US-China Relations Updates

Though it is deeply unsettling to admit, mounting evidence suggests that the 12-day war between the U.S., Israel, and Iran—which has captured global attention—is less a geopolitical crisis and more a postmodernist geopolitical performance. Israel and the U.S., two nations in peculiar circumstances, along with their leaders, and the unfortunate Middle East chosen as the stage for this spectacle—with Palestine and Gaza forced into the roles of expendable extras—have, in a tragicomic manner, reminded the world that unless more nations stand firmly alongside the BRICS countries, treating the fundamental rules of global order with greater seriousness, responsibility, and diligence, the story of Emperor Nero burning Rome for amusement will no longer be just an unsubstantiated historical rumor in the 21st century.

1. Overall, this is a geopolitical crisis with objective roots and complex historical origins, but one primarily driven by the domestic political dynamics of Israel and the U.S., artificially triggered by their leaders, and subsequently constructed into a grand geopolitical performance. Objectively speaking, by June 2025, the Iranian nuclear issue was not at a critical juncture requiring military strikes—quite the opposite. Israel’s attack was largely motivated by domestic politics, particularly Prime Minister Netanyahu’s desire to avoid judicial prosecution for corruption. To stave off a governance crisis, Bibi chose to escalate military adventurism to divert attention and buy time. When the U.S. became involved, its leaders also saw the performance as an opportunity to project personal toughness and score diplomatic points for partisan gain, rather than to substantively resolve the nuclear issue.
2. The mismatch between the actual disposable resources and policy execution capabilities of Israel and the U.S. and their domestic political objectives is the key reason why the entire situation has taken on an absurdly farcical tone. The real domestic political needs of the leaders in both countries are severely misaligned with the actual power at their disposal and their ability to wield it effectively. This is the root cause of the crisis spiraling out of control. Like a shark that must keep swimming or sink, Bibi lacks the capacity to sustain geopolitical tension solely through Israel’s own strength and must lobby the U.S. to join. The U.S. leader, meanwhile, exhibits traits eerily reminiscent of the rumored Nero—enamored with grand Western operatic spectacles—but with a crucial difference: he is also a calculating real estate tycoon unwilling to pay an excessive price for that moment of grandeur. Thus, what we witness is a meticulously choreographed performance: “precisely calculated strikes on nuclear facilities,” “precisely calculated retaliatory strikes on U.S. airbases,” followed by a swift ceasefire—all designed to make the world “hail America as the boss.” This is now unfolding as a grand, psychopathological live show, as described by Habermas.
3. The underlying geopolitical crisis has not ended; this is merely an “intermission.” The current situation resembles a pause between acts, with all three parties—and indeed the world—caught in a state where “the tree may prefer calm, but the wind will not cease.” Opposition forces in Israel and the U.S. are unwilling to let their adversaries profit from this “performative crisis,” maintaining pressure that could trigger a new phase of escalation. In Israel, the opposition’s judicial pursuit of Bibi leaves no room for leniency, even prompting the U.S. leader to publicly plead for restraint to avoid a “political witch hunt.” In the U.S., forces hostile to the “Tax King” are tacitly collaborating—leaking DIA assessment reports and other tactics—to undermine his political standing and provoke him into missteps. The risk of renewed conflict remains high: Netanyahu has warned that Israel will act again if Iran restarts its nuclear program, while Iran’s parliament has passed a bill suspending inspections and threatened to withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), setting the stage for further confrontation.
4. The real loser is the global nuclear non-proliferation regime. Some joke that this crisis is a “win-win” or even a “triple win,” but one thing is certain: the NPT is the biggest loser. Israel and the U.S. bypassed UN Security Council authorization to launch preemptive strikes on the nuclear facilities of an NPT signatory—facilities under IAEA safeguards. The NPT, now overshadowed by B-2 bombers, and the IAEA’s safeguards, shattered by GBU-57 bunker busters, are incubating even greater risks. If the situation evolves toward Iran suspending cooperation with the IAEA or even withdrawing from the NPT, the region and the world will face unprecedented dangers. Should a domino effect take hold—if Israel suddenly finds all its neighbors spinning uranium centrifuges—would emptying the Negev Desert’s arsenal really solve anything? If that day comes, it may well be humanity’s ultimate “play stupid games, win stupid prizes” tragedy.
5. The BRICS joint statement offered one of the few but crucial voices of reason and responsibility in this crisis. While the world risks a modern-day burning of Rome, it is fortunate that there are still good actors—and many of them. Led by Brazil and China, the BRICS nations promptly issued a joint statement, analyzing and responding to the conflict with responsibility and clarity. The statement expressed grave concern over the military strikes against Iran since June 13, unequivocally condemning them as violations of international law and the UN Charter. BRICS called for an immediate cessation of violence and dialogue through existing diplomatic channels, stressing adherence to IAEA resolutions and warning against attacks on peaceful nuclear facilities that could escalate proliferation risks. It reaffirmed the necessity of a Middle East free of nuclear and other WMDs—a stance that starkly contrasts with the West’s hesitancy. Rarely has BRICS spoken so uniformly in defense of international law and non-proliferation. This statement injected a dose of rationality into the brink of chaos, demonstrating emerging powers’ willingness to uphold regional peace and take critical steps to repair the damaged global order. The statement itself stands as a classic case in international relations, marking a significant contribution by emerging powers and the Global South to global security, peace, and development. It serves as a reminder that unilateralism, wielding power recklessly, only perpetuates chaos, while responsible multilateral cooperation remains the reliable path to peace. Through concrete action, BRICS has answered how to perceive and address this crisis, striving to mend the NPT regime undermined by Israel and the U.S.—an effort the international community should cherish and support.