Action in Iran is ‘IMMINENT’: Former deputy national security advisor

Trump’s Iran Strategy Enters a Harder Phase as China Talks Begin

President Trump arrived in Beijing this week with two diplomatic challenges converging at once: a high-stakes summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping and a rapidly deteriorating confrontation with Iran that some former national security officials now believe may be approaching a decisive military phase.

The setting is unusual, even by the standards of Trump’s foreign policy. While the president is expected to discuss trade, energy, technology and global markets with Xi, the shadow of Tehran hangs over the visit. Iran’s war posture, its relationship with China, and the future of the Strait of Hormuz have become central questions not only for the Middle East, but also for the wider balance of power between Washington and Beijing.

Former Trump administration officials and foreign policy analysts say the president’s trip to China may be more than a diplomatic mission. They argue that Trump is likely using the long overseas journey, and the private hours surrounding his meetings, to consult with national security and military advisers about the next stage of pressure on Iran.

To them, the message is clear: diplomacy has been tried, Tehran has not moved far enough, and the White House may soon return to a far more aggressive posture.

Victoria Coates, a former deputy national security adviser in the first Trump administration, said she believes “action is imminent.” Her assessment reflects a growing view among Trump allies that the administration is preparing to resume major operations aimed at breaking Iran’s leverage over the Strait of Hormuz and further weakening the regime’s economic and military infrastructure.

The phrase now circulating among supporters of the president is “finish the job.”

For weeks, Trump has left the door open to negotiations. He has said he prefers a deal to a wider war. But he has also made clear that any agreement must force Iran to abandon the military capabilities that Washington views as an intolerable threat. The president’s critics see risk in that approach, warning that the United States could be pulled deeper into a dangerous regional conflict. His supporters see something different: a rare opportunity to end what they call a 47-year strategic menace.

The debate is no longer only about Iran. It is also about China.

Lisa Daftari, a foreign affairs analyst, argued that any American strategy toward Tehran must now be tied directly to Beijing. China, she said, has helped sustain Iran through energy purchases, trade channels and economic workarounds designed to soften the impact of American sanctions. In her view, Trump should confront Xi with a blunt choice: access to American markets or continued support for Iran, but not both.

That framing gets to the heart of the moment. Iran has long relied on China as a crucial economic lifeline. Beijing has bought discounted Iranian oil, helped Tehran evade pressure from the West, and built a strategic relationship that gives China influence in the Gulf while giving Iran badly needed revenue. The two countries signed a 25-year cooperation agreement in 2021, a deal that symbolized their deepening alignment against American pressure.

But analysts close to Trump argue that China’s commitment to Iran should not be overstated. Beijing may benefit from cheap oil and a weakened American position in the Middle East, but it is not likely to sacrifice its own economy for Tehran. China needs stable shipping routes. It needs access to global markets. It needs energy. And it may not want to be seen as the main sponsor of a regime under direct American military pressure.

As Daftari put it, China is an opportunist, not a loyal partner waiting faithfully by Iran’s side. If Beijing sees a better deal with Washington, she argued, it may distance itself from Tehran quickly.

That is why Trump’s presence in Beijing carries such strategic weight. The president is meeting Xi not from a position of retreat, but from a position meant to project strength. According to his supporters, the message to Iran is unmistakable: even your most important patron is rolling out the red carpet for the American president.

For Tehran, that image may be deeply unsettling. Iran has spent years cultivating Chinese support as a shield against Western isolation. But if Beijing chooses stability, energy security and access to the American economy over deeper confrontation with Washington, Iran could find itself more alone than its leaders expected.

Energy is central to the discussion.

China’s economy runs on vast amounts of imported oil and gas. While Beijing has invested heavily in coal, renewables and domestic production, it remains dependent on global energy markets. The United States, meanwhile, has become one of the world’s most important producers of oil and natural gas. Trump and his allies view that as a major source of leverage.

Coates argued that the president understands the power of American energy dominance. If China wants long-term energy security, she suggested, it may ultimately need American oil and liquefied natural gas more than it needs Iranian crude. That gives Trump another card to play at the negotiating table.

The argument is straightforward: Iran may offer discounted oil, but the United States can offer reliability, scale and access to a broader economic relationship. For Beijing, that calculation may become especially important if the conflict around the Strait of Hormuz threatens to send prices higher or disrupt supply routes.

Trump’s supporters also believe the American economy is strong enough to absorb short-term pain. They acknowledge that a renewed military campaign against Iran could push gasoline prices higher and keep inflation elevated for several months. But they argue that the long-term benefits of crippling the Iranian regime’s ability to threaten global energy markets outweigh the temporary costs.

To them, this is not merely a foreign policy dispute. It is a matter of homeland security, global stability and what they describe as the defense of Western civilization.

That rhetoric is sweeping, but it captures the mood among some of the president’s closest ideological allies. They see Iran not simply as a hostile state, but as the center of a network that includes proxy forces, weapons programs, terror financing and anti-American partnerships with Russia and China. In their view, failing to confront Tehran decisively would only postpone a larger crisis.

The immediate focus, however, is the Strait of Hormuz.

The waterway is one of the most strategically important passages on earth. A significant share of the world’s oil moves through it, and Iran has repeatedly used the threat of closure as leverage against the United States and its allies. Trump’s campaign of pressure has centered in part on reopening and securing that route, preventing Iran from using global energy flows as a weapon.

There is speculation among Trump allies that the administration may soon revive or expand operations aimed at restoring full freedom of navigation through the strait. Some have referred to this as a renewed “Project Freedom” for Hormuz, a phrase that captures the administration’s likely public case: that American military action is not about conquest, but about keeping international waters open and preventing Iran from blackmailing the world economy.

Potential targets, according to the discussion among analysts, could include Iranian military sites, port infrastructure, energy facilities and locations tied to the regime’s ability to finance or sustain conflict. Kharg Island, a critical hub for Iran’s oil exports, has been mentioned as one possible pressure point. Reports that the lights have gone out there have fueled speculation that Iran’s energy infrastructure is already under severe strain.

Coates emphasized the broader economic picture. Iran’s currency has been battered. Its markets have been disrupted. Its ability to recover from sustained pressure appears limited. In her view, the regime is facing problems it cannot solve, especially if military pressure and economic pressure are applied together.

That “one-two punch” may be the core of Trump’s strategy.

First, the United States and its partners weaken Iran’s military capabilities. Then Washington tightens the economic vise, cutting off revenue and forcing Tehran into a choice: accept a deal or face deeper collapse. The administration’s supporters believe the Iranian regime has fewer options than it claims.

Still, the risks are obvious.

Iran has a long history of asymmetric retaliation. Even if its conventional military is weakened, it can still use missiles, drones, cyberattacks and proxy networks. It can strike shipping, target regional partners or attempt to create political pressure inside the United States by driving up energy prices. A cornered regime may not act rationally, particularly if its leaders believe survival is at stake.

That is why the Beijing summit matters.

Trump is not only speaking to Xi. He is also speaking, indirectly, to Tehran. By sitting across from China’s leader while Iran faces mounting pressure, Trump may be trying to show that the international balance is shifting. If China refuses to rescue Iran, the regime’s strategic position weakens. If China cooperates with Washington on energy or trade while limiting support for Tehran, Iran’s isolation deepens. If China stands aside while the United States resumes operations, Tehran’s hardliners may discover that their most powerful backer is not willing to shield them.

The symbolism is potent. Trump is in Beijing, the capital of Iran’s most important economic partner, while his advisers weigh the next phase of confrontation. That is not lost on anyone watching from Tehran.

For the president, the challenge is to turn symbolism into results. He must persuade China that continued support for Iran carries costs. He must reassure Americans that any military action will be limited, purposeful and tied to a clear outcome. He must keep energy markets from panicking. And he must convince Iran that the window for diplomacy is closing, but not yet closed.

That is a difficult balance.

Trump’s foreign policy has often relied on pressure, unpredictability and personal diplomacy. His supporters say that combination gives him unique leverage. His opponents say it increases the danger of miscalculation. In the Iran crisis, both arguments may be tested at once.

If Tehran believes Trump is bluffing, it may refuse to bend. If Trump believes Tehran is stalling, he may strike. If China decides to quietly support Iran while publicly entertaining Trump, the confrontation could widen. But if Beijing calculates that Iran is no longer worth the risk, the regime in Tehran could face a sudden and profound loss of support.

That may be the outcome Trump is seeking.

For now, the language from his allies is increasingly forceful. They argue that Iran’s economy is failing, that China is unlikely to save it, and that American energy strength gives Washington more leverage than its critics understand. They believe the president tried diplomacy and is now preparing to return to hardball.

Whether that means immediate strikes, expanded maritime operations or a final diplomatic ultimatum remains unclear. But the mood around Trump’s Iran policy has changed.

The pause may be ending.

The next move could come not from Tehran, but from a president meeting China’s leader while quietly preparing to force Iran’s hand.