INTERNATIONAL
Orchestrated military strikes in Iran suggest Trump is still focused on China in the main
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
WHEN the Trump administration, in concert with Israeli forces, launched multiple strikes on Iran’s 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’s real audience—and target—was neither Iran nor the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. It was Beijing.
AI Brief
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’s 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—America’s foremost competitor in trade, technology, and influence.
Military Strikes as Messaging, Not Escalation
The orchestration of U.S. and Israeli strikes—targeting fortified underground sites with precision bunker-busting bombs—served 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’s 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.
But why orchestrate these strikes if the end goal isn’t regime change or full-scale war? The answer lies in Trump’s effort to reshape strategic perceptions. The operation was not solely intended to degrade Iran’s nuclear program. It was a form of diplomatic choreography—meant to compel China to reevaluate its commitments and vulnerabilities in the region.
China as the Ultimate Audience
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.
Any attack on Iran reverberates through China’s broader regional strategy—particularly its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and growing presence in Gulf energy markets.
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?
This type of indirect pressure—targeting China’s allies rather than China itself—follows 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.
Trump’s Recalibration, Not Recklessness
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’s version of “recalibration”—a geopolitical poker game that involves raising the stakes without flipping the table.
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.
Iran as Pressure Point, Not Principal Threat
For all its regional significance, Iran is not the main strategic concern of U.S. long-term planners. It lacks China’s 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.
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—even unpredictably—across multiple theatres. The timing, precision, and coordination of these strikes matter less in their direct military impact and more in their geopolitical ripple effect.
China Watching Closely
Beijing’s 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.
Nevertheless, Chinese defence analysts will be scrutinizing the effectiveness of the MOPs. Originally developed for North Korea’s 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?
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—and compels China to invest in deeper deterrents.
A Strategic Triangle in Motion
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.
This triangle mirrors classic balance-of-power manoeuvring. Washington’s 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’s global risk appetite.
As the strikes fade from headlines, the real contest continues—in supply chains, semiconductor ecosystems, submarine cables, and satellite constellations. And in this long game, Trump’s message remains unambiguous: while the battlefield may be Iran, the strategic rivalry remains centred on China.
Phar Kim Beng is Professor of ASEAN Studies at the International Islamic University Malaysia and a former Head Teaching Fellow at Harvard University.
** The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the position of Astro AWANI.
Dapatkan berita terkini di sini
AI Brief
- The US strike on Iran wasn't just about Tehran - it was a calculated move to test Chinas response and demonstrate US resolve.
- Trump avoided full war, using precise strikes to unsettle adversaries while keeping his options openclassic disruption over destruction.
- Beijing condemned the attack but stayed cautious, using the incident to assess US capabilities and rethink its own vulnerabilities.
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’s 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—America’s foremost competitor in trade, technology, and influence.
Military Strikes as Messaging, Not Escalation
The orchestration of U.S. and Israeli strikes—targeting fortified underground sites with precision bunker-busting bombs—served 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’s 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.
But why orchestrate these strikes if the end goal isn’t regime change or full-scale war? The answer lies in Trump’s effort to reshape strategic perceptions. The operation was not solely intended to degrade Iran’s nuclear program. It was a form of diplomatic choreography—meant to compel China to reevaluate its commitments and vulnerabilities in the region.
China as the Ultimate Audience
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.
Any attack on Iran reverberates through China’s broader regional strategy—particularly its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and growing presence in Gulf energy markets.
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?
This type of indirect pressure—targeting China’s allies rather than China itself—follows 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.
Trump’s Recalibration, Not Recklessness
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’s version of “recalibration”—a geopolitical poker game that involves raising the stakes without flipping the table.
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.
Iran as Pressure Point, Not Principal Threat
For all its regional significance, Iran is not the main strategic concern of U.S. long-term planners. It lacks China’s 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.
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—even unpredictably—across multiple theatres. The timing, precision, and coordination of these strikes matter less in their direct military impact and more in their geopolitical ripple effect.
China Watching Closely
Beijing’s 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.
Nevertheless, Chinese defence analysts will be scrutinizing the effectiveness of the MOPs. Originally developed for North Korea’s 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?
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—and compels China to invest in deeper deterrents.
A Strategic Triangle in Motion
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.
This triangle mirrors classic balance-of-power manoeuvring. Washington’s 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’s global risk appetite.
As the strikes fade from headlines, the real contest continues—in supply chains, semiconductor ecosystems, submarine cables, and satellite constellations. And in this long game, Trump’s message remains unambiguous: while the battlefield may be Iran, the strategic rivalry remains centred on China.
Phar Kim Beng is Professor of ASEAN Studies at the International Islamic University Malaysia and a former Head Teaching Fellow at Harvard University.
** The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the position of Astro AWANI.