Xi, Trump agree: Iran must not get nuclear weapons — what it means for the Middle East and the world

During the May 14-15, 2026 state visit of US President Donald Trump to Beijing, both US and China publicly declared a unified stance on Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

It reflects mutual interest shared by the two largest powers: uniting against Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, and reinforcing a long-standing Western narrative about preventing proliferation.

At the same time, both countries stated the Strait of Hormuz must remain open to support the free flow of energy.

China also opposed the militarisation of the strait and any effort to charge a toll for its use.

Get updated faster and for FREE: Download the Gulf News app now - simply click here.

The declaration is pregnant with meaning: Nuclear deterrence has now taken precedence over concerns about volatile energy markets and its effect on global consumers.

Concerns over proxy conflicts, fuelled by Iranian oil, now form part of US-China relations far more than their economic or political rivalries.

These are great-power concerns Iran cannot ignore.

Iran's political leaders have for nearly five decades leaned on ideological narratives about driving out "foreign influence" to legitimise their actions.

It's a throwback to the ideology that espoused by Imperial Japan from the late 19th century until 1945.

Both regimes used the idea of expelling or countering foreign influence not just descriptively but normatively — as a core justification for major political and strategic projects.

Since 1979, when Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini returned from exile and Iran became an "Islamic Republic", the country has undergone decades of profound upheaval.

The ideology of the Islamic Revolution is rooted in "anti-imperialism" and resisting external domination, particularly Western influence.

It frames foreign powers as "exploitative" and "hostile" to Islam and Iranian autonomy.

This language of resistance is embedded in Iran’s constitution, including objectives to eliminate imperialism and prevent foreign influence.

Tehran's political rhetoric emphasizes Iran’s victimisation by outside powers and portrays Western culture as corrupt.

It draws some parallisms to Imperial Japan from the late 19th century to 1945.

Till then, Japan’s expansionist ideology blended ultra-nationalism and pan-Asianism to justify resisting Western imperialism and establishing itself as the dominant power in Asia.

Japanese imperialists depicted their actions as "liberating" Asian nations from Western colonialism, even as Japan exercised its own imperial dominance.

This rhetoric positioned Japan as a leader of Asia against foreign domination.

Imperial Japan’s wartime vision and the ideology of the Islamic Republic of Iran emerged from vastly different cultures, religions and historical contexts.

Yet both developed a powerful narrative: it is built around "resistance" to Western domination, regional leadership and the removal of American influence.

The comparison is imperfect, but it is not baseless.

The Empire of Japan promoted the so-called "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" as a overarching mission to liberate Asia from Western colonialism.

The slogan “Asia for Asians” became central to Japan's wartime propaganda.

Tokyo framed itself as the natural leader of a new Asian order that would expel European and American imperial powers from the region.

In practice, however, historians widely note that the project often became another form of empire, marked by military occupation, coercion and economic extraction.

Modern Iran’s revolutionary ideology similarly casts the United States as an intrusive outside force in the Middle East.

Since the 1979, Tehran’s leadership has argued that Washington sustains authoritarian allies, dominates Gulf security and undermines regional sovereignty.

Iranian regime rhetoric, particularly within hardline Shia Islamist circles, presents resistance to American influence as both a political and religious duty.

The strongest parallel lies in anti-hegemonic messaging: Both Imperial Japan and Iran under the IRGC positioned themselves as defenders of regional "dignity" against Western interference.

Both claimed moral legitimacy beyond raw military power.

Both sought to rally neighbouring societies around a broader civilisational vision — Pan-Asianism in Japan’s case, revolutionary Islamic resistance in Iran’s.

But there are major differences that matter.

Imperial Japan pursued overt territorial expansion through direct conquest across China, Korea, Southeast Asia and the Pacific. The Japanese military built formal colonial administrations and occupied foreign territory on a massive scale.

Iran, by contrast, generally operates through "proxy" networks, ideological alliances and political influence rather than outright annexation.

The Tehran regime has not attempted to recreate a territorial empire through direct occupation.

The ideological foundations also differ sharply.

But US courts have ruled that Tehran must be held responsible for supporting violent groups across the region.

The 1983 Beirut barracks bombings killed 241 US Marines, and 58 French paratroopers in truck-bomb attacks blamed on Hezbollah, a Shiite militia with deep ties to the IRGC.

A US federal court ruled that Iran had provided material support for the attack — for which US law holds Tehran financially liable to victims’ families.

Japan’s wartime doctrine blended emperor worship, militarism and Pan-Asian nationalism.

Iran’s system, on the other hand, is rooted in Shia revolutionary theology and the concept of "guardianship" of the Islamic jurist.

One was fundamentally ethno-national and imperial; the other is religious-revolutionary and transnational.

That is why the analogy should be used carefully.

Some comparisons illuminate patterns of anti-Western mobilisation and regional ambition. Others risk flattening distinct histories into simplistic “history repeating itself” arguments.

The comparison becomes more compelling when examining how both powers justified leadership: Imperial Japan claimed only it could unite and protect Asia from Western domination; Iran claims only a "resistance axis" led by Tehran can secure the Middle East from American and Israeli influence.

In both cases, a toxic liberation rhetoric coexisted with strategic self-interest.

The United States’ entry into World War II also reveals how anti-interventionist sentiment can rapidly collapse under direct attack.

Before 1941, many Americans strongly opposed entering another European or Asian war.

The trauma of World War I, economic hardship during the Great Depression and widespread isolationism shaped public opinion.

The US Congress even passed Neutrality Acts during the 1930s —specifically to avoid entanglement in foreign conflicts. Many Americans believed oceans protected the country from overseas wars.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt gradually moved the nation toward supporting Allied powers through measures like Lend-Lease, but full military entry remained politically divisive.

That changed on December 7, 1941.

Japan’s attack on Attack on Pearl Harbour transformed American opinion almost overnight. The attack directly targeted US territory and military personnel, making neutrality politically impossible.

Germany’s subsequent declaration of war against the US sealed America’s entry into the global conflict.

The broader lesson: great powers often avoid war until they perceive a direct threat to national security, economic stability or geopolitical credibility.

Isolationism can endure for years — until a catalytic event reshapes public opinion.

Today’s tensions involving Iran, Gulf security and American military presence operate in a very different international system than the 1930s and 1940s.

Nuclear deterrence, global energy markets and proxy warfare have replaced the era of mass territorial conquest.

Still, ideological narratives about expelling foreign influence remain potent political tools.

History does not repeat itself mechanically.

But it often echoes through familiar language: "liberation", "resistance", "regional destiny" and promises of a "new order".x