U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping met in Beijing. Statements made after the highly anticipated talks suggested that neither side left the negotiations fully satisfied. While Trump described bilateral ties as "the world's most important economic relationship," the Chinese side warned that mishandling tensions over Taiwan could drag both countries into conflict.

Some analysts said after the visit that, for the first time in decades, the U.S. finds itself in a position of deep vulnerability and increasingly dependent on China's cooperation to escape a crisis of its own making. It may still be too early to agree with these assessments fully, but if the U.S. continues to be governed in this manner, no one can say such a scenario is impossible. Inevitably, one question comes to mind: Does the U.S. now need China more than China needs the U.S.?

In fact, the source of Washington's predicament has been its latest military adventure in the Middle East. For the first time, the U.S. failed to receive the level of support it expected from its allies. Trump even threatened to sever ties with NATO. Together with Israel, the U.S. launched a war against Iran without clearly explaining its justification, and the U.S. military has become trapped in a costly and prolonged deadlock.

In retaliation against the U.S., Tehran effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz, imposing a blockade that forced dozens of ships to reroute, sent shockwaves through global energy markets and intensified fears of a worldwide economic collapse. Washington is now searching for a way out regarding Iran.

Before Trump's plane landed in Beijing, Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that the American side would present Chinese officials with reasons why they should pressure Iran to agree to end the war.

However, the overall U.S. approach toward Iran remains confrontational. Trump's inconsistent statements continue to create confusion. On social media, one day he calls for war and issues threats, while the next he praises Iranian leaders and claims agreements have been reached with them. In my view, this contradiction reveals an administration acting with growing desperation.

Throughout and after the war, Washington attempted to portray China as the side most desperate for a resolution, arguing that Beijing's heavy dependence on Middle Eastern energy imports left it highly vulnerable. But this assessment appears to have significantly underestimated China's strategic preparedness. Rather than being severely weakened by disruptions, Beijing demonstrated strong resilience during the crisis. Thanks to careful stockpiling, diversified supply chains and strong domestic production, China has so far avoided the kind of economic crisis Washington had anticipated.

As a result, China, fully aware of the risks, is not rushing into an agreement with an increasingly aggressive Washington. Recent diplomatic contacts are making this more apparent. Beijing maintained close communication with Iran throughout the crisis, and China's foreign minister held discussions with his Iranian counterpart regarding developments. Rather than merely pressuring Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, Beijing appears to favor a broader "grand bargain."

Why settle for minor concessions when China could potentially push the U.S. to end its hostility toward Iran, lift harsh sanctions and accept a new multipolar security architecture in the Middle East?

Trump made remarks in a Fox News interview that appeared to support this interpretation. Trump said Chinese President Xi Jinping had personally offered assistance in resolving the war, stating, "He wants to see the Strait of Hormuz open. He said, 'If there is any way I can help, I would like to help.'"

What kind of assistance China, which maintains a strategic partnership with Iran, might actually provide remains unclear.

Another critical issue between the two countries is Taiwan. During private talks, Xi reportedly warned Trump that mismanaging disagreements over Taiwan could drag the world's major powers into "conflicts and even wars."

Although Donald Trump claimed that Washington and Beijing shared a "special relationship" and insisted the talks had gone well, Xi Jinping's sharp remarks on Taiwan overshadowed the meetings.

Meanwhile, Rubio told NBC News that U.S. policy toward Taiwan "has not changed" and warned that any Chinese attempt to seize Taiwan by force would be "a terrible mistake."

Ultimately, the Trump-Xi summit in Beijing demonstrated not that U.S.-China rivalry has ended, but that it has entered a new phase. The summit's objective appeared less about finding comprehensive solutions to bilateral and global problems and more about creating a temporary and controlled form of cooperation that would buy time for both sides.

Both parties agreed to maintain the current trade truce and establish a new "Trade Council" to manage future disputes. However, deep disagreements remain over technology, Taiwan, artificial intelligence competition and global security issues, while most of the biggest problems remain unresolved.