UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer departs for China on January 28 in what amounts to a diplomatic rejection of Washington's either-or foreign policy. Speaking to Bloomberg on January 26, Starmer made his position clear: Britain will stop “sticking your head in the sand and ignoring China” and pursue economic ties with the world's second-largest economy.
Starmer gave Bloomberg his clearest signal yet that Britain won't subordinate economic interests to US demands.
This marks the first visit by a British Prime Minister to China in nearly eight years—a gap Starmer himself calls a "dereliction of duty."
The Bloomberg interview, conducted at 10 Downing Street, lays bare the economic rationale driving this reset. Starmer's four-day trip fulfills a Labour campaign promise to repair UK-China relations, which deteriorated over Hong Kong issues, the COVID-19 pandemic, and espionage allegations. Recent months have seen deliberate moves to ease tensions—most notably, last week's approval for China to build a new embassy in London: widely seen as strategic groundwork for this visit.
Rejecting the Binary Trap
When pressed on whether strengthening China ties would come "at the expense" of Britain's closest allies, Starmer pushed back hard. He cited the US-UK trade talks as precedent: "I remember when I was doing the US trade deal, and everybody put to me that I'd have to make a choice between the US and Europe, and I said, 'I'm not making that choice.'" The message to Washington is unmistakable—Britain will chart its own course, and Trump's tariff threats won't dictate British foreign policy.
Starmer explicitly rejected the approach taken by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, who recently called for smaller nations to band together against what he termed a "new era of great power rivalry." His calculation is simple: developing UK-China relations won't anger Trump or damage transatlantic ties.
Starmer insists that strengthening UK-China ties won't damage relations with Washington.
Timing Is Everything
The context matters. Carney's Davos Forum remarks urging smaller countries to unite in the face of great power competition put a spotlight on Starmer's China visit.
Starmer maintained that UK-US relations remain "very close" and will continue across business, security, and defense sectors. More importantly, he insisted that "Britain can have the best of both worlds" between China and the US—a tightrope walk that few Western leaders have managed successfully in recent years.
Follow the Money
Keir Starmer is finally saying the quiet part out loud to Bloomberg: the UK needs China. While he pays lip service to maintaining "very close" ties with Washington on security and defense, the real headline is his admission that Britain can—and must—pursue the "best of both worlds." The reality is that London is realizing it can no longer afford to blindly follow US foreign policy cliffs.
Make no mistake: the era of delusional decoupling is over. Starmer was blunt, stating that if you "bury your head in the sand and ignore China"—the world's second-largest economy teeming with opportunity—it would not be "sensible". He made it clear that this trip is unapologetically about economic reality, while national security is not compromised. "Quite the opposite," indeed—engagement is the only path to security.
The scale of this mission speaks for itself. Starmer’s hitting Beijing and Shanghai with a delegation of approximately 60 leaders from business, universities, and cultural institutions.
Washington's Chaos Forces London's Hand
The backdrop to this pivot is undeniable. The US-Europe transatlantic partnership is currently in shambles over the Greenland dispute, with Trump threatening tariffs against eight European nations. Add to that his inflammatory remarks about NATO “staying a little back, a little off the frontlines" and it’s no wonder London is looking for stability elsewhere.
Yet, Starmer insists on maintaining a "mature" facade with Trump. He claims the UK approaches these headaches with "British pragmatism, common sense, and adherence to our own principles." But the real issue is evident in his admission that the UK must forge tighter military bonds with Europe. He’s already signaling a capitulation to demands for higher defense spending, noting, "I do think that Europe needs to be stronger in its own defense and security, I think we need to step up to that challenge."
Starmer mentioned a weekend call with Trump regarding Ukraine, warning that both Kyiv and Europe are desperate for American backing. He framed it as, "Ukraine is a very good example of why we need to maintain a very close UK-US relationship".
The roster confirms the priority here is hard cash, not ideology. Reuters reported on the 23rd that heavyweights like Chancellor Rachel Reeves and Business Secretary Peter Kyle are towing a massive group of executives to the Chinese Mainland. The Financial Times adds that this commercial armada spans critical sectors including life sciences, aerospace, and financial services.
Sources close to the PM are cutting through the noise, labeling the refusal of previous Prime Ministers to visit China a sheer "dereliction of duty." The logic is inescapable: they hope to finally strengthen cooperation with the economic superpower. As one source put it, turning a blind eye and pretending China doesn't matter is reckless and will only make Britain poorer and less secure.
Starmer himself emphasized that it is time to reject the "overly simplistic binary choices" of the past—refusing to be boxed into either the so-called "Golden Era" or the disastrous "Ice Age."
When pressed on Starmer’s visit at a January 26 press conference, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun highlighted the turbulent international landscape. He noted that as permanent members of the UN Security Council, China and the UK serve global interests by strengthening cooperation. Beijing, as always, remains open to pragmatic engagement and will release further details in due course.
Deep Throat
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
Two weeks into America's military campaign against Iran, the situation on the ground has stopped following anyone's script — least of all Trump's. At least three competing factions inside the White House are battling to steer the war's direction. In trying to keep everyone happy, Trump keeps contradicting himself in public. Caught between economic pressure and mounting military risk, Washington has talked itself into a corner.
Two weeks in, Trump's Iran gamble has stopped following his script.
According to Reuters on March 13, at least three forces are pulling Trump in opposite directions. First up: Treasury and National Economic Council officials, who warn that US-Israeli strikes risk driving up gasoline prices — eroding public support and political capital. Chief of Staff Susie Wiles and Deputy Chief of Staff James Blair share those concerns. They are pushing for a narrowly defined victory and signalling that the operation is limited in scope and winding down.
Then there are the Republican hawks — Lindsey Graham and Tom Cotton — demanding that the offensive be pressed home, Iran's nuclear ambitions crushed permanently, and every attack on US forces answered decisively. On the other flank, Trump's populist base, former political mastermind Steve Bannon, and conservative media personality Tucker Carlson are doing everything they can to keep America out of another open-ended Middle Eastern quagmire.
This three-way tug-of-war has turned Trump's public statements into something close to performance art. On February 28, he set sweeping objectives. Days later, he described it as a limited operation with goals "basically achieved." Then on Wednesday the 11th, in Kentucky, he declared "We have won" — only to immediately add, "I don't want to withdraw too early. We must complete the mission." One adviser described Trump as trying to convince the hawks that operations are continuing, the markets that the war is nearly over, and his base that the conflict won't escalate.
Three camps. Three agendas. One increasingly cornered president.
Spinning War, Spinning Markets
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt pushed back on the Reuters report, dismissing it as built on anonymous hearsay — while simultaneously emphasising that Trump welcomes diverse views but remains the sole decision-maker. Reuters also noted that Trump launched the war with barely a word of explanation. Objectives shifted from preventing an Iranian "imminent attack," to destroying the nuclear programme, to regime change — a jumble of rationales that has only deepened the confusion.
The political and economic advisers who warned of economic blowback before the war — and were brushed aside — finally found their moment this week. They have played a central role in pushing Trump to calm markets and hold down rising oil and gas prices. Trump quickly shifted his public tone, downplaying the war's impact, insisting the operation was "short-term," and framing any oil price increases as temporary — a calculated effort to head off fears of an open-ended conflict.
But Iran is not playing along. Tehran has ramped up strikes on Gulf tankers and energy infrastructure, and its Strait of Hormuz blockade has driven oil prices sharply higher — effectively wiping out any US military gains at the messaging level. If prices spike enough, the approaching midterm elections could force Trump into an early ceasefire he never planned for.
People in the know disclose that some aides have tried — and failed — to convince Trump that this war cannot be won with the same "quick strike, quick win" playbook used in the Venezuela raid. Iran is a far harder target. Its religious and security structures are deeply embedded. Tehran has absorbed the strikes, launched effective counterattacks that have dealt serious blows to US, Israeli and allied forces, and its leadership shows no sign of buckling — making any unilateral declaration of victory ring hollow.
Mojtaba Khamenei's message in his first address as Supreme Leader was unequivocal: the Strait stays shut.
The Strait Holds, the Stakes Rise
On March 12, Iran's new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei delivered his first public address since taking office. His message was unequivocal: the Strait of Hormuz blockade must continue as a pressure tool. Analysts warn that if the war drags on — with casualties mounting and economic costs piling up — Trump's core base could start to crack.
CNN was blunt: America is running out of options. The Pentagon and the National Security Council, CNN reported, severely underestimated Iran's resolve to enforce the blockade when planning the operation. The national security team failed to game out the consequences. Some officials now believe the administration has stumbled into a worst-case scenario. Energy companies are refusing to send tankers through the Strait until the military situation de-escalates — traffic that once averaged 138 daily transits has collapsed to fewer than five. Meanwhile, the Pentagon regards deploying a naval escort fleet as extremely high-risk, and the military cannot spare the vessels, already committed to offensive operations elsewhere.
CNN also found that in past administrations, Treasury and Energy Department analyses were central to major decisions. In this one, they've been relegated to secondary considerations. Trump relies on a tight inner circle, sidelining broader inter-agency debate on the economic fallout of the Strait blockade. One former bipartisan official said contingency planning for precisely this scenario had been a cornerstone of US national security policy for decades — and that the current state of affairs has left him utterly dumbfounded.
Three sources revealed that senior officials told Congress in classified briefings that no contingency plan had ever been drawn up for an Iranian Strait blockade — on the assumption that such a move would hurt Iran more than the US. Tehran had threatened the same action last summer and never followed through, reinforcing that assumption. Officials tasked with managing the energy crisis still hope tanker escorts can begin as soon as possible — but for now, they have broadly agreed to manage the crisis in phases.
Emergency Levers, Limited Relief
On March 12 local time, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced that the US Treasury would temporarily lift sanctions on Russian oil tankers stranded at sea.
Earlier that day, the White House signalled it was considering loosening the Jones Act — the century-old maritime law requiring that cargo transported between US ports be carried on American vessels. The move could help slow the rise in domestic gasoline prices.
Leavitt put it this way in a statement to CNN: "In the interest of national defense, the White House is considering waiving the Jones Act for a limited period of time to ensure vital energy products and agricultural necessities are flowing freely to US. ports." She added that the decision had not been finalized.
On top of that, the administration is weighing a series of additional measures, including executive orders aimed at easing pressure at the pump. One option under consideration: waiving certain warm-weather production requirements designed to reduce air pollution， that domestic gasoline producers are currently required to meet.
Quick Fixes, Structural Problems
Sources say that using executive orders to ease the regulatory burden on US gasoline producers could trim costs to some degree — and that the effect could linger for weeks even after the crisis has passed.
But some experts are openly sceptical. Clayton Seigle, an energy expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), said the impact would be minimal. The dominant force pushing prices up right now is a global anxiety about the actual supply of refined products and crude oil — and no executive order fixes that.
