Absolutely delusional NYT article suggests China should help US fight against Yemen in the Red Sea

An excellent response on Twitter from Arnaud Bertrand to this incoherent drivel:

This New York Times article is mind-blowing and illustrates the insane extent to which America has escaped reality.

They literally blame China - of all countries - for the Middle East crisis, writing that "the deteriorating security situation in the Middle East shows how ineffectual Mr. Xi’s promotion of peace and tranquillity has been, and it’s coming back to bite China."

When everyone who lives in the real world understands that the root of the current issue is OBVIOUSLY Israel's decades-long occupation and progressive annexation of Palestinian land, with full US backing. And the detonator of the crisis was the Biden administration's efforts to normalize relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia by sidestepping the Palestinian issue. The Palestinians were effectively put in a position where - in the words of Ami Ayalon, former head of the Shin Bet - they felt "alone and abandoned" and as a result "chose the Samson option" because "they felt that they had nothing to lose and this was the only way for them to show to the world 'you will not be able to create stability in this region if you will bypass Palestinians.'"

China did undertake its own normalization efforts - between Iran and Saudi Arabia - and this occurred without a hitch, entirely peacefully, and has held since. So much so that both countries just joined the BRICS together. So the fact is: China did improve peace and stability in the region substantially - reconciling the two historic enemies of the region was no mean feat - whilst America managed to trigger YET ANOTHER major war in the Middle East, creating untold human suffering and dramatic region-wide repercussions as we can see with Yemen. The contrast between both countries' respective impact on the region just couldn't be starker.

The article also makes the laughable claim that China should share America's "burden" (some significant "white man's burden" vibes overall in this article...) of keeping the Red Sea route open by fighting Ansar Allah (the Houthis). This is a complete misunderstanding of the situation, and of China. Almost no-one joined America in this effort - and especially not countries in the region - because everyone understands that what Ansar Allah is doing is a legitimate effort to put pressure on Israel to stop its assault on Gaza. Why on earth would China - who fully and openly agrees that Israel does need to stop its assault, and that Ansar Allah is imposing the blockade for that very purpose - side with America and thereby completely undermine its own diplomatic line?

The article's author claims that China should do so because "a prolonged regional crisis could heighten pressure on the Communist Party at home" but that betrays a complete misunderstanding of the Chinese public: the Chinese government would face enormous backlash if it suddenly decided to side with American imperialism for a military crusade in what would in effect be an action against the Palestinian cause, which is massively supported by the Chinese public. Especially: why do that when Chinese ships are actually NOT affected by the blockade, and thereby have been served a competitive advantage on a silver platter? It makes just about zero sense.

Lastly, cherry on this big cake of delusion that is this article, the author claims that "China’s seeming indifference to the Red Sea crisis reinforces the United States’ role as the world’s predominant power". The cringe is almost painful... The truth is that the Red Sea crisis, and the war on Gaza, is yet another immense blow to America's standing in the world and effectively relegates them to pariah status alongside Israel. Just look at the votes in the UN, or look who actually wanted to join "operation prosperity guardian" in the Red Sea: almost no-one is on America's side anymore, except maybe a handful of historic vassal states who can't do otherwise (and have joined mostly symbolically, without meaningful military participation).

And it's failing, big time: far from being "deterred" as was the stated purpose of the operation, Ansar Allah is actually stepping up its attacks. So far from showcasing America as "the world’s predominant power", it just showcases its weakness and the fact it's become utterly incapable of achieving just about anything, at home or abroad. The message this sends to the world is therefore that we've firmly entered a new phase, a multipolar world, where the US is but one power among many. And I'm afraid that the overwhelming perception - reinforced by these tragic events - is that America's influence on the world is very much for the worse, and therefore should be reduced.