The core point:
1、 The talks in Madrid are only phased outcome, and the TikTok issue is not completely grounded.In the context of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, the United States has partially warmed up on economic and trade issues, but long-term contradictions still exist.
2、 Charlie Kork’s assassination highlights the shift of political polarization to sectarianism, with political differences deeply bound up with violence and security issues.。 The gun control dispute has become an irreconcilable long-term rift between the two parties, and the two parties have been forced to go to extremes to compete for votes.
3. The special relationship between the United States and Israel is Israel's greatest confidence. The attack on Qatar shows that the U.S. alliance system is hierarchical, and the U.S.-Israel relationship is much higher than that of other alliesThe situation of “weak countries without security” in the Middle East is unprecedented.
4、 The Middle East has entered a "full-scale war with a lengthened timeline".Israel's extraordinary recruitment of reserves is not only for preparation for war, but also directly refers to the situation in Gaza and domestic political pressure, and regional conflict has shown a full-blown trend.
Reference to:The Sino-US Madrid economic and trade talks have brought a "technical cooling" to Sino-US relations, and TikTok has been included in the framework of "isolation + supervision" of data and algorithms; On the other side of the ocean, the assassination of Charlie Kirk pushed the "polarization" of American politics to "sectarization"; The war clouds in the Middle East, from Israel's cross-border attack to Lu Biao's shuttle visit, not only revealed the reality that "weak countries have no security", but also exposed the classification and double standards of the United States' alliance system during the Trump era. This issue of Insight into America invites Gao Yuan, a researcher at the Asia-Pacific Development Research Center of Nanjing University, and Xie Liang, an assistant researcher at Minzhi International Research Institute, to interpret the current situation for you.
Editor of this issue: Zhang Yifan
Moderator:The economic and trade teams of China and the United States held talks in Madrid, Spain. After the meeting, Li Chenggang introduced a series of achievements, especially mentioning the TikTok issue. Can it be considered that the TikTok issue has achieved a smooth landing after this meeting? Since Trump took office, a series of tariff policies have been opposed at home and abroad. Is the agreement reached at this point in time a signal of a shift in economic policy? What role does it play in solving the political and economic contradictions in the United States? Does the current agreement have a weather vane significance for Chinese-funded enterprises investing in the United States?
The Highlands:The talks were only a phase-by-phase agreement and did not mean the TikTok issue was completely grounded. Trump’s side was more of a strategic compromise, and the U.S. remained strongly concerned about the security of Chinese-invested enterprises. The framework agreement took technical measures to isolate and regulate Chinese-invested enterprise data and algorithms in the U.S. Trump believed this could avoid immediate blockade and pass on to U.S. consumers. But the issue shifted from isolation to security governance and needed a more sophisticated approach. Compared to previous tariff policies, this is a tactical regression, and the economic and trade issue has been partially warmed in the context of contradictions such as the Russian-Ukrainian conflict and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.This agreement also leaves room for the further advancement of Sino-US relations.
China-owned enterprises need to have a risk expectation. In the past, it was common to seize the market in the way of "developing first and re-compliance," but now the situation is not optimistic. The politicized manipulation of Chinese-funded enterprises by the United States will not end, but will enter a stage of refined and far-sighted development.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, center, and U.S. Trade Representative Jamison Greer, far right, after holding trade talks with Chinese officials on Monday.
Moderator:Charlie Kirk was murdered during a speech in Utah last week, triggering a strong shock in American society. He is a firm supporter of Trump and an iconic figure in the MAGA camp. What do you think of the impact of the event on the American political ecology? Will it exacerbate political contradictions? The two parties react differently after the incident. Trump accuses the radical left of doing what the Democrats emphasize gun control. Will the two parties’ attitude on this issue further exacerbate the opposition?
The Highlands:It can be viewed from two levels. First of all, Kirk has great influence on American youth, especially right-wing youth groups.His assassination led the political polarization of the United States further to political sectarianism. Political polarization refers to opinions and ideological differences, while sectarianism is to deeply bind views and actions. Young people are not only ideologically opposed, but also cling to opposition, and even raise opposition to the level of moralization. This deepens America's crackdown. Second, the Kork assassination brought violence into politics.The American democratic tradition is “I disagree with your point of view, but I swear to die to defend your right to express your point of view” and this time is to prevent expression by assassination, turning political differences into issues of security and violence, having a huge negative impact on America’s reputation and democratic image.
The U.S. bipartisan system and electoral system are deeply bound, the polarization is deepened, the irreconcilable strengthening. Although the U.S. is divided into bipartisan camps, political issues are still diverse, which brings some very strange combinations, such as Musk's relationship with Trump. Musk is opposed to LGBT, but he also represents the new energy industry, and there are contradictions with Trump on many issues, but the two sides are still moving towards cooperation. This is the "combination of arrangements" under the bipartisan system, which leads to some groups that would have great differences being forced to cooperate in reality.
Back to this case, Conflict focuses on gun control: Republicans emphasize gun ownership as a symbol; Democrats emphasize public security and gun controlContradictions have existed for a long time, and outbreaks such as the assassination of Charlie Kork are “casually inevitable” and the irreconcilability of the two parties will continue to intensify.
In 2019, at the “American turning point” event held at North Carolina State University, Mr. Kirk (left) stood with President Trump’s daughter-in-law, Lara Trump.
Moderator:You mentioned earlier that the core of American * is vote-driven. Trump won the second presidential bid, and he also called Kirk indispensable. Some of Trump's votes among young people came from Kirk's canvassing and platform. Why can Kirk stand out among youth? After his assassination, will it fatally weaken Trump's ability to mobilize young voters? Why did Trump order flags to fly at half-mast and reinforce victim narratives?
The Highlands:Trump and Kirk are a strong win-win relationship. There is a gap in Trump's youth group, and the Democratic Party is fiercely competitive; Young people do not always support one side, and there is a large number of middle electoratesThe youth right-wing movement led by Kirk has just "subsidized", concentrated the spread of votes and shaped its own platform and organized operation, the goal is clear, the mobilization is effective, and will naturally be attracted by Trump. As for whether or not the Kork assassination was a “fatal blow” to the youth movement: the movement has its conditions, one organizer falls, and many still stand out.This incident "martyrized" Kirk in objective effect, and it is more likely that the youth movement will be further tied to the Republican Party.
For Trump, he can legally use the state machine. The Democratic Party is in a passive position: failure to cooperate is seen as a party struggle to harm the national interests. Therefore, this move confirms both the contributors within the party and the national narrative to take advantage. The Democratic Party can mainly emphasize public security and gun control, focusing on improving the security of the country and citizens.
On Tuesday, after several explosions in Doha, heavy smoke rose.
Moderator:Israeli air strikes on Doha, the capital of Qatar on September 9, although the target is Hamas, but this means that Israel has launched an attack on a sovereign country, this event symbolizes the Middle East into the “era of the forbidden zone”? has Israel also attacked Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and many other countries before, why is the security of these sovereign countries so fragile?
The Highlands:This event reflects, Not only are weak countries without diplomacy, but weak countries are also not safe.Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, etc. have different degrees of economic and military weakness, and it is difficult to effectively define and maintain their own security. Israel often claims to safeguard its own security on the basis of "fighting hostile organizations" and even packages it as a "contribution" to the security of the attacked country.However, from the perspective of the attacked country, it just exposes its political instability and insufficient ability to safeguard sovereignty. In the final analysis, the difference between the strength of a country determines the right to speak of "security". To ensure sovereignty and security, we must get rid of the weakness.
Regarding rubio's visit to Israel, his trip to the Middle East is not specifically to solve the Middle East issue, but part of his global itinerary as Secretary of State. He also has contacts with China in Madrid, so it can be regarded as part of his trip. This visit has a limited effect and is not enough to decide or change the situation.And the Middle East issue is a huge structural contradiction that cannot be solved thoroughly through diplomatic coordination.
In May this year, President Trump met with Qatar’s Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Alessani in Doha.
Moderator:Qatar severely condemns and intends to resort to the International Court of Justice. The international community has also expressed concern. Netanyahu stressed that "there are no geographical restrictions on the pursuit of Hamas high-level officials". Where does Israel's confidence come from? Qatar says the United States did not stop the attack. Does this mean that the US-Israel relationship is above other allies? Are America's allies' security commitments reliable? Will Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, etc. accelerate military self-protection?
The Highlands:The key word is “United States”.The United States has had a special relationship since the Cold War to this day, with greater influence after Trump regains power.The resistance faced by its actions will decrease as long as it has U.S. support. There is no unity within the Arab-Islamic world, and this unity and disagreement provides space for Israel to operate.The move of the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem in the first Trump term reflects the importance of U.S. Israeli relations. After Trump regains power in 2025, Israel will have a greater space for operations and sustainable action as long as there is U.S. support and disunity within the Arab world, in the context of the already continuing conflict.
The U.S. alliance system is hierarchical.After Trump came to power, he emphasized unilateral and bilateral relations. Compared to Biden’s multilateral arrangements, allies were “rearranged” in the Middle East, with U.S. Israel ahead and other allies naturally behind.As for “unreliable”, it depends on the object and the situation.The current pattern has undergone structural adjustments, and non-Israeli allies in the Middle East need to re-recognize and adapt to this change.
An Israeli attack on a site near a hospital in Gaza City resulted in the deliberate killing of an Al Jazeera journalist and several of his colleagues.
Moderator:After the Israeli attack on Qatar, Trump sent a letter explaining the process behind the incident, is it urgent to remove responsibility?
Xie Liang:Yeah, yeah. Trump stressed for the first time that "this is Netanyahu's decision" and claimed that he was only informed of the news on the day of the incident, obviously intending to cut responsibility and avoid diplomatic risks.
First of all, Qatar is an important ally of the United States in the Middle East, with Udeid Air Force Base in its territory. If it is regarded as collusion, the relationship between the United States and Kazakhstan will be impacted, so Trump must clear it up. Secondly, Israel's long-distance attacks require aerial refueling and route planning, and fighter planes must pass through the airspace monitored by the US military. The statement that the United States "has no knowledge" is difficult to establish, and it is more like an excuse to cooperate with Israel: one side acts, the other side clarifies. At the same time, U.S. Secretary of State rubio was in the Middle East at this time, not only promoting the defense agreement with Qatar, but also visiting Israel, reflecting the true intention of the United States: to use the crisis to deepen the military dependence of the Gulf countries on it, while maintaining the U.S.-Israel alliance. Trump’s speech is not just a conspiracy, but also a crisis in public relations, turning potential diplomatic passivity into strategic coding.
Furthermore, the attacks occurred during a sensitive period of international calls for a ceasefire in Gaza, and the United States would face public opinion pressure if seen as tolerant to Israel. Therefore, the White House emphasizes that "unilateral air strikes do not help common goals" and is intended to keep a distance from Israel's radical actions and maintain its image as a "neutral mediator"。 Generally speaking, on the one hand, the United States clarifies superficially to avoid damaging alliances; On the other hand, it actually connives at Israel's adventures and continues the double standards of Middle East policy: regularized narratives cover up strategic connivance, and ultimately still serve the geopolitical interests of the United States.
Extended reading:
U.S. Airstrikes “Destroy” Iran’s Nuclear Facilities?Expert: Nuclear Knowledge Survives!
Zelensky to meet with the United States, the countries of Europe were on the table: “support” or “atmospheric group”?