Can Trump Go from NACHO Back to TACO?

Trump woke up with a rare piece of good news: the Iran war is showing signs of easing. He has claimed a ceasefire agreement could be reached within a week. The deadline is pressing — his long-delayed China trip begins next Thursday, 14 May, according to Washington, and arriving in Beijing without a peace deal would be nothing short of an embarrassment.

Here is how the situation on the ground has shifted over the past week.

Iran Softens

Iran has tabled a sweeping new 14-point peace proposal, structured across three phases. The first phase calls for converting the ceasefire into a full cessation of hostilities within 30 days. It extends the truce across all territories involving Israel and regional allies, establishes an international mechanism to prevent a resumption of hostilities, and revises Iran's earlier war reparations demands. Most critically, Iran proposes to gradually reopen the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for the United States lifting its naval blockade.

The second phase focuses on Iran's nuclear concessions. Tehran agrees to discuss a complete halt to uranium enrichment for up to 15 years. It rules out the forced dismantlement of its nuclear facilities, but consents to transferring or diluting its stockpile of highly enriched uranium outside its borders. During this phase, the United States would progressively lift economic sanctions.

Iran's biggest concession here is agreeing to physically move its enriched uranium out of the country, instead of merely agreeing to discuss nuclear issues.

In the third phase, Iran would engage in strategic talks with regional states to build a comprehensive security framework for the entire region. Taken together, this proposal has significantly narrowed the gap between the two sides.

Trump Plays Games

Iran extended an olive branch. Trump responded by playing games. On 2 May, the White House posted a crazy video on X — a looping edit of Trump repeatedly declaring "Winning it, winning it, winning it..." within the span of an entire hour. A day later, on 3 May, he announced the "Project Freedom": a large naval fleet would escort ships trapped in the Strait of Hormuz out of the waterway. Strip away the packaging, and the project was a naked attempt to force vessels through the strait by sheer military muscle.

Trump's calculation was clear: pressure Iran into silence, break open the strait, and arrive at the negotiating table with stronger cards. Iran answered with missiles — firing directly at US escort destroyers. Because the designated shipping route ran close to the United Arab Emirates, Iranian missiles also struck UAE oil tankers and oil facilities. In an instant, the promise of peace collapsed into renewed hostilities. International oil prices swung from falling to rising within a single day, with a total range of as much as 8%. Trump had badly misjudged Iran's reaction — and blown the whole thing up.

Trump Backs Down Again

Once Iran fired, Trump found himself trapped. Under US law, a president can wage war without Congressional authorization for only 60 days — and that deadline had already passed on 1 May. Going back to war with Iran would require Congressional approval. Trump had absolutely no confidence he could get it. A deeply ironic spectacle then emerged: when media pressed him on whether Iran's missile strike on US destroyers constituted a violation of the ceasefire and an act of war, Trump transformed into Iran's de facto spokesman. He deflected, hedged, and refused to call it an act of war — calling the Iranian missile strike a "love tap" instead, while insisting the ceasefire was still "in effect." He even admitted the two countries were locked in what he called a "mini war"— then immediately pivoted to say he wanted it ended "now." That kind of white-horse-is-not-a-horse sophistry was never going to hold.

Middle Eastern media, citing sources on 7 May, reported that Iran and the United States had reached a consensus: easing the US naval blockade in exchange for the gradual reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. Neither Washington nor Tehran had confirmed the report.

Make no mistake: watching a superpower reverse course so dramatically — and so repeatedly — is a remarkable sight. One can’t but wonder: who would still want to follow this kind of boss?

After calling off the "Project Freedom", Trump quickly put out word that a deal with Iran would be reached within a week. The reality is Trump has run out of room for maneuvering. He cannot go back to war with Iran — Congressional authorization is essentially out of reach — and the clock is ticking toward his China trip. His only viable path is to secure a peace deal before Air Force One touches down in Beijing.

From TACO to NACHO

American elites have given Trump a new nickname to go with his latest blunders. The old label "TACO" — borrowed from the name of a Mexican flatbread — mocked him as  "Trump Always Chickens Out." The new one is "NACHO," taken from the name of Mexican tortilla chips, standing for "Not A Chance Hormuz Opens." It is a pointed jab at Trump's string of miscalculations, with the strait's reopening looking no closer to reality.

One can only hope Trump comes to his senses — turns "NACHO" back into "TACO," faces reality, makes the necessary concessions, and reaches a peace agreement with Iran without further delay. The world has already suffered enough.

Lo Wing-hung

Bastille Commentary

** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **

Britain has just delivered a verdict that says more about politics than justice.

The UK government prosecuted Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office (London) administrative manager Yuen Chung-biu and former UK border officer Wai Chi-leung in an alleged espionage case. A jury found both men guilty, ruling that they had assisted a foreign intelligence agency in violation of the UK National Security Act.
 
China's response was direct and unsparing. The Chinese Embassy in the UK issued a statement condemning the case, accusing the British side of abusing the law, manipulating judicial procedures, and staging a politically motivated farce. The Embassy argued the prosecution was designed to shield and support anti-China, destabilising elements who had fled to the UK, while smearing China, the central government, and the Hong Kong SAR government. China has lodged solemn representations with the UK.
 
The case did not emerge from nowhere. It began with a series of incidents in which Hong Kong officials visiting the UK were attacked or harassed by protesters. Various acts of disruption and sabotage targeting the SAR government also took place. External security services were then hired to address those threats. The UK government seized on this to accuse the contractor Wai Chi-leung and liaison officer Yuen Chung-biu of collecting information on the protesters — framing that activity as assisting Chinese intelligence and thus breaching the UK National Security Act.
 
Throughout the trial, the evidence appeared extremely weak. The case against Yuen Chung-biu in particular was poorly substantiated, with a fragmented chain of evidence that failed to meet the criminal standard of proof — beyond reasonable doubt.
 
Yet a guilty verdict was never surprising. Because the case was decided by a jury, and jurors are naturally influenced by local public opinion, the outcome was almost foreordained. The courtroom became an extension of the political climate outside.
 
The entire case carries the unmistakable flavour of a political prosecution. Between states, even genuine espionage cases are usually resolved through diplomatic channels — not open court proceedings. By choosing public prosecution, the UK government sent a signal: discrediting China was the goal, not justice. The prosecution was initiated under the Conservative government, when anti-China sentiment in the UK ran especially high. Producing such a spectacle readily satisfied domestic political demands for a tough stance on China.
 
While the espionage case was drawing to a close, a second crisis was unfolding — this one in the bond market. On May 5, the yield on 30-year UK government bonds surged to 5.78%, its highest since 1998. The 10-year yield climbed to around 5.05%, approaching levels not seen since before the 2008 financial crisis. Rising yields mean falling bond prices. Investors were selling in panic, driving prices down and yields up.
 
Consider this: the yield spread between UK and German government bonds has widened to about 2 percentage points. Germany's economy is widely regarded as weak, yet the UK's bond market performance suggests the UK is now in an even worse position. Sovereign bonds reflect national creditworthiness, and the UK's standing — compared with the US, Germany, France, and Japan — is edging toward a critical threshold.
 
Two factors are driving this bond yield surge.
 
First: energy and inflation pressures. Ongoing tensions in the Middle East have driven energy prices sharply higher. In the 1970s, the UK could rely on North Sea oil to meet its own energy needs. But as those reserves decline, import dependence has grown steadily. By 2025, domestic energy production had fallen 68% from its 1999 peak. Net import dependence had reached 43.5%. Rising oil prices now feed directly into domestic inflation. The Bank of England forecasts inflation exceeding 6.2% by the first quarter of next year — and bond investors are voting with their feet, signalling a loss of confidence in UK credit.
 
Second: domestic political risk. In the same week that yields spiked, the UK was heading into local elections. Markets widely expected the ruling Labour Party to suffer heavy losses, while the far-right Reform UK was poised to rise. British politics is also fracturing — shifting from a two-party system into a five-party contest. Concerns that Prime Minister Keir Starmer's position could be undermined intensified risk aversion across markets, triggering large-scale bond sell-offs.
 
The UK economy has entered a precarious state. In 2016, Brexit — driven by Conservative leadership — set Britain on a course like a train derailing in slow motion. Ties with EU partners weakened on one side. On the other, US President Donald Trump pursued isolationism, treating the UK as expendable. The current Labour government has sought to improve relations with China, yet the lingering fallout from this espionage case — initiated under the previous administration — is likely to damage Sino-British relations regardless.
 
Britain is a textbook case of a country that puts politics in command, and this is where that path leads: marching step by step toward the edge of a cliff.
 
Lo Wing-hung