Guoxin Li

Gen. Ronald Clark, head of U.S. Army Pacific, told a defense conference that his command has prepared the Pacific theater under the assumption China will have the capacity — and possibly the intent — to seize Taiwan by force next year. (from @WyattwOlson) stripes.com/branches/army/20…

Iran: Between Almost Inevitable Escalation and a Nearly Impossible Diplomatic Deal From Tehran’s perspective, the ultimate objective is neither war nor diplomacy, but a fundamental transformation of the strategic reality in the Middle East. Iran wants to establish control over the Strait of Hormuz, secure guarantees against future military attacks, end the maritime blockade, obtain the release of its frozen assets, and ultimately force the United States to withdraw from the region. Iran would prefer a diplomatic solution, but only one that addresses these fundamental demands. Tehran also insists that any substantive negotiations over its nuclear program must follow Washington’s implementation of its commitments under the understandings previously reached between the two sides. If the United States and Israel attempt to impose their demands through military force, Iran will respond rather than capitulate. The Iranian leadership believes that its ability to withstand the pressure during Operation Roaring Lion demonstrated that resilience, even at a considerable cost, can ultimately produce a more favorable strategic reality. The ongoing maritime blockade is undoubtedly placing enormous pressure on Iran, particularly on its already struggling economy. Yet Tehran believes that the way to end the blockade is not through surrender to American demands, but through either a negotiated agreement or further escalation that raises the costs for Washington and its regional partners. This does not mean that Iran is unwilling to compromise. In fact, Tehran’s recent efforts to accelerate the timetable for nuclear negotiations demonstrate a degree of tactical flexibility and a genuine interest in reaching an agreement that could prevent another round of fighting. But tactical flexibility should not be confused with strategic concessions. Iran's red lines remain clear. It is difficult to envision Tehran abandoning them before another military confrontation, and there is little reason to assume that renewed American and Israeli strikes would fundamentally change its position afterward. This is the central dilemma facing Washington. Iran wants an agreement, but not at the price of surrendering what it considers its fundamental strategic interests. The United States and Israel, meanwhile, appear unwilling to accept the terms Tehran considers essential. As a result, the region is moving toward a situation in which military escalation appears increasingly likely, while a sustainable diplomatic settlement remains exceptionally difficult to achieve. The danger is that another war may not resolve these fundamental disagreements. Instead, it could leave all sides facing an even more dangerous strategic reality, with fewer diplomatic options and greater incentives for further escalation. #IranWar‌ #Iran

台湾人是不是中国人？

Les chinois qui découvrent le concept de la liberté d'expression

BlueChip. Built in America. America made the first electronic computer to win a war. Now we depend on our greatest adversaries to build the computers that run our economy and defend our nation. Today, we bring it home.

“He agrees with critics that the China Initiative damaged the reputations of many innocent scientists and “deterred good people from coming to the U.S.” But he also thinks it “has helped the country more than it has hurt the country by deterring bad people from coming here … and making the country safer.” And he strongly defends the government’s tactics.” China Initiative destroyed the lives of many innocent scientists and led to the death of the innocent Professor Jane Wu. I wonder whether Dao and other @RiceUniversity leadership similarly defend the Japanese American internment camps during WW2, which imprisoned all Japanese Americans with 1/16 Japanese heritage, children under 10, seniors above 70, and people with disabilities, since the camps likely deterred spying activities. A foundermental issue of the infamous China Initiative is its “punish-first-until-proven-innocent” approach. This immoral and un-american approach was not addressed by Dao in this report. Innocent Chinese American scientists should not be considered and treated as “necessary sacrifices” for any purpose, and be subject to such injustice. By the way, claiming that FBI agents know better about how the world works is completely false. One piece of false evidence against Professor Anming Hu was a wrong translation FBI generated using Google Translate. In Professor Franklin Tao’s case, the procecutor argued in court “who would work for free?” We academics work for free all the time in routine academic activities. What FBI and Dao call “facts” are questionable. They are just common blokes too. After China Initiative, Dao landed the likely much better paid position of Associate Vice President of research security at Rice University. Such great career incentive for FBI agents to start the next China Initiative, regardless of the many innocent lives destroyed.