Gordon Chang: Why All Roads Lead to China

Dozens of top Iranian leaders, including Ayatollah Khamenei, have been killed in U.S.-Israel joint strikes on Iran. Iran has a tradition. That tradition was interrupted for 47 years by the theocratic regime. I'm sitting down with China analyst Gordon Chang to unpack how these strikes are reshaping the global balance of power, and why Beijing is feeling the heat. I believe that President Trump is going after the Chinese, and he's not doing it directly, but he is doing it indirectly, and he's cutting off their sources of support. This is the struggle of our lifetimes, and we better recognize it. This is American Thought Leaders, and I'm Jan Jekielek. Gordon Chang, such a pleasure to have you back on American Thought Leaders. Thank you so much, Jan. So Gordon, hot off the presses, China's U.N. ambassador on this March 1st emergency session at the U.N. has basically said that the U.S. and Israel strikes were brazen violations of sovereignty and demanded an immediate ceasefire to what's happening in Iran. What's your reaction? Well, that's China's reaction. It's the same one they had in Venezuela. All they did was they took the same press release, they used the whiteout, they took out the word Venezuela, they put in Iran, they took out the word Venezuelan, and they put in Iranian, and there you have it. China is not a superpower. If it ever wants to, it always criticizes the U.S., but when the U.S. is determined to do something, it cannot stop us, and that shows us the limits of Chinese power. It's a very interesting reality, you're contrasting here or comparing with the Venezuelan reality, and I can't help but notice that we have two, let's call it, totalitarian leaders that have been deposed in the last very, very short period of time. What is Xi Jinping thinking? I think that Xi Jinping believes that President Trump is a Maoist. Remember, Mao boasted that he won the Chinese Civil War because he encircled the cities from the countryside. This is, you know, Xi Jinping, who reveres Mao, I think has taken that page out of Mao's playbook and used it against the U.S., where he looks at Ukraine, North Africa, Israel as countryside, and the United States as the city. Well, Trump has just taken that same policy and applied it against China, because Venezuela and Iran are countryside, and China is the city. And this is extraordinarily successful. And the thing about Xi Jinping is, he knows what Trump is doing, but he can't stop it. So tell me more about what he knows what Trump is doing, because I don't think everybody knows what Trump is doing. I don't think everybody's clear on that. Well, the narrative is that Trump has sort of gone soft on China and on certain things he has. But if you look, for instance, at the national security strategy, it's very clear that China is a high priority. It may not be the number one priority, which is the Western Hemisphere. But if you look through that short document, it's clear that China is foremost in President Trump's mind. So for instance, towards the end of it, it talks about how the United States must not allow any hostile power—the phrase that it uses—to either close off the South China Sea or impose tolls on traffic over or on the South China Sea. Well, there's only one country that fits that description, that has that ambition and has that power. So that's true when you look through the entire document. I believe that President Trump is going after the Chinese, and he's not doing it directly, but he is doing it indirectly, and he's cutting off their sources of support. Oil, for instance. Venezuela supplies maybe three to four percent of China's imported oil. But Iran was somewhere between 15 and 23 percent, depending on the year. And that's important because when you put those two numbers together, you get a significant portion of China's imported oil has now been taken off the board. President Trump may allow the Venezuelans to sell oil to China, but not at the heavily discounted rates that China was benefiting from. And Chinese factories are now dependent on cheap oil. Well, they're not getting it anymore. If they get their oil, they're going to have to pay market prices. Gordon, one quick sec. We're going to take a break. I'm going to be trying to get some more sponsors for American Thought Leaders. And the reason is I want to try to get it on more of the non-paywall platforms where we'll use the sponsors to support the show. And one of the sponsors that I really appreciate is American Hartford Gold. These are pretty chaotic times. We're not sure where things are going to go. There has been this massive liquidity, $6 trillion put into the system. We don't actually know how all that is going to play out. And I like to put my money in a very stable place that also tends to go up. And gold is really the perfect place for that. Now, gold has had a correction recently, and that's absolutely true. But again, if you look at the long-term trend on gold, this is the reason I invest in gold. I'm not like a stock market trader. I like to put my money in a place that's stable and growing. And I actually think this is the exact right time to buy gold because it has gone down a little bit. It's a little bit cheaper, but the price, in my belief, is only going to continue to go up. And that's what I'm actually doing. So American Hartford Gold really is the place to do it. We've worked with them for years. We've had a great experience working with them. They're Better Business Bureau certified, and frankly, really easy to work with. So you can call them at 855-862-3377. You can text American to 65532, or as always, click the link in the description below. And we're back with Gordon Chang, author of Plan Red, China's Project to Destroy America. He's on X at Gordon G Chang. Well, and also just to add to that, Venezuelan and Iranian oil imports for China were actually settled in RMB, which most people are not willing to do. Yes. I mean, who wants a currency that is not a hard one? You know, when people have a choice, they want the stronger currency. Now, Venezuela and Iran might have been forced to take a cheap currency because they didn't have very much choice. But now they're going to get that choice. And that means that they're going to have to start paying dollars again. So I don't know how closely you've been following this. I'm getting reports from a few think tanks that basically there aren't any of these new anti-ship missiles or drones being shipped, or there's no kind of rush to support Iran, an increased rush of sales to Iran since this has happened. So I'm kind of wondering, what is China really saying? What are they actually going to do? You said that they can't do anything, but there is something, some things they can do. For example, they could accelerate those deliveries. Have delivered. There are the reports of something like 15 to 18 Chinese cargo planes left China's bases and flew into Iranian airspace. We don't know what they brought over, except that there are confirmed reports that they did sell or transfer a particular type of Chinese radar. Now, it didn't do the Iranians very much good because we knew where they were. And when the Iranians powered them up on the 28th, we just took them out. So we didn't lose any aircraft. And it shows that once again, that Chinese export equipment isn't very good. It somehow did not see more than 150 American aircraft that were near or in Venezuelan airspace. And again, on the 28th of February, they just didn't see our planes. Now you can say, well, oh, the Chinese radars that they sold the Iranians and the Venezuelans weren't as good as the ones they have at home. And I'm perfectly, you know, that's probably true. But the point is that the stuff that the Chinese are selling to others just is not working against American countermeasures. How do you react to the sort of, well, I would guess you could call them accusations or statements that what the US is doing in Iran is regime change? Yeah, well, happy that they were doing that because there won't be peace in the Middle East or even the wider world until we get rid of that regime. That regime has declared itself to be an enemy of the United States. Matter of fact, the Iranian president in December actually came out and said, he said, we're in a state of war with the United States. But we have these Iranian death squads that are running around the United States. We know the Iranians turned off a water system in Pennsylvania not too long ago. Iran in the past has killed Americans. They worked very hard against it. And, you know, we know what they did against Israel on October 7. So, yes, the Iranian regime has to go. It has a nuclear weapons program. It's got ballistic missiles. It is a danger to the international community. And it has killed thousands and almost certainly tens of thousands executed Iranian prisoners over the last five or so weeks. So, I believe that we have to get rid of the Iranian regime. We can't keep on saying, oh, you know, it's unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, or it's unacceptable for the Iranian regime to execute tens of thousands of its own citizens and then not do anything. So, bravo to President Trump for doing this. You know, a couple of thoughts come to mind. One is that perhaps unusually, right, you know, basically, the like or dislike of the Ayatollahs is kind of an 80-20 issue in Iran, from what I understand, i.e. 80% don't like them very much at all, and 20% are pro. But the other fact that comes to my mind is that I don't think there's a lot of appetite in the U.S. electorate for regime change. Now, you know, unpack that for me. That's, of course, true. And we know that, and it's true not only among Democrats, but also among Republicans. President Trump ran on being the no more foreign wars president. But there are times when presidents have to do what is absolutely necessary to protect the American public. You go back to Tocqueville, talked about how democracies are very slow to recognize threats, very slow to go to war. And that's true. You know, we've had a string of political scientists who have told us that, and that's absolutely true. We ignored Osama bin Laden. We ignored him after he killed six Americans by bombing the North Tower of the World Trade Center in February 1993. We ignored him until one day when he reached out and killed 2,977 Americans. And then we said, well, how did that happen? Well, that's the nature of our democracy. And yes, I understand that it is unpopular. But that's the way we end up in situations where many Americans get killed. World War II in Europe could have been avoided if Britain and France had exerted their power in 1936 and stopped the Third Reich from remilitarizing the Rhineland. So we know that tens of millions died because Britain and France could not rouse themselves to do what was absolutely necessary. Well, we're the Britain and France of this century. Until, of course, President Trump decided, no, we were not going to allow these threats to gather. And I think that this is a profiles-encouraged moment for the president. Well, it's interesting. Peace through strength—that has also been the president's mantra I think throughout. And I think the president would probably argue that this is an exercise of that. Yes, and it certainly is. He's ensuring peace in the long term because, among other things, he has started a chain of events that probably will lead to the end of the Iranian regime. And he's, again, encircling the cities from the countryside, which is an important thing for us to do. We Americans don't understand that we are in an existential struggle with the Communist Party. We don't want to think that. But remember, the party has declared a People's War on Us. That was a landmark editorial in People's Daily, the most authoritative publication in China, in May 2019. And we Americans, we just look at that and say, well, that's propaganda. We can ignore it. But that's a mistake. It's a mistake because with its strident anti-Americanism, the party is trying to create a justification to strike America. And by the way, as a footnote, in March of 2023, PLA Daily, which is the main propaganda organ of the Chinese military, defined People's War as, quote, total war. So we know China has a doctrine of unrestricted warfare. It has been killing Americans. And we have been doing our best to not know what's going on. Well, the thing about communism, and this is something I write about in my upcoming book, Killed to Order, as well, which, by the way, thank you for endorsing. Very, very much appreciate that. But communism is international. And at the moment, there always is this sort of impetus to spread for a whole suite of reasons, which we don't need to get into here necessarily. But we have Venezuela, we have a Venezuelan leader being removed. We have the Ayatollah being removed. And we have the Cuban regime, communist regime on, I don't know, maybe thin ice. I'm curious what you think about the pattern here, because to me, it almost seems in line with how you describe it, kind of clearing, cleaning up the countryside. Well, the Cuban regime is fragile. It's, for instance, dependent on Venezuelan oil provided at concessionary prices. And now they're running out of fuel in Cuba. And that means increasingly hard times on that island. And yes, it's important for us to do that. We've had a series of presidents who have endorsed this notion of managed decline. For instance, well, Carter did that. Nixon did that. And it took Ronald Reagan to say, no, we win, they lose. And then after that, we had a series of presidents, both Republicans and Democrats, who bought into this managed decline theme. And Trump is saying no. Now, people can say they don't like Trump's tactics. They think they're counterproductive. Who knows? But the point is, Trump is disrupting this managed decline theory. And he said, I'm not accepting it. And that's really important, because that gives us a chance to actually prevail and to have freedom prevail around the world. So this is really important. And we should, all Americans, whether we're Republicans, Democrats, Independents, we should all be cheering on the president, because this is the struggle of our lifetimes. And we'd better recognize it. Because if we don't recognize it, Jan, although the United States is a far stronger society than China, we can lose our country. We can lose our country because we're not defending it with the vigor and with the determination that's necessary. And thank God we now have a president who started on the road to defending our country in the way that it must be in these perilous times. Well, just one thing I might add, people would point out that we have a lot of internal problems. And indeed, I see this pointed out a lot. And we should deal with those before we cast our gaze outside. But indeed, Communist China, I saw some really good reports from Azra Nomani recently, basically showing that these kind of China-funded protests were actually anti-Iran War protests, kind of sprouted up even before it was announced somehow, kind of astroturf protests, funded from outside, basically to kind of fuel this internal division that, indeed, we do have to actually deal with as a society. Yeah, the argument that we need to deal with problems at home has a superficial logic to it, and certainly is politically popular. But when you start to look at it, it doesn't hold water. And the reason is that China is purposefully creating and aggravating problems and is standing in the way of solutions in the United States. So for instance, just take what happened on January 31 in Las Vegas. You had Las Vegas SWAT and federal agents descend upon a home that had more than a thousand vials of a red substance or substances that was clearly making people, quote unquote, deathly ill, according to the housekeeper who reported this. This looks like a Chinese biological weapons storehouse. It is connected because it was owned by somebody who was now going to be going to federal trial in April for running the lab in Readley, California. In Readley, California, they found a secret Chinese biological weapons lab, which had at least 20 pathogens, many of them for deadly diseases, and almost a thousand mice have been genetically engineered to spread disease. So tell me, how do you solve your problems when you have millions or tens of millions of Americans dying from a biological weapons attack launched from American soil? There's all these multiple vectors of subversion that the Chinese Communist Party has been waging on America. I just had Peter Schweitzer on the show, but no, you were going to say something. Jump in. No, no, I'm just saying fentanyl. When you were talking about this, there are so many others, and they've been fueling the protests in 2020, and all the rest of it. Sorry to jump in, but yes, they are there, and all the things that Peter Schweitzer has been talking about in his new book recently. Absolutely. For example, the different forms of weaponized migration, the strategic anchor babies, and possibly having a million American citizens that are actually raised in China under the Chinese Communist Party. It's shocking how deeply they've been able to abuse our open system. We have the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. There are no easy solutions to that problem. You are dealing with US citizens who could very well come back and vote in a coordinated fashion as directed from Beijing. If a person is not a US citizen, you can deport them, you can do all sorts of stuff. But if they're a US citizen, they're basically untouchable. Someone we both know, Christopher Balding, had a very interesting commentary yesterday, which I think he's very insightful often. His commentary was, just think of them like the mob, if you're thinking about the Chinese Communist Party. The way that you have to communicate with them is to metaphorically put a horse's head in the bed, and that is an effective form of communication. I think he's arguing that, again, seeing Ayatollah gone, seeing Maduro gone, that's a form of President Trump communicating while saying, on the one hand, we're great friends with President Xi and so forth. On the other hand, there's this horse's head in the bed happening. I'm curious what you think about that. Yeah, Christopher Balding is perceptive. I wish the Communist Party were like the mob. Unfortunately, they're worse than the mob, because their goal is not to just make money. Their goal is the extermination of the American people and the extermination of the American form of governance. But yeah, the analogy gets it across. But just extermination of the American people, the way of thinking or physically, just to be clear what you're saying here? Well, your paper reported that in the first half decade of this century, General Chiu Hsiao-Tung, then Defense Minister of China, gave a secret speech that advocated the use of disease to, quote-unquote, exterminate the American people. He said that, yes, it's indeed brutal to kill one or 200 million Americans, which was about the population of the U.S. then. But that's the only way for the Communist Party to rule the world. That's almost a direct quote. So his idea was to clear out the hills, valleys, and plains of North America so that the Chinese could inhabit the United States. That's extermination of the American people. Now, one could say, well, that reported speech has never been confirmed. But we have seen acts of maliciousness, especially with regard to disease, that confirm that the Communist Party does have that ambition. So for instance, with COVID-19, once it got out into the Chinese public, Xi Jinping took decisions in December of 2019 and January 2020 to deliberately spread that disease beyond China's borders. That was mass murder. That was evil. And that shows that China has that maliciousness that General Zhou Xiaotong exhibited 20 years ago. And indeed, as you know, in Kill to Order, this is one of my main theses there. There's this large-scale murder for organs industry, which it's unclear how many hundreds of thousands of China's own people it has killed in cold blood and for profit and elite longevity. I think that the ruthlessness and the sort of utilitarianism, basically using people as fodder for power purposes or profit or whatever purpose, this is something that's an important functioning element of how the Chinese Communist Party operates. It illustrates the maliciousness of the regime. I mean, this is beyond the comprehension of most people. And, you know, if you go back, let's say, over the last 10, 15 years, a lot of people have shied away from the accusations of organ harvesting because they were just too grotesque. They were too far beyond the way that people in democratic societies think. It was just evil. And we Americans have shied away from the notion that there is evil in the world. Now, I'm a Christian. You know, evil is very much in the Bible. You've got the devil. But American society has sort of, for a number of reasons, have sort of shied away from this notion that there is evil. But organ harvesting, which you document in your book, it is evil. And we have to start talking about it in those terms. And one of the things that why Ronald Reagan prevailed was because he was willing to say in public that the Soviet Union was the evil empire. Now, that's a long topic, which I love to talk about, so I won't do it. But the point is, we have to recognize the concept and we have to speak out in public about this. Well, you know, Gordon, indeed, if we understood how this organ harvesting worked and just kind of accepted it the way we would treat, for example, statements like the general wants to exterminate some number of Americans, that becomes a lot more of a credible statement. I mean, we haven't allowed ourselves to understand the lengths to which the Chinese Communist Party will go to to maintain and project power. Absolutely. I mean, it is a confirmation of the state of mind of the Communist Party. And it's very difficult for us as Americans to understand it, which puts us at risk because, as I mentioned, we are not willing to confront it. We have not confronted a lot of things, and Americans have died as a result. Well, but Gordon, you're leading this new CPAC Center to Defeat Communism, which is kind of a great development. In fact, I was commenting with someone who's a part of it, I was saying, wow, you guys have a new center to combat communism. And the person corrected me, this is a center to defeat communism. I was like, okay, thank you for correcting me. How excellent. Tell me a little bit about what that's about, because it sounds like at least there's some people out there who are looking to face all of this right in the eye. Yeah, I can't say that I'm leading it. Spencer Hartman, who works at CPAC, is leading the effort. And he's fantastic. And he's got a team with Ernesto Gonzalez, led by Matt Schlapp, the chairman of CPAC. And this is to defeat communism. This is going back to what Ronald Reagan taught us. And we have to understand that communism is evil, and that we can't coexist with it as much as we'd like to, because communists think that they cannot coexist with us. And so we have to defeat it. Now, this is sort of, when you think about what Martin Luther King Jr. said about justice, nobody has justice until everybody has justice. It's sort of the other side of that sentiment, that this is worldwide, as you said. And it is an ideology that believes in the destruction of free societies. So free societies have to recognize that, and have to act with the determination that is necessary in these circumstances. It's unfortunate. It's like Rodney King said, why can't we all just get along? Well, yeah, we would like to do that. But that's not the ideology of communism, and it's certainly not the ideology of the Chinese communists. Just jumping back to Iran for a moment here, the concern, and I think this is a very legitimate concern, is that there's a kind of a power vacuum that gets filled by something worse. And we looked at some of our regime change operations of the past, and quite a number of them, the more recent ones especially, didn't go very well, didn't go very well at all. And so what makes Iran different somehow? I don't think we can get worse than what we've got right now. But we've had regime change operations like Germany and Japan. And that was because there was political will to make sure that those operations went well. And we had American business that was fully on board. I think the why Afghanistan and Iraq didn't go well is because you didn't have the secure environment in which business could come in and transform society. And this is the issue right now in Syria. You know, Syria's leader, a former al Qaeda operative, said, look, and he said this to the United States, he said, I want to be Japan and Germany. I don't want to be Afghanistan or Iraq. I don't want U.S. aid. He said that. He said, I want U.S. business. And so we have to go back and understand what made Japan and Germany successful. And we can do it again, if we have the political will, if we can create the peace and stability. And I'm sure that we can, because Iran is very different than Afghanistan or Iraq. Well, one thing that Iran really does have going for it is that, again, I think as I said earlier, it's an 80-20 issue, 80 percent. I mean, you know, this is, of course, a rough estimate gleaned through VPNs and so forth of sentiment, but really are against the regime and are looking to do something better. They feel it's something that was imposed on them. And, you know, of course, it's an atrocious totalitarian system. Iran is not Iraq, although they border each other. Iran has a tradition. That tradition was interrupted for 47 years by the theocratic regime. But the Iranian people won't get this right. And we saw how many people in Iran wanted to be free. So that is a real indication that Iran can work. You know, and just again, sort of thinking more into this sort of neighborhood idea, I mean, through Belt and Road and through a whole bunch of other, you know, corruptive practices, you know, China has basically set itself up all over the world. And part of the, of course, part of the reason was for the oil, for example, with these two countries that we've been discussing. But partially, and this is indeed something that was stated by, I remember, one of their top think tank people. It's an attempt to distract the US, which the CCP, as you pointed out, views as its enemy, from looking at China. If you're distracted by other wars, if you're just looking at the Middle East, you keep having that problem and having to focus there. It's very hard to focus on what's happening in the Pacific. And arguably, that's been a very successful strategy for a few decades. Yes. And you have a whole bunch of people, and especially in the Pentagon, who say, well, we should not be involved in Ukraine, for instance, because that distracts us from East Asia. But I believe that that is misguided, because the Chinese are looking at Ukraine really as the template. And the people in Taiwan say this, that their future is being written on the battlefields of Ukraine. Because if the United States allows a Russia to keep territory through acts of aggression, then the Chinese will think that they too can do the same thing, that the United States will accede to a Chinese grab of Taiwan or parts of Japan or the Philippines, whatever. And so I think that you cannot allow Russia to succeed in Ukraine. Wang Yi, the Chinese foreign minister on July 2nd, was pretty clear about the relationship between Ukraine and Taiwan. And that means we have to understand that just because we do something in one part of the world, it affects other parts of the world. It's not isolated. You can't just do one thing here and then not expect that it won't affect what goes on elsewhere. And that's why I think it's very important to prevail and make sure that Iran becomes a free society. We certainly put China in a very difficult position. As Mao would say, that's part of the countryside, a critical part of the countryside. How can I say this? The Chinese Communist Party is seeking to basically continue to spread its power. Now it's had its power reduced significantly, arguably, its strategic power. Is this something that you expect President Trump to continue to try to remove these allies or prevent them? Is something like a reverse Kissinger, as has been described some months ago, still a possibility? Yeah, I see Trump not letting up. We started May of last year when Trump's triumphal tour through the Middle East, those three Gulf states, really sort of pushed China and Russia out of the region, or at least out of that part of the region. And what we have witnessed since then is the further reduction of Russian and Chinese influence there. And that's culminated, of course, with the strike on Iran on the 28th of February, and a continuing war. So yes, this is something that's important. And it's not just the Middle East. It's Venezuela, of course. Cuba looks fragile. I don't think the president is going to stop with where he is in Panama with the taking away of the two ports of CK Hutchison. I don't think we're done there yet as well, because the Chinese have a fourth bridge over the canal that they're building. They've got all of these listening stations throughout South America. The Chinese military is loaded up in Cuba. I don't think Trump's going to allow that to continue. So yeah, this is freedom moving forward. Bravo, President Trump. And it's the Chinese retreating. China is not a superpower. We are learning that this year. And we're learning that because somebody with the name of Donald John Trump decided, no, I'm not accepting this notion of managed decline. I don't think the Chinese are going to own the 21st century. Not on my watch. And this is what Americans need to hear, because we underestimate our own power. We have a lot of people in our country who say, oh, you know, the Chinese are going to take over. We might as well live with it. Thank you, Bill Clinton. But no, that's not the way we are. That's not in American DNA. And thank God President Trump is saying, we will prevail. Is it possible for the president or the U.S. to put a wedge in the U.S., pardon me, the China-Russia so-called no-limits partnership? Possible, not likely. If Vladimir Putin goes, who knows what can happen? But while he's still there, you have Putin and Xi Jinping. They see the world in the same terms. They identify their interests in the same way. They see the same enemy. That's the United States. And they're cooperating. They've been cooperating a lot. And you hear a lot of supposedly smart people say, oh, you know, China and Russia, they've been historical enemies. They'll never form an enduring partnership. All of that's 100% right and 100% or 99% irrelevant, because we do not worry or should not worry about China and Russia in the 2060s or the 2070s. Yes, they very well may be separate and apart then. But we have to worry about what the Chinese and the Russians are doing now. And right now, they are on the same page. Yes, there are antagonisms. Yes, they sometimes squabble over oil and gas prices. But the point is, they are working together. Russia would not be fighting in Ukraine right now were it not for all-in Chinese support. So if you think Ukraine is important, and I do for the reasons I mentioned, then yeah, we need to be concerned about that. And we're not going to woo Vladimir Putin away from Xi Jinping or vice versa. That's just not going to happen. It is much too difficult. And we'd have to make too many compromises. And we'd have to undermine our own ideals to do that. The way you separate Russia and China is you defeat them. So it's pretty clear to me through the President's actions that Taiwan is an important, let's say, kind of strategic asset for the US that's somewhat laid out in the national security strategy as well. The question is, China right now, Xi Jinping is in the midst of multiple military purges, some kind of happening literally as we speak. So what is the impact on those calculations? It's very interesting that these things are happening at the same time. I believe that the Chinese military right now is not capable of starting hostilities with an invasion of the main island of Taiwan. The Central Military Commission of the Communist Party, which is the governing body of the military, now has only two of seven members. One of those members is Xi Jinping himself, and the other is a political commissar. There's nobody there with war fighting experience. There's nobody there with any operational experience to speak of. And so the chain of command in the Chinese military has been severed for the first time in the history of the People's Republic. You know, as you mentioned, there's turmoil as we speak. Yeah, just two days ago, we learned that there were nine military deputies of the National People's Congress who are not included on the list for the upcoming meeting of the Congress, which starts on the 5th of this month. And that's after the shocking announcement of an investigation on January 24th of the two senior generals. And one of them, Zhang Yaoxiao, was the number one uniformed officer, the first vice chairman of the Central Military Commission. He's gone. He's about the only guy there who had any wartime experience. So yeah, I don't think the Chinese military right now can—you know, its pilots are as capable as they were at the beginning of the year. Its ship drivers, they're just as good as they were two months ago. But the point is, the military doesn't have a leadership. Now, that's only temporary, or it might only be temporary because, you know, Xi Jinping can now reach down, promote compliant flag officers who will do whatever he wants, which means China could become—it could speed up the timeline. But the point is, at this moment, the Chinese military—I don't think we have to worry about the Chinese military starting hostilities with deliberate forethought. Now they can back in and they can stumble into a war, and that can happen at any moment. But I don't see Xi Jinping waking up some morning and saying, we're invading Taiwan, and the military saying yes, because that's just too difficult for the Chinese military right now, at least the main island of Taiwan. Just two days ago, the White House confirmed again that there will be a visit, that President Trump will be traveling to Beijing. How does all of this, these realities—well, of course, the purges as well—but just this Iran war now, how does that impact that visit? Pentagon just a few hours ago announced the death of three service members. If they were killed by Chinese weapons—and Iran has a lot of them—then President Trump should not go to Beijing. Now, he shouldn't go to Beijing for a lot of other reasons, like fentanyl, like COVID, but this is just one more reason why it is wrong for him to go. It is wrong strategically. It is wrong morally. Why strategically wrong? Because what he is doing is he is legitimizing the Chinese regime at a time when it is weak. But more important, we see that he is going soft on China on things which he shouldn't. So, for instance, there's reporting, which I believe is accurate, that his administration is not announcing Taiwan weapons packages because he doesn't want to roil relations in the run-up to that March 31 meeting or summit. Also, Trump's Commerce Department is not putting in place important restrictions. So, for instance, Commerce is not banning the installation of Chinese-made equipment in U.S. data centers. Chinese-made equipment can allow the Chinese to steal data and also perhaps to control those centers, maybe shut them down remotely. He's not prohibiting Chinese trucks and buses into the United States. The list goes on and on of things that he is not doing. And he's not doing that, I think, because he doesn't want to get Xi Jinping upset. Two things I'll say. The Chinese forced Keir Starmer to green-light the mega-embassy as a condition for Starmer going to Beijing. Well, Starmer didn't get very much in Beijing if he got anything at all. He probably gave more than he got. And they just humiliated him with the way that they treated him. And you can see that from the images that Beijing released. Contrast that with the Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takeichi. She stood up to the Chinese starting on November 7th. And she took her party, which was, you can't say dying, but was certainly ailing. And she won an historic landslide victory on the 8th of February. And that was in large part because she stood up to the Chinese. President Trump went soft on China in the beginning of 2020. I guess he did that because he wanted to sort of take China off the table. In other words, not have it to be a factor in his reelection. And we know how that worked out. And now he's doing the same thing. He's going soft on China in the run-up to the midterms. I don't do domestic politics, but I think that this is not going to be good for the president. Every time he says Xi Jinping is his friend, Republicans do not like it, and Americans don't like it. So I think Trump has just misjudged the mood of the American people when it comes to China. When he says that as well, we have widespread reports that that is actually used against the dissidents to demoralize the various dissident groups that are in China. Stuff like that is actually broadcast into the prison saying, look, the president's on our side. But there's another way to look at it too as well. Like right now, the president has just kind of decapitated one of China's key proxies and client states. So maybe he doesn't want to add insult to injury before he heads over there with his Taiwan sales or something like that. Yeah, but this is the notion that if you're nice to the Chinese, they'll be nice to you. And we know that that does not work. So we've been trying that for decades. I mean, if you try it for the first time, yeah, okay, and it doesn't work, that's understandable. But you keep on trying it for decades and decades, and the approach still doesn't work. Well, you know, that's on us now. Ronald Reagan, he called the Soviet Union the evil empire. The dissidents inside the Soviet Union said, look, we all knew it was evil. That's not any revelation. But what was a revelation was you had a leader of a major Western country say that, and it electrified the dissident community in the Soviet Union. It gave them heart. It gave them enlightenment. And this goes to the point you just made about how the regime is using this inside the Chinese prisons. So this is just wrong. I love a lot what Trump does. And I think that you're right. There's a lot of stuff that Trump does that really is hurting the Chinese. And that's great. But on some of these optic things, this is not good at all. We need a little bit more of Ronald Reagan in the Oval Office. Well, Gordon, this has been an absolutely fascinating discussion. A quick final thought as we finish? The critical moment. As Lenin said, there are decades when nothing happens, and then there are weeks when decades happen. Well, the weeks that we're now in, decades are happening. And we have to be vigilant because you have a regime in China that could, for its own internal reasons, which we haven't discussed, but for its own internal reasons could lash out. So this is a consequential moment. And we've got to be strong, and we've got to support our president. Well, Gordon Chang, it's such a pleasure to have had you on. Well, it was great to be here. And thank you so much, Jan. I really, really appreciate it. Thank you all for joining Gordon Chang and me on this episode of American Thought Leaders. I'm your host, Jan Jekielek.