Beyond the Ideological

China is Scrambling

The Overnight Pivot

Zineb Riboua

Mar 04, 2026

This piece was originally published in National Review

I have added edits given today’s developments.

The men in Zhongnanhai do not rattle easily. Decades of patient statecraft, a foreign policy built on studied ambiguity, and an economy engineered to absorb external shocks have granted Beijing’s leadership a remarkable tolerance for turbulence. Operation Epic Fury, the American-Israeli air campaign now dismantling Iran’s military architecture, has produced something unusual in the corridors of Chinese power: visible confusion.

Xi Jinping is scrambling. The word is not used lightly. For a leader who has built his image on strategic composure and long-horizon thinking, the current moment is acutely dangerous. Not because China faces a direct military threat, but because every available response to the crisis in the Persian Gulf leads Beijing into a trap of its own contradictions.

Three Reasons Operation Epic Fury Is Catastrophic for Xi

First, the Iranian counterweight is gone. In 2021, Xi told senior Party officials that “the East is rising and the West is declining,” that America was “the biggest source of chaos in the present-day world,” and that China was entering a period of strategic opportunity. Iran was central to that thesis. Beijing needed a defiant Tehran to keep Washington pinned down in the Gulf, to sustain a sanctions-proof energy corridor, and above all, to stand as living evidence that American power had hard limits. The entire architecture of CCP’s dogma of inevitability, which rested on Iran’s ability to endure, and Epic Fury removed the foundation in a single afternoon.

Khamenei was the man who made the thesis feel real. Beijing’s relationship with the Islamic Republic was never really ideological, but Khamenei’s survival was the single most useful fact in Chinese foreign policy. Here was a man Washington had threatened, sanctioned, plotted against, and encircled for over four decades, and he was still giving Friday sermons. Xi personally signed the comprehensive strategic partnership with Khamenei’s government. He personally authorized the weapons transfers. And he personally wielded the Security Council veto. None of it kept Khamenei alive for one additional hour once Washington decided he was finished.

Second, Xi’s own story is collapsing from the inside. The story he told 1.4 billion people, that America is a declining power incapable of decisive force projection, does not match what happened in seventy-two hours over Tehran. State media can suppress the footage and the censors can scrub Weibo, but the ones who matter most, the military planners, the foreign policy professionals, the provincial officials who read between the lines for a living, know what they saw. And if the story is wrong about Iran, the unavoidable next question is whether it was ever right about anything else.

Third, the energy math turns against Beijing. China bought 1.38 million barrels per day of Iranian oil last year and takes over 80% of everything Iran ships. Half of China’s total oil imports pass through the Strait of Hormuz. With Ayatollah Khamenei now dead and Iran’s military leadership weakened, the Gulf’s strategic balance shifts decisively toward Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, whose energy ties with the United States are strengthening. China’s old selling point was very simple and transactional: we buy your oil and never mention human rights. That pitch loses its utility when Gulf producers already feel protected by an American security guarantee that just proved, on live television, that it works.

The Messaging Trap

Xi’s communications problem may be worse than his strategic one, because there is no good answer. If Beijing endorses the strikes, it loses the “Global South.” If Beijing condemns the strikes, it attaches Chinese prestige to a dead man’s regime, and risks provoking a Trump administration that has just demonstrated, through the act itself, that it does not bluff.

So Beijing chose the remaining option: hide behind the United Nations. Mao Ning called the killing “a grave violation of sovereignty.” The language sounds forceful, but the Belt and Road countries are watching, and what they see so far is a confused superpower reading from a script while American carriers do the actual deciding.

Every Iranian Move Is a Chinese Loss

The truly vicious part of Beijing’s situation is that Iran’s entire playbook for retaliation was designed to punish Washington, but the geography and economics of each weapon mean the damage lands on China instead. Iranian missiles aimed at Gulf states threaten the very oil infrastructure and port facilities that Chinese companies have spent billions investing in across the region.

The Strait of Hormuz is worse. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard announced within hours that no ship would pass through the channel, a threat designed as leverage against the West, except that the United States has a shale industry and a crisis-proof strategic petroleum reserve. In fact, according to Kayrros, as of March 31, 2025, China had only filled 56% percent of its above-ground strategic and commercial storage facilities.

Which means that nearly 45% of China’s own oil imports now sit/would sit hostage to a blockade that was never meant to hurt Beijing. The Houthis have resumed attacks on Red Sea shipping, every flare-up in Iraq threatens oil concessions that Chinese companies spent billions building, and the sum of Iran’s resistance amounts to a systematic disruption of Chinese commercial interests across every waterway and energy corridor Beijing depends on, executed in Khamenei’s name, with no regard for who actually pays the price.

Counting Moves

The clearest sign of Beijing’s disorientation is the absence of action: no emergency summits, no diplomatic maneuvers, no military repositioning, even as a Chinese citizen was killed in crossfire in Tehran and over 300 nationals were evacuated. The sum total of Beijing’s response to the largest American military operation in a generation remains a press conference.

Xi bet a decade of foreign policy on Khamenei’s ability to withstand American pressure, and the bet did not pay off. Operation Epic Fury was designed to break the Islamic Republic, but it may also have exposed the uncomfortable truth that Chinese influence in the Middle East was only as durable as the assumption that no one would ever call it into question, and in Zhongnanhai, they know it.

Khamenei now dead and Iran’s military leadership weakened, the Gulf’s strategic balance shifts decisively toward Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, whose energy ties with the United States are strengthening. China’s old selling point was very simple and transactional: we buy your oil and never mention human rights. That pitch loses its utility when Gulf producers already feel protected by an American security guarantee that just proved, on live television, that it works.

The Messaging Trap

Xi’s communications problem may be worse than his strategic one, because there is no good answer. If Beijing endorses the strikes, it loses the “Global South.” If Beijing condemns the strikes, it attaches Chinese prestige to a dead man’s regime, and risks provoking a Trump administration that has just demonstrated, through the act itself, that it does not bluff.

So Beijing chose the remaining option: hide behind the United Nations. Mao Ning called the killing “a grave violation of sovereignty.” The language sounds forceful, but the Belt and Road countries are watching, and what they see so far is a confused superpower reading from a script while American carriers do the actual deciding.

Every Iranian Move Is a Chinese Loss

The truly vicious part of Beijing’s situation is that Iran’s entire playbook for retaliation was designed to punish Washington, but the geography and economics of each weapon mean the damage lands on China instead. Iranian missiles aimed at Gulf states threaten the very oil infrastructure and port facilities that Chinese companies have spent billions investing in across the region.

The Strait of Hormuz is worse. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard announced within hours that no ship would pass through the channel, a threat designed as leverage against the West, except that the United States has a shale industry and a crisis-proof strategic petroleum reserve. In fact, according to Kayrros, as of March 31, 2025, China had only filled 56% percent of its above-ground strategic and commercial storage facilities.

Which means that nearly 45% of China’s own oil imports now sit/would sit hostage to a blockade that was never meant to hurt Beijing. The Houthis have resumed attacks on Red Sea shipping, every flare-up in Iraq threatens oil concessions that Chinese companies spent billions building, and the sum of Iran’s resistance amounts to a systematic disruption of Chinese commercial interests across every waterway and energy corridor Beijing depends on, executed in Khamenei’s name, with no regard for who actually pays the price.

Counting Moves

The clearest sign of Beijing’s disorientation is the absence of action: no emergency summits, no diplomatic maneuvers, no military repositioning, even as a Chinese citizen was killed in crossfire in Tehran and over 300 nationals were evacuated. The sum total of Beijing’s response to the largest American military operation in a generation remains a press conference.

Xi bet a decade of foreign policy on Khamenei’s ability to withstand American pressure, and the bet did not pay off. Operation Epic Fury was designed to break the Islamic Republic, but it may also have exposed the uncomfortable truth that Chinese influence in the Middle East was only as durable as the assumption that no one would ever call it into question, and in Zhongnanhai, they know it.

Democrats and RINOs suddenly shriek that Iranian terrorist cells in the U.S. are going to rise up against us.

So let me get this straight: Muslim terrorists will START to become violent only now, due to Trump. Seriously, leftist media?

“This constant lying is not aimed at making the people believe a lie, but at ensuring that no one believes anything anymore. A people that can no longer distinguish between truth and lies cannot distinguish between right and wrong,” according to a quote usually attributed to Hannah Arendt.

As for Donald Trump, he’s a lone wolf in politics. For decades, nearly all Republicans and even many Democrats said we had to do something about Iran. The few given a chance never did a thing. Now Donald Trump as President has done it.

Ayn Rand’s quote comes to mind about Donald Trump:

“Notice how they’ll accept anything except a man who stands alone. They recognize him at once. . . . There’s a special, insidious kind of hatred for him.”

Rand was mostly referring to the creator, the innovator, or the risk-taker required by capitalism. Donald Trump is that in the business world, but he also achieved that in the world of politics. It hasn’t been done before; and probably won’t be done again, at least not for a very, very long time.

THIS is why they despise him.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Our job wasn’t to replace the Iranian regime. Our job wasn’t to give the Iranians “democracy” or a Constitutional republic. Our job was just to destroy the Iranian regime, because it was the # 1 sponsor of world terrorism for 50 years (primarily against America) and it was in our interest to do so. The rest is up to the Iranians. If they create a new terrorist regime, then we will have to destroy that one too, most likely.

People critical of Trump’s actions are caught in a false alternative. Either we fix Iran, or do nothing to defend ourselves. No to BOTH! We cannot fix Iran. Only the Iranians can pull that off. Look how well trying to fix Iraq and Afghanistan worked out. But we must defend ourselves. It’s plausible to assert that 9/11 and so many other things would not have happened without Iran’s direct or indirect help. Sooner or later, thanks to billions in aid to Iran provided by Obama and Biden, Iran would have acquired nuclear weapons and used them offensively, first against Israel and eventually against American troops and cities. Why Obama, Biden and other treasonous Democrats still walk free after giving a mortal enemy the means to incinerate us all is beyond comprehension.

YES (a thousand times YES!) to Trump’s intervention against Iran. Trump is an American hero. NO to any hint that we owe anyone else anything. The world owes US for getting rid of the Iranian regime. Well, the world owes those of us who voted for President Trump, at least.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Capitalism is the social system of the Enlightenment, founded on a philosophy based on reason, egoism, and freedom. Central to a proper concept of capitalism is reverence for the power of reason and the human mind. It is this power that allows us to harness the power of the atom for energy, build planes and rocketships to travel the skies and stars, and innovate technology to increase the quantity and improve the quality of our lives.

Luxembourg just wrote abortion into its constitution.

On March 3, Luxembourg’s Chamber of Deputies voted to add the “freedom” to have an abortion to the country’s highest law. The initiative began when MP Marc Baum of déi Lénk introduced the proposal in 2024, then pushed it through the legislative pipeline in 2025, including review by the State Council.

Along the way, lawmakers contorted themselves into knots and deliberately shifted the text from a claimed “right” to a “freedom,” a rhetorical dodge that changes the label while keeping the same moral claim: the state should publicly bless the deliberate destruction of unborn children.

Tragic.

And here’s the thing, even supporters of this constitutional alteration admit the truth that exposes the whole project: this constitutional change does not alter Luxembourg’s abortion statute. Abortion is already available “upon request” in Luxembourg up to the end of the first trimester. The government’s own health portal states plainly that a pregnant woman can request an abortion before the end of the 12th week of pregnancy.

So why do it? Because symbolism and faux hysteria now drive abortion politics in Europe.

France constitutionalized abortion in 2024, with leaders openly framing the move as a “safeguard” against a potential rollback like the one that followed the U.S. Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade in 2022. Luxembourg’s advocates explicitly cast this vote in the same mold, presenting it as a long-term shield against future democratic change.

That is exactly why this change is so dangerous and so unnecessary.

Luxembourg does not, and has not, faced an imminent pro-life “ban.” Even Luxembourg’s Catholic Church, while opposing the amendment with moral clarity, noted a basic political fact: “In Luxembourg, no political party has made it their mission to weaken or even abolish the current abortion legislation.” The same statement points out that the proposed constitutional move did not even appear in the coalition agreement or the governing parties’ election programs.

That matters because constitutions exist to protect core rights rooted in justice, not to freeze contested moral wrongs into place out of political anxiety.

This amendment did not arise from a legal emergency in Luxembourg. It arose from ideological imitation. France did it, so Luxembourg followed. And France did it largely to send a message after Dobbs.

Luxembourg’s leaders have now imported a French political gesture and called it “progress.”

Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich, Archbishop of Luxembourg, warned last year that constitutionalizing abortion would mark “a sad day in Luxembourg’s history.” He argued that since abortion is already legal, locking it into the Constitution amounts to “imposing” one view on the whole population. He warned that such a move could give liberal democracy “features of a totalitarian system” by forcing a view on citizens who dissent.

He also cautioned that this kind of political coercion can “drive people to extremism,” not because truth drives extremism, but because elites sometimes create backlash when they treat moral dissent as illegitimate.

You do not need to agree with every phrase to grasp his central point: once a nation constitutionalizes abortion, it declares the unborn child unworthy of the law’s protection.

The Church also reminded lawmakers that Luxembourg’s constitution already declares human dignity inviolable and argues that this protection “also refers to unborn life.” In other words, Luxembourg now risks embedding an internal contradiction at the constitutional level: inviolable dignity on one page, constitutionalized permission to kill the smallest human beings on the next.

This was overkill, and it will harm future efforts to protect life

Supporters sold this amendment as “security,” not as policy. But “security” here means something chilling: they want abortion insulated from ordinary democratic debate. They want future governments blocked from offering greater protection to unborn children, even if voters demand it, because constitutional text sits above ordinary legislation and usually requires supermajorities to revise.

In plain terms, Luxembourg just tried to make abortion harder to limit, harder to regulate, and harder to reconsider.

No woman becomes more supported by this change. No family gains better maternity care, better housing, better childcare, or better protection from abandonment. This amendment does not build a single resource that helps a mother carry her child with confidence.

It does something else. It tells women, at the highest legal level, that when life creates a conflict, the child loses.

That is not liberation. That is legal despair.

A humane society does not respond to Dobbs, or to France, by racing to constitutionalize the killing of unborn children. A humane society responds by making it easier to welcome children and harder for any mother to feel trapped. Luxembourg’s Church named those real answers: family-work compatibility, support for single parents, preventing child poverty, and building genuinely child-friendly conditions.

Luxembourg chose the opposite path. It chose constitutional theater over concrete love.

National Right to Life

Sanjay Nirupam, a leader from the Shiv Sena (Shinde faction), raised concerns about the madrasa education system on Thursday. In a recent conversation, he stated, “India has a single law, a single constitution, and a unified governance system, and our education system should reflect this uniformity.”

Nirupam emphasized that schools and colleges, particularly at the primary and secondary levels, are structured to integrate all students into the national mainstream. However, he noted that the education provided in madrasas is heavily focused on religious teachings, which can alienate students from the broader Indian context.

He argued that to ensure children remain part of the national mainstream, develop a love for their country, and engage in the governance system, the number of madrasas should be gradually reduced. According to him, this step is crucial for students’ futures and for fostering national unity. He highlighted that children deprived of modern education risk becoming isolated in society and unable to contribute to national development.

Additionally, Nirupam referenced student leader Umar Khalid, suggesting that such youth often engage in activities under the guise of promoting freedom of expression and specific ideologies, which can foster anti-national sentiments.

He also criticized Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, accusing him of compromising national interests while emphasizing his viewpoints. Nirupam pointed out that when any leader appears to compromise national interests, they may inadvertently become associated with anti-national activities, as seen in the cases involving Khalid.

Furthermore, he remarked on a recent incident where individuals were found praying in the Malegaon Municipal Office, asserting that prayers should not be conducted in government offices. If such activities are to occur, he insisted that special permission should be obtained. He concluded that the notion that the law does not apply in such spaces is entirely misguided.

Michael Curzon, European Conservative

“The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.”
― Thomas Sowell, Is Reality Optional? And Other Essays

There is no need to cry over spilled Tucker Carlson. His sell by date has expired. Since his days as a Fox show host, he has taken a bizarre turn. As Douglas Murray noted of Carlson’s apparent motivation, “It seems sadly is just propelled by this desire to try to claim that America is basically run by Israel, Jews, and simply does the bidding of Israel…I’m afraid there’s a number of formerly serious and prominent figures who just see everything through this lens these days.”

Tucker sees conspiratorial Jewish machinations driving U.S. foreign policy. In reality, U.S. foreign policy has been guided by widespread sympathy for Israel, which has been felt by Americans since its inception. The near extinction of European Jewry under Hitler’s final solution, its desperate flight to Palestine, and its fight to secure statehood against overwhelming odds forms a historical saga that is truly moving. I suppose that you could remain unmoved by it, but then I would question your motive.

The Left’s motive is an unwavering devotion to seeing the world through the prism of third world liberation struggles. Tucker Carlson and other America First purists have a different motive. They wish to rigidly curtail U.S. involvement with foreign powers, Israel being no exception. To me, it seems soulless, especially in the aftermath of the Oct. 7th massacre. With it, Tucker has created a chasm, isolating himself from many of his former fans, me included.

Bill Ponton

However, it is not on the issue of Israel and Iran alone that I have parted ways with Tucker. It was also a shameless interview that he conducted with con man, Trevor Milton (I wrote about it here). In it, Tucker glossed over Trevor’s distortions of the truth with the sole aim of portraying him as an innocent from the heartland challenging corrupt coastal interests.

In summation, I do give credit to Tucker for the many years in which he provided insight and entertainment to me, but for now he is not my cup of tea.

Jasmine Crockett didn’t simply lose her Senate primary. She staged a slow-motion meltdown on the way out the door, complete with preemptive claims of cheating and “disenfranchisement,” long before the votes were even done being counted.

Early Tuesday evening, while ballots were still being tallied across 254 Texas counties, Crockett started laying the groundwork for an excuse. She told supporters there had been “a lot of confusion” in Dallas County. She insisted that “people have been disenfranchised,” blaming Republicans for supposedly targeting Dallas and hinting darkly at votes that might not count. Then she left her own watch party early and told the crowd not to expect results that night, saying, “We’re not gonna have election results tonight, in my opinion,” and declaring she wouldn’t be back.

The story she spun was simplistic: It was the Republicans’ fault. Republicans messed with the rules, voters got confused, and now the integrity of the election is in doubt. Oh, and blame Republicans!

It was a true Stacey Abrams-level election conspiracy theory, as if Republicans were desperate to stop her from winning her primary. It’s ridiculous that there are still Election Day court fights over election law and closing times, but the sad truth is that they are nothing new. Democrats like to find excuses, no matter how flimsy, to extend voting hours.

Matt Margolis

Crockett, though, treated it like a constitutional crisis, and she laid the groundwork for not conceding the primary. She told her supporters, “We will not know what votes are to be tallied from Election Day out of Dallas County,” and urged them to “remain resilient” and “figure out where it is that you are supposed to vote.” She talked about “cheating” and behavior that “cannot be allowed to be rewarded.” She said her team was “getting stories” and “collecting evidence,”

The MEK Is Not Pro-Western or Committee to Democracy; It Operates as a Cult and Fosters Anti-Americanism

When Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini took power, he denied having any interest in personal power. Rather, he described himself as a figurehead for a coalition of Islamist and leftist groups opposed to the Iranian monarchy. “Personal desire, age, and my health do not allow me to personally have a role in running the country after the fall of the current system,” he told The Associated Press on November 7, 1978. He lied. As soon as Khomeini returned to Iran, he set upon purging his former allies.

Among the first to go was the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK), a group which fused Khomeini’s Islamism with Marxist beliefs. They were also among the most anti-Western groups, training with the Palestine Liberation Organization, bombing American companies in Iran and assassinating American businessmen and military officers.

The MEK hated the shah, but they turned their guns and bombs on Khomeini, his regime, and ordinary Iranians after he betrayed them. They opposed Khomeini not because they objected to his ideology but because they wanted power.

In the United States and Europe, the MEK engages in a psychological operation to suggest they are pro-Western or committed to democracy. That is nonsense. They operate as a cult, isolate their members, and foster anti-Americanism. They have become North Korea, only with more food and slicker public relations. Many of the MEK’s claims of infiltrating Iran or running operations inside the country are demonstrably untrue. Former officials who support them do so not because of ideological fealty, but rather because of lucrative honoraria.

Michael Rubin, AEI