Beyond the Lines | China plays the long game as America gets its hands dirtied in Iran

Amidst a world swamped with unending drama around obscure trade disputes, performative global forums with fuzzy deliverables on wars, climate, finance, AI and trade, there is something plausibly thrilling and delectably assured in the old-school norm of leader summits. They often end up being more consequential than all other multilateral soirees put together. However loathsome or likeable the exponents of the deal may be, they are known to produce optics that can lay the ground for outcomes to follow.

The recent summit between Donald Trump and Xi Jinping shaped a few outcomes. One, the power balance appeared to have shifted away from Washington DC towards a cleverer Beijing. Each year, Xi has signalled with less restraint and increased conviction the desire to annex Taiwan to mainland China. The second outcome, by association, is an increased prospect of exposing Taiwan to a rampaging China in the near future, with the latter using the rationale that America has typically invoked to arm-twist its opponents. Much less discussed is the fact that a vulnerable Taiwan increases risks for Southeast Asia and South Asia. Three, the less publicised outcome is the possible influence China would have in determining an exit for Trump from the Iran imbroglio.

More from Opinion

First, let’s look at how this meeting heralded China’s continuing ascension as an equal to the US in the global superpower stakes. It is no surprise that the Chinese waited for Donald Trump to walk into the summit with a predictable bag of deals, only to end up walking out of Beijing without his characteristic braggadocio and with a weakened ambition to decimate Iran than earlier. Trump repeatedly praised Xi as a “great leader” and a friend, appearing humbled by what he witnessed in China. For Beijing, though, the meeting indicated success in terms of its elevation as a global power. The optics from the summit quietly but surely shifted in favour of the Asian power.

Summits between leaders have often led to the odd twist and the occasional turn of history. In September 1938, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain returned from Munich after a meeting with Hitler and boasted it was about “peace for our time”. The twist in the tale was that the meeting was a harbinger of the bloodiest war of the century. Chamberlain handed over the Czechs to Hitler. After the meeting, the optics shifted in favour of Hitler.

Closer home, in 1987, daunted by the audacious portents of India’s Exercise Brasstacks that threatened Pakistan’s Sindh province, President Zia-ul-Haq swiftly flew to India and successfully brokered peace with his counterpart in India, Rajiv Gandhi. Two armies on the brink of war were pulled back to their barracks. Meetings between leaders haven’t always paved the way for war or peace. On the rare occasion, a victory in war oddly ended up being traded for a loss at leadership summits. Indira Gandhi and Zulfiqar Bhutto sat across from each other in Shimla to finalise an agreement, weighing heavily in India’s favour following their resounding victory in the war before that. Surprisingly, Pakistan carried home the spoils of a deal in which the victors of the war were dealt a lemon.

Returning to the Chinese approach to summits, signalling is a key to formulating strategy. Each move is considered and created with a thought that subscribes to the larger purpose. Xi’s purpose here was to establish the optics of “constructive strategic stability”, which thus formed the leitmotif of the summit. Donald Trump had embarked on his brazenly familiar tactic of bullying China to end with trade gains, plane sales and a boast that crowned Trump with yet another self-styled victory. What followed was entirely different as the Chinese ensured that Xi dominated the optics of the interaction with Trump. Trump was given some trade concessions, thus taking the dealmaker out of the deal.

On the other hand, Xi had gone in with a strategic goal: establish his domination of the exchanges with Trump. Xi was to end up as the bigger leader of the two, which he achieved, while Trump appeared transactional, unsure and quieter — a rare sight. The Chinese had prepared for Trump and changed the rules from transactions to strategic signalling. Trump believed that deals on critical minerals, trade and tariffs would form the core of the meeting, but Xi changed the rules of the game, referring to the pitfalls of the Thucydides trap instead, indicating that a global power transition was in process. China had managed to land its message as an equal partner to the United States. A White House factsheet mentioned how the two leaders “agreed that the United States and China should build a constructive relationship of strategic stability…”

In South Korea last year, Trump described the US and China as part of the G2, indicating how he treated Xi differently from most other leaders in the world, whom he either denigrated or ignored. At Beijing in 2026, when he told the media, “It’s two great countries, I call it the G2,” he sounded like someone who was playing catch-up. By 2026, Xi Jinping had laid claim to lead the G2.

While the world watched agape at the possibility of the talks easing tensions in West Asia, China was playing the long game. China declared on a bilateral stage that the most important issue in US-China relations was the issue of Taiwan. The worrying part was that Trump didn’t offer commitments on Taiwan and instead made a lame remark on the issue, saying, “I don’t talk about that.” By referring to Taiwan, China had bet on a future, thus reverse-engineering a leverage on Trump’s plans on Iran.

What does this hold for some of the pressing questions?

Taiwan

The summit left the future of Taiwan in a shroud of uncertainty, which can only grow as the US becomes involved in pursuits suited to Trump’s ego rather than the strategic algorithm. Trump seemed to have implicitly yielded to Xi’s assertion regarding Taiwan being a part of China’s future universe. Trump indicated he might speak with Taiwan President Lai Ching-te before making a decision on a $14 billion arms package for the island nation. He also mentioned that he had discussed this arms sale with Xi, which makes it confounding. This turns bizarre in the light of the US not mentioning Taiwan in its readout despite Xi’s undisguised plans to expand across the neighbouring strait. The meeting leaves China in a stronger position than before on this issue, as the US is entangled in Iran and the Middle East with little to show for it.

The fallout of uncertainty on Taiwan is an increased vulnerability around Southeast Asia, where China has been in dispute with states over boundaries and waters. Countries such as the Philippines and Japan are watching closely and would be concerned about the future of their disputes in the event of the US recoiling from the region under an unpredictable leadership. India has stepped in to sign BrahMos deals with Vietnam and Indonesia as a measure of strengthening ties with Southeast Asia.

Iran

The Iran war has not witnessed definite outcomes, which is unsurprising, taking into account Trump’s fickle personality. However, given China’s leverage over Iran, Trump might use the opportunity to explore an honourable exit. Trump’s exit from the war can involve China and Russia’s role in segregating enriched uranium, centrifuges and assuaging energy markets. Washington’s path to peace in Tehran lies through the roads of Beijing. Xi’s meeting with Putin, immediately after Trump’s visit to China, points to such a possibility. Trump’s subsequent stand on Iran, after his Beijing visit, has been to keep the Iran issue on tenterhooks without setting it on fire, perhaps juggling options for the right deal to exit.

A temporary truce in the Middle East war might mean that the US no longer returns to reopening a full-fledged, high-intensity attack campaign in Iran, but strangles Iran through the occasional threat. For Trump, an extended engagement in Iran is a lose-lose scenario. Regime change in Tehran is unlikely and the US is not prepared to put boots on the ground, knowing it would be disastrous. Besides, the irony would not be lost if Trump were impeached.

The longer the US entangles itself in Iran, the less chance Taiwan has to avoid a Chinese campaign to acquire it. It is in America’s interest not to play the role of a catalyst in legitimising Chinese expansionist ambitions. Therefore, Trump arriving at a limited deal with Iran soon is a possible silent outcome of the Beijing meeting between Xi and Trump.

Russia

The Chinese hosted Russian President Vladimir Putin immediately after Trump returned to the US. As every time, the optics and declaration were clear: China’s partnership with the US would not come at the expense of Russia. The China-Russia front was projected as a solid, stronger axis compared to a waning, friendless American influence.

It is interesting to note that Xi chose to meet two powerful leaders in back-to-back meetings. While Trump has overextended his hand in Iran and Putin’s war sees no end, Xi’s hosting of the two belligerents showcases the emergence of a stable global power. Trump’s mindless mayhem has landed him in a quagmire that China chooses to exploit. The fate of the ongoing wars may be decided on the battlefields as much as the fate of peace, and that of the world is decided behind closed doors, such as the one in Beijing.

(The writer is the author of ‘General Brasstacks: The Sundarji Story’, ‘Watershed 1967: India’s Forgotten Victory over China’ and ‘Camouflaged: Forgotten Stories From Battlefields’. His column for Firstpost — ‘Beyond the Lines’ — covers military history, strategic issues, international affairs and policy-business challenges. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views. Tweets @iProbal)