A new regime for Iran less close to Beijing - US Plan C!

The debate over Iran is increasingly inseparable from the broader strategic competition between Washington and Beijing.

As I have argued previously, the White House's National Strategy Document, released in November 2025, identified technological leadership and economic competitiveness as the principal foundations of America's long-term strategy for countering China.

When US President Donald Trump talks about his desire to open the Strait of Hormuz, he means the exact opposite. Why?

The answer to this has several facets. The first view is that because the crisis serves the long-term strategic needs of the United States, remember I say long-term; Trump wants to change the global energy market and force Asian countries to import energy from the United States instead of the Persian Gulf.

As I have written several times before, in November 2025 the White House released the US National Strategy Document, which emphasizes that the United States sees its technological and economic superiority as a key basis for its ability to counter China.

The stated strategic goal was to ensure that US technologies, especially in artificial intelligence (AI), biotechnology and quantum computing, move the world forward and increase energy exports (oil and especially liquefied natural gas) to create jobs, reduce consumer costs and support of the return of heavy industries.

Another goal of the declaration is to expand US energy exports in order to deepen relations and reliance of allies on the United States, while reducing the economic and political influence of rival countries whose strength comes from energy exports.

In the past, a closure or threat to the Strait of Hormuz was an immediate existential threat to the US economy due to its heavy reliance on Persian Gulf oil, but now that the US defines itself as the world's leading oil exporter.

The official US announcement of the desire for "energy supremacy" is aimed at undermining the ability of countries such as Iran to hold the global economy hostage by threatening waterways It is a new corridor (IMEC), India - Middle East - Europe, which will bring great service to Israel and a great defeat for the new Silk Road and the development belt of Iraq and Turkey.

The Trump administration can score a major victory in the above goals that I think has achieved long-term strategic gains - not the way many analysts and experts are analyzing the country's moves from February

Another goal of the United States and Trump in destabilizing Hormuz, or occupying Hormuz, is to control helium for the global chip industry. He wants to return the production of electronic chips and semiconductors to US territory sign, and increase purchases of liquefied natural gas from the United States.

Another US goal is to control the supply of foam for global agriculture. It wants to sell US agricultural products to India and other Asian countries. You know, global control is achieved through abundant energy Competitors be expensive.

Of course, there are criticisms about fuel prices for the consumer. But, this is a small and acceptable tax for the Trump administration, and it has tools at its disposal that could ease the pain for the American consumer, and Trump’s threats to energy companies will have practical translations.

Just as Iran gave the Trump administration an excuse to control the Strait of Hormuz, the Houthis are now giving it an excuse to control the Red Sea.

Since the Ukraine-Russia crisis, the Red Sea has become a good main route for Russian oil transportation

After October 7 and the Gaza war in 2023, the Chinese have made the Syrian Sea their main export and import route, installing insurance for their merchant ships in the waterway, as if expecting and predicting the deterioration of the Strait of Hormuz.

So now we can say that the Red Sea is the hottest and most important route for Russia and China. In the Sea, the Houthis moved against the movement of ships exporting and importing to Israel and Europe, but not against ships belonging to Russia and China.

In the water geopolitical system, the Red Sea is part of the suffocating water points that the Trump administration is working to control: such as Panama, Greenland, Bab al-Mandab, Hormuz, Malacca and Jebel Tariq.

Achieving these goals requires complete control over all the world's waterways, control of the Panama Canal already secured, the Red Sea at both ends, and now complete control of the Strait of Hormuz – all with the aim of controlling the flow and cost of energy resources.

What about the current military conflict and how long will it continue?

It's hard to say how long, but let's avoid theories about the fall of the Iranian regime. Even someone like Doctor said earlier this year that Israel and the United States planned to overthrow the Iranian regime within 36 months.

Now let's look at it from the other side and assume that Iran will not collapse. How long will the Battle of Hormuz last? Of course, we all know that the extremists in the regime, especially the Revolutionary Guards. The money is watched over by the Americans and used mainly to buy food and medicine.

And because the Revolutionary Guards currently control Iran's oil exports and imports, which export about 60 million barrels a month, most of which goes to China, these parties could undermine the agreement and obstruct the negotiation process.

And some factions within the IRGC and others have an interest in destabilizing or creating tensions in Hormuz, in order to prevent a stable agreement from being reached, in order to impose domestic hegemony in the absence of the killing of the IRGC's first and second ranking leaders.

If we look closely, we see that the Americans have already achieved many of their strategic goals through the Hormuz crisis in terms of changing the energy market, lending to affected countries and filling the markets with dollars, so I expect them not to rush to end the crisis completely.

Under the text of the agreement, the US lifted sanctions on Iranian oil exports only for July. If some of the oil is received by Chinese refineries sanctioned by the US, the money cannot be given to the Revolutionary Guards. The formal agreement limits their income, stability = loss of income. Instability = income.

Regarding Israeli countermeasures - I very much doubt that the extremists want to see stability, and instability and creating a rift between the US and Israel serves their interests, so this is a strong possibility through Lebanon or another missile launch from Iran.

I have read many different views and analyzes about extremist Shiite religious ideology and revolutionary exports, and they say that Israel and the United States do not understand the West, and so on. In the end, these parties and the Revolutionary Guards need money, and any agreement with the United States will limit them. Therefore, we must understand that it is not about Iran, but a conflict within the regime Revolutionary Guards leaders have repeatedly said that the situation in Hormuz will not return to the pre-war situation.

But the actions of the countries in the region tell us that in the calm before the storm, a small coup took place in Iraq, and the Iraqi prime minister arrives in Washington.

Everything coincides... What if, for the same reasons above – the United States works to create a regime that is less close to Beijing and more oppressed by Washington, this is a crisis that must not end?

Is Washington's Real Goal to Close the Strait of Hormuz? The Geopolitics Behind America's 'Plan C' for Iran

When U.S. President Donald Trump speaks about keeping the Strait of Hormuz "open," the strategic objective may be far more complex than simply protecting freedom of navigation. Beneath the public rhetoric lies a broader geopolitical calculation that extends well beyond Iran and reaches into the heart of the U.S.-China strategic rivalry.

The central argument is not that Washington seeks to permanently close one of the world's most important maritime chokepoints. Rather, it is that the recurring instability surrounding the Strait of Hormuz serves a longer-term American objective: reshaping global energy flows, weakening China's energy security, and reducing Beijing's influence over the Persian Gulf.

Viewed through this lens, pressure on Iran becomes only one component of a much larger geopolitical strategy—what could be described as America's "Plan C" for containing China while encouraging the emergence of a future Iranian government less strategically aligned with Beijing.

Beyond Iran: The China Factor

The debate over Iran is increasingly inseparable from the broader strategic competition between Washington and Beijing.

As I have argued previously, the White House's National Strategy Document, released in November 2025, identified technological leadership and economic competitiveness as the principal foundations of America's long-term strategy for countering China.

This marked a significant shift.

Rather than viewing the Middle East solely through the lens of terrorism or regional security, Washington increasingly sees the region as a critical arena in the global competition over:

• Energy security.
• Supply chains.
• Advanced technology.
• Critical minerals.
• Maritime trade.
• Strategic influence.

Iran therefore occupies a dual role: a regional security challenge and an important component of China's long-term geopolitical strategy.

Why Hormuz Matters

The Strait of Hormuz remains one of the world's most strategically significant waterways.

A substantial share of globally traded oil and liquefied natural gas passes through the narrow passage connecting the Persian Gulf to international markets.

For Asian economies—including China, India, Japan, and South Korea—the Strait is an essential energy lifeline.

This dependence gives Hormuz importance far beyond the Middle East.

Any sustained instability affecting maritime traffic has immediate consequences for:

• Global oil prices.
• Energy security.
• Inflation.
• Industrial production.
• Maritime insurance.
• International trade.

Energy as Strategic Competition

One interpretation of Washington's long-term strategy is that reducing dependence on Gulf energy could gradually redirect energy demand toward alternative suppliers, including the United States.

If Asian countries diversify away from the Persian Gulf because of persistent geopolitical risk, American energy exports—including liquefied natural gas (LNG) and crude oil—could become increasingly attractive.

This would produce several strategic advantages for Washington:

• Expanding U.S. energy exports.
• Strengthening economic ties with Asian allies.
• Reducing China's access to predictable Gulf energy supplies.
• Increasing American influence over global energy markets.

Under this perspective, geopolitical uncertainty itself becomes part of strategic competition.

Iran and Beijing

Over the past decade, Iran and China have steadily expanded their strategic relationship.

Their cooperation has included:

• Long-term energy agreements.
• Infrastructure investment.
• Financial cooperation.
• Diplomatic coordination.
• Integration into broader Eurasian connectivity initiatives.

For Washington, weakening this partnership has become an increasingly important objective.

Economic pressure, sanctions, and military deterrence may therefore be intended not only to constrain Iran's regional activities but also to reduce its strategic value to Beijing.

What Could "Plan C" Mean?

The idea of a "Plan C" suggests that Washington may be pursuing objectives beyond immediate military deterrence or nuclear negotiations.

Rather than focusing exclusively on changing Iranian behavior, some analysts argue that long-term U.S. strategy increasingly seeks to reshape Iran's geopolitical orientation.

Under this interpretation, American policy could aim to encourage conditions in which a future Iranian leadership becomes:

• Less dependent on China.
• More integrated into global markets.
• Less confrontational toward Western powers.
• More economically diversified.
• More strategically autonomous.

Whether such an outcome is realistic remains highly uncertain, but it reflects the growing connection between Middle Eastern policy and great-power competition.

Risks of a Long-Term Strategy

A strategy centered on prolonged pressure also carries substantial risks.

Persistent instability around the Strait of Hormuz could:

• Increase global energy prices.
• Encourage closer cooperation among China, Iran, and Russia.
• Accelerate efforts to bypass maritime chokepoints through alternative trade corridors.
• Heighten military tensions across the Gulf.

Moreover, prolonged uncertainty may have unintended consequences for allies and partners whose economies remain heavily dependent on Gulf energy supplies.

Future Implications

If strategic competition with China continues to shape American policy, the Middle East will remain a central arena in the contest for global influence.

The Strait of Hormuz is likely to become more than a maritime chokepoint—it will increasingly function as a geopolitical pressure point where energy security, military deterrence, and economic competition converge.

For Iran, continued alignment with China may deepen economic cooperation but also reinforce its position as a primary target of American strategic pressure. Conversely, any future shift in Tehran's foreign policy orientation could significantly alter the regional balance of power and reshape global energy markets.

Asian economies will also face growing pressure to diversify energy supplies and shipping routes. Greater investment in LNG imports, renewable energy, and alternative transport corridors may become part of broader national security strategies designed to reduce vulnerability to Gulf instability.

Ultimately, if the United States is pursuing a long-term effort to reduce China's strategic dependence on Persian Gulf energy, then competition over Iran is about far more than sanctions, nuclear negotiations, or military deterrence. It is part of a wider geopolitical contest over who will shape the global energy order in the decades ahead.

#USA #Iran #China #Hormuz #Geopolitics