2026-04-05
9 分钟Hi, I'm Sarah Wu, co-host of Drum Tower, our podcast about China.
Welcome to Editor's Picks.
We've handpicked an article for you from the latest edition of The Economist.
We hope you enjoy listening.
Going to war against Iran promised to change the Middle East by weakening a villainous regime
and thwarting its nuclear ambitions.
To its most bullish supporters, the war would also change the world by cowing an ascendant China.
It would show how America's control over the flow of oil leaves China vulnerable,
and it would boost deterrence by contrasting America's military supremacy
with China's reluctance or inability to save its friends.
A month into the fighting, this logic still seems misguided and hubristic.
Certainly that is the way it looks from Beijing.
The Economist has been speaking to diplomats, advisors, scholars, experts, and current and former officials in China.
Almost all of them see the war as a grave American error.
China has stood aside, they say, because its leaders understand the maximum attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte,
supposedly uttered as his foes were abandoning high ground at Austerlitz.
Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.
Many Chinese say the war will accelerate America's decline.
They see American aggression as a validation of President Xi Jinping's focus on security over economic growth.
And they expect peace, when it comes, to create opportunities for China to exploit.