing the US can act boldly in contested regions without full-scale war. – REUTERS<\/em><\/p>\n

By Professor Dr. Phar Kim Beng, Professor of ASEAN Studies at IINTAS-IIUM and <\/em>Expert Committee Member of CROSS<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

WHEN the Trump administration, in concert with Israeli forces, launched multiple strikes on Iran\u2019s nuclear facilities in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan in June 2025, the world braced for war. Yet almost in tandem, Iran proceeded with highly publicized retaliatory measures that appeared more symbolic than strategically escalatory. While most analysts were focused on the intensifying confrontation between Washington and Tehran, a deeper geopolitical calculus reveals that Trump\u2019s real audience\u2014and target\u2014was neither Iran nor the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. It was Beijing.<\/p>\n

Strategic theatre matters. From the Strait of Hormuz to the Persian Gulf, every display of firepower is rarely about the immediate battlefield. The orchestrated military strikes by the U.S. and Israel, and Iran\u2019s choreographed retaliations, were both acts of signalling. Tehran needed to demonstrate resilience. Washington, under Trump, sought to project technological dominance. But the clearest message was directed at China\u2014America\u2019s foremost competitor in trade, technology, and influence.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
\n

Military Strikes as Messaging, Not Escalation<\/strong><\/p>\n

The orchestration of U.S. and Israeli strikes\u2014targeting fortified underground sites with precision bunker-busting bombs\u2014served a symbolic rather than tactical purpose. While the U.S. reportedly used the GBU-57A\/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), the results remain opaque. Iran\u2019s nuclear infrastructure, believed to be dispersed and deeply buried, might have sustained limited damage. Yet, the very act of striking sent a calculated message: the U.S. retains the capacity to act unilaterally and swiftly in the Middle East.<\/p>\n

But why orchestrate these strikes if the end goal isn\u2019t regime change or full-scale war? The answer lies in Trump\u2019s effort to reshape strategic perceptions. The operation was not solely intended to degrade Iran\u2019s nuclear program. It was a form of diplomatic choreography\u2014meant to compel China to reevaluate its commitments and vulnerabilities in the region.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

China as the Ultimate Audience<\/strong><\/p>\n

What Trump understands, perhaps more deeply than many of his critics, is that every regional flashpoint is also a reflection of global power rivalry. Iran is not isolated; it is a strategic partner of China, with deep ties in energy, infrastructure, and technology.<\/p>\n

Any attack on Iran reverberates through China\u2019s broader regional strategy\u2014particularly its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and growing presence in Gulf energy markets.<\/p>\n

More importantly, the strikes functioned as a strategic probe. How would Beijing respond when Washington disrupts the regional status quo? Would it double down on its support for Tehran? Or would it exercise caution and recalibrate its diplomacy?<\/p>\n

This type of indirect pressure\u2014targeting China\u2019s allies rather than China itself\u2014follows a Cold War-style playbook: escalate in proxy territories to test great power resolve. In 2025, Tehran has become a testing ground for the U.S.-China equation.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Trump\u2019s Recalibration, Not Recklessness<\/strong><\/p>\n

Despite the bombings, Trump has not signalled a desire to be drawn into another prolonged Middle East war. The strikes, while lethal and technologically sophisticated, were limited in scope. There was no accompanying ground operation, no regional mobilization, and no diplomatic ultimatum for regime change. This is Trump\u2019s version of \u201crecalibration\u201d\u2014a geopolitical poker game that involves raising the stakes without flipping the table.<\/p>\n

It is consistent with his earlier strategies: dramatic moves to unsettle adversaries while maintaining plausible deniability. Recall the 2020 killing of Qassem Soleimani or the tariff war against China. Trump prefers disruption over destruction, optics over occupation, and strategic ambiguity over clear commitments.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Iran as Pressure Point, Not Principal Threat<\/strong><\/p>\n

For all its regional significance, Iran is not the main strategic concern of U.S. long-term planners. It lacks China\u2019s technological capability, industrial capacity, or demographic weight. Its main leverage lies in asymmetric warfare and oil supply routes, not in competing with the U.S. in AI, quantum computing, or global standards setting.<\/p>\n

Hence, the strikes on Iran serve a larger function: to send China a signal that the U.S. retains initiative and is willing to act\u2014even unpredictably\u2014across multiple theatres. The timing, precision, and coordination of these strikes matter less in their direct military impact and more in their geopolitical ripple effect.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

China Watching Closely<\/strong><\/p>\n

Beijing\u2019s response to the attacks was carefully measured. It condemned the aggression and called for de-escalation but stopped short of overtly aligning with Tehran militarily. This strategic ambiguity reflects China’s preference for stability over confrontation, especially in a region critical to its energy security.<\/p>\n

Nevertheless, Chinese defence analysts will be scrutinizing the effectiveness of the MOPs. Originally developed for North Korea\u2019s mountainous terrain, these bunker busters are being used on Iranian facilities embedded in fundamentally different geological environments. Were they effective? Did they fully neutralize any enrichment capability? Or did they merely create craters for satellite optics?<\/p>\n

If the weapons underperformed, Beijing would reassess its own vulnerabilities and prepare accordingly. If they succeeded, it sends a chilling signal about the reach of U.S. pre-emptive capabilities\u2014and compels China to invest in deeper deterrents.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A Strategic Triangle in Motion<\/strong><\/p>\n

In essence, the orchestrated military strikes in Iran are part of a triangular power dynamic: the U.S. pressures Iran to influence China; Iran retaliates to assert sovereignty and maintain face; China observes, calculates, and prepares.<\/p>\n

This triangle mirrors classic balance-of-power manoeuvring. Washington\u2019s goal is not necessarily to provoke Tehran into war but to force China to reveal its strategic posture under duress. The Iran front thus becomes an indirect barometer for Beijing\u2019s global risk appetite.<\/p>\n

As the strikes fade from headlines, the real contest continues\u2014in supply chains, semiconductor ecosystems, submarine cables, and satellite constellations. And in this long game, Trump\u2019s message remains unambiguous: while the battlefield may be Iran, the strategic rivalry remains centred on China.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

The article was published in Astro AWANI on 24 June 2025<\/em><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

US President Donald Trump’s Iran strikes were a s […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":39,"featured_media":3968,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[26,27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3970","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category--zh-hans"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/crossthinktank.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3970","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/crossthinktank.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/crossthinktank.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/crossthinktank.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/39"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/crossthinktank.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3970"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/crossthinktank.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3970\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4000,"href":"https:\/\/crossthinktank.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3970\/revisions\/4000"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/crossthinktank.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3968"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/crossthinktank.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3970"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/crossthinktank.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3970"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/crossthinktank.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3970"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}