2/5 🧵 He draws a hard line between physical power and soft-power propaganda. The U.S. is portrayed as controlling the real logistics of shipping and military access, while Iran is portrayed as relying on sporadic attacks, media amplification, and uncertainty to preserve bargaining power. Same logic, he says, as other proxy conflicts: create confusion, force emotional narratives, stall real settlement, and hope markets and politics do the rest.
The big “China” angle is the article’s sharpest point: Beijing allegedly signaled that enough is enough. Why? China needs reliable Middle East energy flows and cannot afford endless disruption theater. The author reads the UAE leaving OPEC+, Iran reportedly removing hardliners from talks, and Xi–Trump diplomacy as signs that Iran is being pushed toward actual negotiation instead of performative brinkmanship. That’s the “end game” thesis.