Chairman Rabbit

Dear readers: this is my latest platform for publishing Chinese articles. Readers who follow China-related news, please follow me. "tuzhuxi新平台" , at wechat.

Sun Tzu said: "If you know yourself and your enemy, you will never be defeated in a hundred battles." If you know nothing about your rivals, you are bound to lose every competition. For China, the West’s sheer ignorance of China creates a massive information asymmetry that works overwhelmingly in China’s favor. And the level of information asymmetry is growing by the day.

Shanghai

Still , Mr Bessent comes across as the most innocuous member of Trump’s Cabinet.

Everything he lost in the Iran war, he will recoup elsewhere.

Some are genuine critics, but a large portion of these so-called commentators are neoconservatives and the Israel lobby. They hope to pressure Trump in this way into abandoning peace and restarting the war.

JD Vance is the biggest casualty of the Iran war. Buried alongside him is the MAGA coalition.

Jensen Huang feels his ever at home in China，because, guess what - he's (ethnically) Chinese. Digest this information.

Unfortunately, average American voters today won’t buy any of this. For one thing, they distrust all professors and intellectual elites, as well as and in particular elite univerisities like Harvard. For another, they cannot bring themselves to trust an interview framed in such a setting: an ethnic Chinese conducting the interview, with another Chinese intellectual being jointly interviewed. And they all know each other. The audience see all of this as a setup, and what they promote as a narrative,a propaganda myth, crafted by intellectual elites and global capital. Here I'm not talking about whether these professors have to say are right or wrong, at all. What I want to address instead is how prevalent this line of thinking is in today’s American political landscape. And these academics, too, live confined within their own bubbles and echo chambers.

Hong Kong is PART OF China and functions as China's own offshore financial center. Its purpose is to give foreign / global more options and flexibilities in investing in China , where capital control is still in place for broader reasons.

Trump’s Concession, Israel’s Sabotage, and a Pipe Dream: The Middle East’s Fragile Moment Chairman Rabbit | tuzhuxi | 兔主席 Hopes for a ceasefire between the United States and Iran are rising, but the path to a deal is fraught with peril, caught between American political needs, Iranian stubbornness, and Israeli intransigence. The latest developments reveal a precarious dance on the brink of peace. 1. The Core Concession: Trump on "Nuclear Dust" The most significant shift is Donald Trump’s public concession on Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium (HEU). On Truth Social, he stated the material could be "destroyed in place" under international supervision, abandoning the long-standing U.S. demand for its removal. This largely aligns with Iran’s pre-war position and effectively resolves the most contentious issue. The move signals a clear American desire to exit the conflict, even at the cost of a symbolic victory for Tehran. 2. The Managed Conflict: Skirmishes in the Strait Despite ceasefire talks, limited clashes continue in the Strait of Hormuz. U.S. strikes target Iranian vessels laying mines, and Iran retaliates with missile fire. Both sides, however, carefully frame their actions as "defensive" and avoid major escalation. This calibrated violence underscores Iran’s strategy to cement physical control over the vital waterway during the truce, while a wary U.S. demonstrates resolve without derailing diplomacy. The unspoken reality: America has tacitly accepted it cannot reclaim the Strait by force. 3. The Spoiler: Israel Escalates Against Hezbollah As U.S.-Iran talks progress, Israel has intensified strikes against Lebanon’s Hezbollah, an Iranian proxy. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu justifies this as self-defence, testing whether a future U.S.-Iran deal would tolerate continued Israeli attacks on Iran’s allies. The campaign serves a dual purpose: applying military pressure and potentially sabotaging a broader regional truce that Iran demands. Washington, having conceded on the nuclear issue, appears to tolerate these actions, prioritizing its exit from the direct conflict with Iran. 4. The Political Fantasy: Reviving the Abraham Accords In a bid for a political win, Trump has demanded that key Islamic nations - including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and Pakistan- simultaneously sign the Abraham Accords with Israel as a condition for joining the impending Iran deal. He has even suggested Iran itself could eventually join. This is widely seen as an unrealistic gambit to offset the perception of a retreat from Iran. Key target countries have already rejected the linkage, and the demand ignores the profound anti-Israel sentiment in the region following the Gaza war. For Israel, the ploy is useful: if Arab states refuse, it gains a pretext to resist the U.S.-Iran détente. The Stakes The emerging framework suggests America is preparing to end its war in exchange for Iran relinquishing its most immediate nuclear leverage and reopening the Strait. Yet, the deal remains vulnerable. Trump’s need for a politically palatable victory clashes with Iran’s entrenched negotiating posture. Meanwhile, Israel’s independent military campaign and the non-starter of the expanded Abraham Accords threaten to unravel the fragile process. The coming days will test whether a face-saving exit can be forged, or if the region will spiral back into wider conflict.

This is merely an excuse for MBS to pass the buck. He used this line in communications with Trump, claiming he lacked final say and shifting responsibility to the King. In reality, no Saudi King could possibly agree to normalizing ties with Israel amid fierce public opposition to such a move. Even if MBS himself were King, he would never consent to it. Therefore, media outlets should not take MBS’s remarks at face value.

This is a stupid trick Trump came up with to persuade and pressure Israel into accepting the Iran deal. He’s forcing Muslim countries that are hostile to Israel to sign this foolish agreement. No one wants such a deal - not even Israel itself.

Trump’s ego, Persian intransigence, Israeli spoilers: Three obstacles to a U.S.-Iran deal​ Chairman Rabbit 兔主席 A vicious cycle is jeopardising the fragile peace process Hopes for a ceasefire are rising, but a perilous triangle of obstacles—Donald Trump’s vanity, Iran’s stubbornness and Israel’s sabotage—threatens to derail the deal. Trump’s ego, Persian intransigence, Israeli spoilers: Three obstacles to a U.S.-Iran deal​ A vicious cycle is jeopardising the fragile peace process Hopes for a ceasefire are rising, but a perilous triangle of obstacles—Donald Trump’s vanity, Iran’s stubbornness and Israel’s sabotage—threatens to derail the deal. A deal within reach?​ Ceasefire talks have entered the final stretch. Donald Trump claimed on Truth Social that an agreement has been “largely negotiated” with regional leaders. Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed that a deal is imminent. American officials say 95% of terms are settled, with only nuclear and Strait issues outstanding. Tehran, meanwhile, has signalled its “two-phase” framework: first, end the war, reopen the Strait of Hormuz (initially toll‑free) and lift sanctions; then, address the nuclear file. Both sides now sound optimistic. Yet mutual accusations persist. Under domestic pressure, Mr Trump tweeted that the blockade remains and talks should not be rushed. Iran retorted that America has “backtracked” on key points. The final outcome remains uncertain. Trump’s ego​ Mr Trump’s political brand rests on being a master dealmaker who always wins. Surrender is not in his lexicon. After months of threatening military escalation, he has achieved little on the battlefield. The Strait remains under Iranian control; America’s counter‑blockade has fuelled a global energy crisis and allied discontent. His fall‑back is a face‑saving “statement of intent”: declare the war over, reopen the Strait, and defer the nuclear issue for 30–60 days. The aim is to repackage strategic retreat as victory. He hopes a reopened Strait, falling oil prices and a rising stockmarket will divert attention from America’s setbacks. He wants to claim credit for “opening” the waterway (omitting Iran’s de‑facto control) and to tout Iranian pledges on halting high‑enriched uranium and forswearing nuclear weapons—all to boast of a deal “far better than Obama’s JCPOA”. Disputes over uranium‑enrichment rights and sunset clauses would be fudged. American officials have privately urged Iran to ignore Mr Trump’s bombastic posts—they are “for domestic consumption”. But Tehran asks: why should we endure insults while you boast? Every slight from Mr Trump poisons the talks. At home, critics from left and right alike lambast the emerging framework as an American surrender. Republican hawks like Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz call it a strategic defeat. Israel’s lobby, sensing an opening, amplifies the “capitulation” narrative to pressure Mr Trump. The president, thin‑skinned and proud, is sensitive to such attacks. In two weekend tweets, he insisted any deal would be “the exact opposite” of Obama’s and that he was in “no rush”. His message was clear: he needs a win, and it must look like one. Persian intransigence​ What frustrates Mr Trump is Iran’s refusal to play along. In Tehran’s view, America started this war; Iran endured it and now holds the Strait. Why should the victor offer more concessions? As a Russian diplomat once put it: “Iran never wins a war, but never loses a negotiation.” Iran’s negotiating style is legendary: principled, detail‑obsessed and relentlessly patient. Its team arrives with stacks of documents and a prepared framework. This stems from a deep‑seated strategic culture. Iran is a nation of 90m people, with an unbroken civilisation stretching back millennia. Its nationalism is built on sovereignty, dignity and resistance to foreign coercion—especially America’s. Anti‑Americanism is core to the regime’s legitimacy. Shia ideology, with its narratives of martyrdom and resistance, further hardens Tehran’s resolve. Even under bombardment, the state frames endurance as a sacred duty. Control of the Strait is seen as a vital national interest; any dilution is unacceptable. Hence Iran’s “two‑phase” demand: first, end hostilities and lift the blockade; only then discuss the nuclear issue. On that, it will pledge no bomb and dilute some stockpiles, but it will never surrender its right to enrich uranium—a symbol of sovereignty. Mr Trump knows this. In 2020 he tweeted: “Iran never won a war, but never lost a negotiation!” Today, with the Strait in hand, Iran is tougher still. Whether it can show tactical flexibility—without compromising core principles—will test its strategic wisdom. Israel’s spoilers​ Israel views Iran as an existential threat. Its pre‑emptive strikes, assassinations and bombings have only made that threat more acute. Having failed to bomb Iran “back to the stone age”, Israel now faces a stronger rival: an energy‑rich regional power controlling the world’s most important oil chokepoint. Worse, since the Gaza war of October 2023, Israel has depleted its political capital in America. Pro‑Palestinian sentiment now runs high among young Americans. For Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, Mr Trump was a once‑in‑a‑generation opportunity—a president willing to join Israel’s war on Iran. That chance is slipping away. Mr Netanyahu’s political survival hinges on confronting Iran. His right‑wing coalition demands Iran’s nuclear capability be “eradicated” and regime change pursued. Any peace deal is seen in Israel as a historic failure. With elections due, and corruption charges looming, Mr Netanyahu is mobilising every lever—lobbying Congress, whispering to the White House, stirring media—to sabotage the talks. He is the wildcard that could upend the delicate negotiations. A vicious circle​ These three obstacles feed on one another. Mr Trump’s loose tongue offends Iran, undermining trust. Iran’s rigidity denies him a victory narrative, making him vulnerable to Israeli pressure. Israel’s meddling deepens Iranian distrust, prompting more rigidity—which in turn makes Mr Trump look weaker. It is a toxic feedback loop that could yet upend the fragile peace process. Whether a lasting truce emerges depends on whether these forces can be broken. The geopolitics of the Middle East have rarely been more brittle.

The report reflects reality, and aligns with China’s policy priorities. To generate sufficient employment for its vast population, a full manufacturing ecosystem is essential. Historical evidence suggests that manufacturing powerhouses do not necessarily offshore low value-added industries. Take Germany, the industrial heart of Europe, which adheres to a whole-industrial-chain philosophy spanning from low- to high-end sectors, and from consumer goods to industrial products. Stationery, office supplies, toys, hardware and tools are still produced by German small and medium-sized enterprises, which compete on quality rather than cost. Even today, Staedtler continues to manufacture pencils, erasers and other small items. What is more important is the fact that China os advancing automation within its existing industrial base. Eventually, labour will be replaced by robots, not by offshoring; and even if production capacity does move abroad, it will largely consist of automated production lines. In the age of AI and automation, every nation must forge a new socio‑economic path.

The Path to a Truce in Middle East Washington edges towards Tehran’s terms for ending the conflict Chairman Rabbit | 兔主席 | tuzhuxi Signals from both Washington and Tehran suggest a rare convergence towards a ceasefire. All indications point to America moving closer to accepting Iranian conditions for ending the war: a resumption of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz under Iranian management, albeit initially toll-free, and the temporary shelving of the nuclear dispute. For the Trump administration, critics at home decry this framework as a form of surrender and America’s most significant strategic defeat since the second world war. A Two-Phase Proposal from Tehran On May 23rd, Drop Site News reported exclusively, citing a senior Iranian official, that Tehran had submitted a new truce proposal through mediators, adhering to its step-by-step framework. Phase One demands: a formal declaration ending the war; the lifting of the American maritime blockade; the unfreezing of a portion of Iran’s assets prior to broader nuclear talks; an international mechanism involving the US and other war participants to compensate Iran for losses; and a halt to Israeli strikes in Lebanon. In return, Iran would temporarily reopen the Strait of Hormuz, waiving transit fees initially, pending the finalisation of a "new governance regime" for the strategic waterway. An Iranian official stated this was in response to the conflict’s "destructive impact on global energy and food markets" and appeals from regional and international partners. Phase Two would address the nuclear issue. Tehran proposes: a voluntary 10-year suspension of uranium enrichment above 3.67%; the dilution of stockpiles enriched beyond 20% under external supervision; a pledge not to develop nuclear weapons; explicit recognition of its right to enrich uranium; and a full lifting of sanctions upon a final deal. Control, Not Freedom, in the Strait The proposal underscores that any reopening will occur under Iran’s exclusive control, involving Iranian-administered applications, designated routes, and future fees. Its current waiver of charges serves multiple purposes: responding to international pressure, providing Washington (Trump) with ambiguous wording to claim victory, and implicitly securing American acceptance of Iranian management. The eventual tolling mechanism can be calibrated at leisure. Nuclear Stance: Familiar Ground with New Leverage Iran’s nuclear terms largely mirror its pre-war position and the 2015 deal (JCPOA), which it now feels empowered to insist upon. The core divergence with Washington lies in sequencing: Iran insists on a ceasefire and sanctions relief beforenuclear negotiations, while America has pushed for a comprehensive, nuclear-first approach. Key disputes persist over uranium enrichment rights, levels, and sunset clauses. However, the most politically salient issues for Trump - the elimination of high-enriched uranium stockpiles and a no-nukes pledge - are areas of potential overlap, allowing him a face-saving narrative. Trump’s Announcement and Iranian Warnings On the evening of May 23rd, Trump took to Truth Social, announcing that an agreement had been "largely negotiated" with Iran and regional leaders, and that the Strait of Hormuz "will be opened." He notably omitted the nuclear issue, aligning with Iran’s phased approach. Concurrently, Iranian officials warned that any new American attacks would trigger escalation, including potential strikes on US interests and energy infrastructure, coordinated with regional allies. Iranian media also clarified that Trump’s characterisation of the strait’s status was misleading, reiterating that control would remain exclusive to Tehran. Notably, reports suggest American negotiators have privately urged Iranian counterparts to dismiss Trump’s public posts as "for domestic and media consumption." The Hurdles to a Deal Despite progress, three main obstacles loom. First, Trump’s need for a politically palatable outcome that can be spun as superior to the Obama-era JCPOA. Second, Tehran’s notorious intransigence in negotiations - a trait Trump himself acknowledged in 2020, tweeting, "Iran never won a war, but never lost a negotiation!" Third, and most crucially, staunch Israeli opposition to any deal that leaves Iran strengthened. While Trump appears determined to wind down the conflict, Israel is likely already planning its next moves should a truce take hold. The Stakes of Surrender The emerging framework, seen by many in Washington as a capitulation, would cement Iranian control over the world’s most critical oil chokepoint without resolving the nuclear dispute. It is viewed as a historic strategic setback for America, one that will accelerate a broader realignment of power in the Middle East. For an administration seeking an exit, the price of peace may be a defeat dressed in the garb of a deal - with the bill coming due in the form of a reshaped geopolitical order. As the White House looks to extricate itself, its gaze, and ambitions, may be turning westward. A subsequent post by Trump, simply stating "Hello, Greenland!", hints at where the empire might seek its recompense.

true story !

this will only prolonged the conflict but won't solve the problem , at all. the market doest not believe in and has not priced in renewed conflict. the off ramp is already there, at the end of the day, the result will be the same :trump to get a passable nuclear , end the war, and leave the strait as it is.

Of course.

What Trump will tell the Taiwan leader: 1) Peace in the taiwan strait is America's core interest. 2) And there should be peace for my remaining 3 years in office. 3) Hence you need to stay quite. you should make no attempt whatsoever to seek independence, or any change of status quo. 4) I may or may not sell you weapons. probably no. but i could. but still probably i won't. please understand. 5) Now let's get back to business: hand over your chip industry, which you stole from us.

@SerenaSeek 1) serious legal action is under way; 2) this X account is the official one; 3) follow "tuzhuxi新平台" on wechat 。

我就说怎么起猛了2019年开始关注的tuzhuxi公众号直播了😮那推特的 @ChairmanRabbit 是兔主席本人吗