Skip to Content Facebook Feature Image

Washington's War of Shifting Lies — And Why the World Needs China Now

Blog

Washington's War of Shifting Lies — And Why the World Needs China Now
Blog

Blog

Washington's War of Shifting Lies — And Why the World Needs China Now

2026-03-06 15:01 Last Updated At:15:01

We are living inside One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest — and Washington is running the ward. The leader of the world's most powerful nation produces a fresh justification for war every single day. The lies cycle so fast that we have grown numb to them, and we begin to ask the more disturbing question: Are they mentally abnormal? Or are we?

Since the United States launched its war against Iran on 28 February, the administration has repeatedly rewritten the stated justification for a conflict it entered without legal standing. At a press conference on 2 March, Secretary of State Marco Rubio claimed the US launched military strikes against Iran because Israel was about to strike first, and Washington feared Iranian retaliation on the U.S. — so it decided to pre-empt. By invoking self-defence, Rubio was attempting, however clumsily, to frame the assault as compliant with the UN Charter, forcing the argument that the US faced an "imminent threat".

Trump, however, found that version too meek. Eager to claim credit for what he called a successful campaign, Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on 3 March that he personally pushed Israel to act against Iran — reasoning that if Israel did not move first, Iran would.

Within hours of Trump's remarks, Rubio reversed course entirely. His new version: Trump struck Iran after concluding that US-Iran nuclear negotiations would not succeed — and Israel's action plan had nothing to do with it.

When the Story Changes Daily

CNN put it plainly: the rotating statements from White House officials exposed a government capable only of concocting shoddy justifications for war. In fewer than ten days, the Trump administration produced at least four different explanations for how Iran constituted an "imminent threat" — two of which directly contradicted each other.

Set that American farce aside and turn the camera to China. On the eve of the annual "Two Sessions" — the plenary meetings of the National People's Congress (NPC) and the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) — CPPCC spokesperson Liu Jieyi addressed China's diplomatic priorities at a press conference on 3 March. He observed that the world today is undergoing profound changes unseen in a century at an accelerating pace, with the international situation marked by turbulence and entanglement, and global challenges growing ever more acute. Liu stated that China has always been the "most stable, most reliable, and most constructive" force in a turbulent world.

Those few words from Liu Jieyi capture the China-US contrast precisely. China's role as the world's most stabilising force is visible across three concrete dimensions.

First — The Economic Ballast

Despite the Trump administration's global trade war last year, the Chinese economy demonstrated remarkable resilience, maintaining 5% growth. China's total economic output crossed the new threshold of 140 trillion yuan, with its growth rate remaining among the highest of the world's major economies. China's 5% growth contributed 30% of global expansion, making it the single largest engine of world economic growth. The United States, by contrast, both restrained the economic growth of many nations through its tariff war and undermined itself in the process — America's growth last year is estimated at only around 2%, well below the global average of 3.2%, effectively dragging that average down.

Second — The Diplomatic Stabiliser

Since taking office, the Trump administration launched a first war against Iran in June last year in coordination with Israel — bombing targets across the country, particularly its nuclear facilities. Then, in February this year, it launched a war against Venezuela, abducting President Nicolás Maduro. At the end of February, it struck Iran again, killing Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Make no mistake: Trump still has the audacity to set up a peace commission. The reality is that the United States not only wages outright wars, but serves as the principal behind-the-scenes instigator of multiple regional conflicts around the world.

China, by contrast, has not been involved in a single external war since 1979. Even when disputes arise with other nations, China seeks resolution through peaceful means. The Global Security Initiative put forward by China has already received the support of more than 130 countries and international or regional organisations. China's consistent stance of urging dialogue and reconciliation stands in direct contrast to America's trigger-happy resort to military force.

Third — The Engine of Openness

The United States is practising a "new Monroe Doctrine" — pursuing an isolationist path in the name of American interests, placing self-interest first, sharply hiking tariffs on other nations. This self-serving posture has drawn widespread criticism globally. Washington has even compelled several allied nations to make massive investments on American soil — a brazenly extractive form of conduct.

China, by contrast, has granted comprehensive tariff-free access to imports from the vast majority of developing nations — particularly African countries. China has also extended visa-free entry to a growing number of countries; last year, the number of foreign visitors entering China visa-free rose 75.6% year-on-year. One side is closed and extractive; the other is open and mutually beneficial — the contrast could not be more apparent.

The Counterweight the World Needs

When the world is full of madness, the voice of reason may not always command the spotlight. But if we still believe that rationality exists in this world, then everyone will ultimately find a way through this predicament — and China, as a stabilising force in a turbulent world, will become the counterweight against America's disruptive tide.

Lo Wing-hung




Bastille Commentary

** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **

American politics right now is better than any TV drama.

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — the same woman who once called Hong Kong's protests "a beautiful sight to behold" — was recently asked what she thought of Trump's latest social media post comparing himself to Jesus. Her reply: "You’d have to ask a psychiatrist." The notion that Trump may be mentally unwell is no longer a punchline in American political circles. It is now being treated as a serious question.

The New York Times dedicated a full piece to examining Trump's mental state. On April 4, chief White House correspondent Peter Baker published a piece titled "Trump’s Erratic Behavior and Extreme Comments Revive Mental Health Debate". It noted that Trump's increasingly erratic behaviour — beginning when he decided to strike Iran — has intensified the debate over whether he is "playing crazy or actually crazy." Last week, Trump threatened to wipe Iran off the map, declaring that "tonight all of civilisation will be destroyed." On Sunday night, he launched a bewildering attack on the Pope, calling him weak on crime and disastrous on foreign policy. This series of incoherent, crude statements has led many observers to see him as a power-drunk, hysterical authoritarian.

The Times piece did not only quote Democrats. It also cited a range of voices from the right questioning Trump's mental state. Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Georgia Republican congresswoman who recently broke with Trump, has called for invoking the 25th Amendment to remove him from office on grounds of incapacity. Greene said Trump's threat to destroy Iranian civilisation was "not tough talk — it's a mental breakdown."

Far-right blogger Candace Owens called Trump "a genocidal lunatic." Infowars founder Alex Jones said Trump "does babble and sounds like the brain’s not doing too hot." Even those who once worked alongside him are now speaking out. Former White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham wrote online: "he’s clearly not well."

Trump fired back with a lengthy, furious post — which only served to illustrate his emotional instability. "They have one thing in common, Low IQs," he wrote. Of Owens, Jones, and commentator Tucker Carlson, he added: "They’re stupid people, they know it, their families know it, and everyone else knows it, too! They’re NUT JOBS, TROUBLEMAKERS, and will say anything necessary for some ‘free’ and cheap publicity."

The Times piece ultimately drew no firm conclusions. What it did note, however, is telling: unlike Trump's first term, his second has no equivalent of former Chief of Staff John Kelly — someone willing to quietly restrain him from going too far. Those around him now do not even attempt to hold him back behind the scenes.

Make no mistake: if so many figures in American politics are seriously debating whether Trump is mentally unfit, we should all be alarmed. This is the man with his finger on the nuclear button. The situation demands examination from two angles.

A War Spiralling Out of Control

After negotiations with Iran broke down, Trump announced he was deploying US forces to blockade the Strait of Hormuz. Using a blockade to counter a blockade is, frankly, a kind of madness. Yet within a day of the blockade taking effect, Trump told Fox News that the war was "basically over" and hinted at renewed peace talks with Iran in Pakistan within two days.

On the surface, the conditions for continuing the war do not favour the US. Soaring inflation could hand Republicans a crushing defeat in November's midterm elections, giving Trump every reason to wind things down quickly. Iran, too, appears willing to negotiate, having agreed to face-to-face talks. By conventional logic, there is perhaps a 70% chance this war ends soon. The remaining 30% represents the possibility that Trump acts against all logic and lets things spiral out of control.

The reality is, if so many Americans believe Trump is mentally unwell, who can say with confidence that an unstable person would not turn a manageable conflict into an unmanageable one? We must always leave room for the possibility of irrational decisions from those in power. If every leader always acted rationally, the First and Second World Wars would never have happened.

A System That Elects a Madman

The same Nancy Pelosi who now laughs at Trump as a madman was once a vocal advocate for Hong Kong to replicate the Western democratic model. She called the push for direct elections in Hong Kong "a beautiful sight." But the reality is that American democracy has produced — twice — the very person Pelosi now calls a madman, with his hand on the nuclear button. Once could be called an accident. Twice is unmistakably the choice of a majority of Americans.

This forces us to ask: what has gone so wrong with the Western democratic model? The question becomes even more pointed when we consider the pressure placed on Hong Kong to copy it wholesale. Director of the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office Xia Baolong put it well: Hong Kong must balance development with security. If Hong Kong had copied their system and ended up electing some pro-Western neurotic, it would likely have neither development nor security.

Lo Wing-hung

Recommended Articles