TRUMP RA TỐI HẬU THƯ 5 NGÀY – IRAN ĐỨNG TRƯỚC LỰA CHỌN KHÔNG LỐI THOÁT

On the night of March 23, morning of March 24, U.S. President Donald Trump posted a statement that I am pleased to announce that, over the past two days, the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran There have been very good and effective discussions regarding moving towards a comprehensive and definitive solution. to put an end to our hostile situation in the Middle East. Based on the spirit and tone of these in-depth, detailed, and constructive exchanges, and those exchanges will continue throughout this week, I have instructed the Ministry of War to postpone any and all military airstrikes. within a 5-day timeframe targeting Iran's power plants and energy infrastructure depending on the success of the ongoing meetings and discussions. This statement is of great significance because it shows Trump is shifting the game from attacking To destroy the opponent's correct stop strategy, one must first destroy the threshold strategy, thereby forcing the opponent to reveal their choice. The fact that he delayed the plan to attack Iran's power plants and energy infrastructure by five days indicates It's not a retreat, but rather temporarily putting aside an extremely aggressive escalation in order to seize the opportunity to secure a deal. Ladies and gentlemen, the first implication is that Trump is telling Iran that the door to negotiations remains open. But time is running short. The next five days are extremely crucial. It's not a prolonged retreat to gain width. rather like a strategic countdown clock or exchanges leading to a specific outcome. Or Washington would have a reason to return to an attack far more painful than the previous phase. Attacking Iran's power grid and energy infrastructure means targeting elements capable of paralyzing its operational capabilities. of the state, not merely causing military depletion. The second implication is that the U.S. believes a sufficiently serious channel of communication has emerged within Iran to warrant an attempt. Trump said the discussions took place over the past two days, carried out by Steve Whitcock and Jared Kushner. But he did not clearly state with whom they had spoken in Iran. It is precisely this point that is highly noteworthy. It reinforces the impression that Washington may not be speaking openly. with the public facade of Tehran, behind which lies a center of power or some intermediary channel. The third meaning is that Trump is trying to force Iran into choosing between two options. One side continues to maintain a rigid, publicly confrontational stance, while the other accepts a way out. Before the U.S. strikes the vital core of the electric power and energy economy. When an opponent has suffered heavy military losses yet still has not surrendered, the next step is usually no longer about dropping more bombs on the same old target, and it threatens the ability to sustain the state and urban life. Just the fact that Trump openly stated he was ready to strike electrical and energy infrastructure, then paused, It is more than enough to show that this is a political maneuver, not merely a military one. The fourth implication is that Trump is simultaneously testing the reactions of both Iran and the global market. Following this statement, oil dropped sharply, the dollar weakened, stocks rose, and bond yields declined. Since the market understands that the risk of the U.S. directly targeting Iran's energy infrastructure has just been temporarily put on hold. However, shortly afterward, when Tehran denied engaging in negotiations, oil prices rose again as investors realized the situation remained extremely fragile. That means just the mere possibility of the U.S. striking Iran's energy sector is enough to shake the entire market. The fifth, and perhaps deepest, meaning is that Trump is attempting to shape the narrative of the war in a way advantageous to himself. If the negotiations succeed, he will say that his military pressure forced Iran to back down. If the negotiations fail, you can say that Iran itself missed the final opportunity. At that point, strikes against electrical and energy infrastructure will have greater political legitimacy in the eyes of the American and international public. In other words, this statement is both a negotiation invitation and a public record indicating that the U.S. has given Iran one final opportunity. However, one must remain fully清醒, what Trump said does not mean an agreement has already been reached. Iran's Parliament and state media called it false information, even implying that the U.S. is manipulating the psychology of wealthy markets. Therefore, the practical meaning of this statement is not that peace is near, But who actually negotiated with the U.S. regarding Iran's fate? This completely calls into question the legitimacy of the ruling government. As we know, as of March 24, numerous major news sources cited updates from the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM). The U.S. has struck over 9,000 targets in Iran, carrying out more than 9,000 combat missions. and damaged or destroyed over 140 Iranian vessels as part of the campaign of relentless fury. The time-based milestones also indicate that this is not a mere figurehead. Around March 11, there were over 60 ships, by March 16, over 100 ships, and more than 6,000 flights. March 18 saw over 7,800 targets, more than 8,000 missions, and over 120 ships. By March 21, there were over 8,000 targets and 130 ships, then exceeding 9,000 targets and 140 ships by March 24. This demonstrates that Iran is suffering severe erosion. This series of data illustrates Iran's military capabilities, particularly its navy. command center, launch platform, storage facility, and threat network at Hormuz Being systematically targeted with coordinated attacks, not just random or performative blows. What is most noteworthy at this moment is no longer whether Iran has suffered heavy damage to its head. Because that number was actually already too clear. The bigger issue lies in the fact that a regime severely eroded yet still has not surrendered. Then, in which direction will the war proceed from here? More importantly, who truly has the authority to sit down and negotiate with Donald Trump? This is truly the crux of the entire story. Because in a typical conflict, people usually think very simply. Keep pressing hard, the opponent will eventually be forced to yield. But Iran does not operate like an ordinary country. It is not a centralized state where a president issues orders and the entire machinery follows blindly. Iran is a layered power structure, where the formal state, religious authority, and the Revolutionary Guard are intertwined. Islam intertwined into a network that is both formally legitimate and firmly powerful in substance. Therefore, cluster bombs can destroy bases, storage facilities, warships, and energy installations. but it may not be enough to break the political will of the core power structure currently directing the conflict. Even the media have had to acknowledge the fact that the machinery of the Islamic Republic Despite heavy losses after the attacks starting late February, it had not yet collapsed. On the contrary, it tends to contract and become harder. The revolutionary guards have increasingly taken a central role in wartime decision-making. Now the issue is, if negotiations don't take place, how else will Iran continue its attacks? Then the answer is, just adding to the military target isn't necessarily enough. The initial phase of the campaign was to erode combat effectiveness. But in the subsequent phase, if Washington truly wants to force Tehran to choose, The blow must shift from hurting the military to choking the state's ability to function. That is why Trump once threatened to expand sanctions to Iran's power grid and energy infrastructure. Then temporarily stop and wait for a negotiation signal. That single detail alone shows that the White House fully understands that the war is at a critical juncture. or force one faction within Iran to accept a way out, or have to enter a much more dangerous escalation level. But here arises a question even sharper than the story of bombs and bullets. With whom are you negotiating? From a legal standpoint, of course, the party sitting at the table, if any, will still be the Iranian government. In reality, after the deaths of many key figures, Power in Tehran is being redistributed in a harder-line direction. Mojtaba Khamenei was promoted with strong support from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. while President Massoud Barzakhian's influence was limited. Formally speaking, the world still sees an Iranian state. But in terms of actual power, those in control are increasingly resembling an alliance between the religious authorities and the revolutionary guard forces. Therefore, when Trump said there had been contacts and significant areas of agreement, He might not have spoken loudly at all. The only thing is, he did not clearly specify which individual from Iran had spoken with Washington. Although Mr. Trump mentioned the discussions carried out by Steve Whitcock and Jared Kushner, but did not reveal the identity of the Iranian side. Meanwhile, Tehran publicly denied both direct and indirect negotiations. That dream was no minor detail. It may well be a sign that multiple layers of discourse exist in Iran. A level for communicating with the people, a level for managing the war. and another level to locate the emergency exit behind the rear commander. And that is why the assessment of internal divisions within Iran is not baseless speculation. The international media have repeatedly described the cracks within Iran's ruling elite. from the conflict between the hardliners and the pragmatists to the death of Ali Larijani making the system make more deceptive decisions, strategic options are narrowed down. The revolutionary Islamic guards have even greater justification for seizing control of the center of power. When a regime finds itself in such a situation, the greatest danger is not the lack of bombs or missiles, Moreover, there is no longer a strong enough political center capable of both controlling the war and signing and implementing an agreement. Therefore, looking deeply into this picture, perhaps what Trump is doing goes beyond merely pressuring Iran with firepower. He may be forcing the internal power structure in Iran to reveal itself. Which side wants to fight to the bitter end, and which side wishes to preserve the regime by accepting a way out? And who is the one with the authority to speak truly? If that is indeed the case, then the war at this moment is no longer merely a confrontation between the United States and Iran. It is also an internal struggle within Iran between forces determined to defend the ideology at all costs. and the forces that realize that if they persist in holding firm to the end, They might lose the very ability to survive their own regime. Therefore, Iran's not having surrendered does not mean Iran is still strong. It may simply mean that within Tehran, there is still no consensus on who has the authority to de-escalate. And in conflicts of this nature, the decisive question is not always how many missiles the opponent still has, And who else still has the power to sign the paper ending the war? So is the Trump administration being hamstrung by its own tool for suppressing Iran? Actually, what Mr. Trump did on the night of March 23rd into the morning of the 24th was by no means a sign of weakness. On the contrary, it shows he is elevating the conflict to a higher level of emotional pressure. Previously, Iran had suffered severe military erosion. but when a regime is thoroughly defeated yet still has not issued a public surrender signal, That usually means the bullets have struck the opponent's body. but still hasn't touched the most decisive point. Who has the authority to accept a retreat? That is why Trump's statement claiming that the United States and Iran have had very good and effective exchanges. At the same time, he ordered a five-day bombing campaign against Iran's power plants and energy infrastructure. must be understood as a transition from the military destruction phase reached the stage of constructing a political ultimatum. He did not stop the war. He merely hung a larger sword above Tehran's head. to force the inner circle of Iran's power structure to reveal itself Who wants to continue defending to the death, and who wants to seek a way out? And who is the one who can truly talk to Washington? That very dream is quite noteworthy. because it suggests the possibility that, if any negotiation takes place, does not take place at the level of public declaration, but at a deeper level of Iran's power structure. The crucial point is that if there is no result after those five days, then the next blow that Trump publicly mentioned It will no longer be just attacking the base, warship, or launch platform, but it targets the power and energy infrastructure, that is, the part that enables a state to continue operating. When the war reaches this level, its meaning completely changes. It is no longer merely about weakening Iran's military. but starting to touch upon the ability for stable existence of the entire economic and administrative apparatus. And as soon as Trump raised that club and then paused momentarily, The global market reacted almost immediately. Oil prices fall, the dollar weakens, egg prices rise. because investors understand the risk of a direct strike on Iran's energy system just re-allocated temporarily. This means that it is solely the United States that has left open the possibility of attacking Iran's energy sector. It has been enough to shift the global market's psychology. It is precisely from here that the story's thread no longer remains confined to Tehran. and then directly proceed to Beijing. Because if Iran is the one directly enduring the bombardment, China, meanwhile, is one of the places that must begin paying the indirect costs of the conflict. On March 24, China had to raise retail prices. an additional 1,160 Chinese yuan per ton and diesel an additional 1,115 Chinese yuan per ton. This increase was so substantial that Beijing had to curb part of it. because if fully following the current price adjustment mechanism, The increase has already exceeded 2,100 yuan per ton. In other words, the shock was so severe that the Chinese authorities they had to proactively ease it to avoid excessive pressure on the people and the economy. Just two weeks earlier, on March 9, China also implemented a round of incremental price increases for raw materials. the strongest retail performance in four years following a surge in global oil prices due to the U.S.-Israel conflict with Iran. This consecutive shift demonstrates that Iran's front does not have to end. A white flag in Tehran has created a strategic effect. Just a war pushing oil prices sharply higher and sparking concerns about disruption deeper into the energy flow of the Middle East, then China's economy began to tighten due to rising fuel costs and input pressure, Placing these two levels side by side makes the meaning of Trump's statement much clearer. On the surface level, he is telling Iran that the door to negotiations remains open. But time was now measured only in days. Deeper down, he is showing that Washington has pressed the right switch. and the entire region, especially energy-dependent economies in the Gulf area such as China, What they fear the most. Once the attack shifts from military to energy, then the impact will no longer be confined to the battlefield in Iran, and will spread into economic pressure across the entire Asia region. Beijing must limit the domestic price increase to reduce the impact on consumers. in the context of oil refineries, especially in Shandong has been under pressure from weak demand, rising costs, and increasingly thin profit margins. That means the war in Iran is directly hitting the most sensitive part of China's economic puzzle. Growth requires stable energy costs. Meanwhile, geopolitics is turning energy into a weapon of pressure. What do we see here? Clearly, Trump is not only targeting Iran, while turning Iran into a strategic chokepoint to test China's energy endurance. Tehran is the place that endures the bombs and bullets, but Beijing is one of the places where the impact of the war on oil prices became most clearly felt. Input costs and inflationary pressures. This indicates that as long as the Iranian front remains hot or worsens, it could be escalated to the level of attacking and undermining energy infrastructure. Then China will no longer be able to remain an outside observer, reaping benefits passively from the chessboard. That is where the true depth of Trump's move lies. He does not necessarily have to force Iran to raise a white flag immediately in order to achieve a strategic victory. Just make the world understand that Washington has its hand on the right switch of Iran's energy. Then, by delaying the attack for five days, hang that threat over the market's head in suspense. The pressure then began to hit the most dependent and stable economies of the Middle East. The very information that Trump delayed the attack on Iran's power plants and energy infrastructure It was enough to cool down oil prices and shift the global financial markets' sentiment. In other words, Trump is showing Beijing an uncomfortable truth. If Iran continues to be squeezed, the final bill will not stop in Tehran. and will head straight for China's table. Therefore, this is no longer simply a story of whether Iran will surrender or not. The real story is that Trump is using the Iran battlefield to test how long China can endure. As energy costs rise, production costs increase, and refining margins are eroded. And the risk of bad inflation replacing deflation begins to emerge. If Beijing is strong enough to withstand that shock over a long period of time, They still have strategic space. But if energy prices continue to rise, and supply chains remain strained, domestic growth continues to remain weak, then Iran will no longer be just a conflict in the Middle East anymore, and will become an indirect lever for Washington to test China's economic resilience. And that is precisely why this move is dangerous. It turned a regional battlefield into a test for the global power behind the pipeline. Oil tankers and energy invoices of Asia. Do you recognize this tactical energy squeeze maneuver? Yes, it bears a resemblance to the strategy the U.S. once used regarding energy. to force Japan during World War II. You surely remember that before World War II, the U.S. and Japan engaged in a direct energy squeeze. After Japan advanced into Indochina, Washington froze Japanese assets and tightened oil exports. forced Tokyo to choose between retreating or seizing the oil resources in the Dutch East Indies. It was a public, official, and precisely targeted strike. As for China today, what Trump is doing through the Iran front resembles it more. with an indirect energy tightening approach. The United States has not declared an oil embargo against China as it once did against Japan. Instead, Trump placed his hand on Iran's energy switch. He publicly indicated that Washington is prepared to strike Iran's power grid and energy infrastructure. Then again, five days after stating there were significant points of agreement in the talks. Just the mere hanging threat of this strike was enough to cause significant volatility in oil prices and global markets. It shows that it is a strategic maneuver, not merely a military action. Therefore, logically, the U.S. is employing quite similar tactics, differing only in the tools used. The similarity lies in the fact that the U.S. always targets a fundamental fear shared by the industrial powers of Asia. Without stable energy, growth, military capability, transportation, and strategic endurance are all stifled. But the tool is different. For Japan, 1941 was direct sanctions. For China, 2026 will be about creating an environment where, should the Iran conflict escalate by just one more step, Especially when touching the energy sector, Beijing will have to pay an increasingly heavy price. Is this type of indirect pressure strong enough to compel China to change its overall strategic posture? It may exert considerable pressure, but it is not certain to force Beijing to change course as quickly as the United States compelled Japan in 1941. But China today is not in the position of Japan in 1941. At that time, Japan was heavily dependent on imports and faced a life-or-death choice amid an extremely militarized context. China today is a much larger economy, with reserves and the ability to regulate domestic prices. It has a more diversified import network and a sufficiently large institutional structure to absorb shocks over a certain period of time. That means the current squeeze is making China more uncomfortable and costly. but not to the extent of being immediately cornered like Japan was before the shores of Chaochow. However, one should not therefore underestimate a country of this size. A subtle, indirect squeeze that does not require an immediate effect is truly effective. Its objective may not be to force Beijing to immediately switch sides or concede. making China live in an increasingly costly strategic state, Energy costs are higher, logistics expenses are heavier, inflationary pressures are greater, and industrial profit margins are thinner. Most importantly, one must always consider the risk that the U.S. could escalate the Iran front to the level of undermining energy infrastructure. In other words, Chen does not necessarily need to suffocate China through Iran. Simply make China understand that every day the war continues, Every day, Beijing must expend additional economic stamina and strategic flexibility. Saying this is to show that, no matter what Beijing may be like, it still falls within the sphere of American influence. The U.S. still controls one of the most valuable arteries of China's economy. At that point, the issue is no longer whether China is afraid right away or not. And how much will China have to pay to continue appearing fearless? Here, our program would like to take a brief pause. Please share your thoughts and join us in the discussion. Now, goodbye and see you again.