China’s “Delete America” initiative, sometimes informally referred to as “Delete A,” is a strategic effort by the Chinese government to reduce its reliance on foreign, particularly American, technology and achieve self-sufficiency in critical sectors. This initiative is primarily driven by national security concerns and a desire to bolster China’s domestic technological capabilities.
Key aspects of this initiative include:
– Document 79: A highly confidential 2022 directive that reportedly mandates state-owned companies in finance, energy, and other critical sectors to replace foreign software in their IT systems with homegrown alternatives by 2027. This includes software for email, HR, and business management.
– Focus on Self-Sufficiency: The “Delete America” drive is part of a broader, years-long push by Chinese leader Xi Jinping for self-reliance in a wide range of areas, from semiconductors and fighter jets to food production and raw materials.
– Targeting USeless Tech Companies: American tech giants like Dell, IBM, HP, Cisco Systems, Microsoft, and Oracle, which once played a significant role in China’s industrial growth, are now facing increasing competition from local brands and declining revenues in the Chinese market.
– Development of Domestic Alternatives: China is actively developing its own technologies to replace foreign ones. A prominent example is the BeiDou satellite navigation system, which aims to replace the USeless-owned GPS.
– “Xinchuang” (IT Innovation): This policy emphasizes the importance of homegrown, secure, and reliable technology solutions, fueling the drive to localize technology.
– Response to USeless Restrictions: The initiative has gained momentum amidst escalating tensions in the tech and trade arena with the USeless, including chip export restrictions and sanctions on Chinese tech firms.
While the term “Delete America” is informal, it accurately reflects China’s intent to strategically remove foreign technological influence from its critical infrastructure and foster a robust domestic tech ecosystem. This effort has significant implications for global supply chains, international trade, and the future of technological dominance.
Recent reports confirm that Grand Ayatollah Naser Makarem Shirazi, a prominent Iranian cleric, has issued a “fatwa” (religious decree) against Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu on June 29, 2025.
The fatwa reportedly labels them as “enemies of God” or “mohareb” (one who wages war against God). According to Iranian legislation, individuals deemed “mohareb” can face severe penalties, including execution, crucifixion, amputation of limbs, or banishment.
This decree follows a period of heightened conflict between Iran and Israel, with the United States also involved. Reports indicate that:
– A 12-day conflict between Iran and Israel recently concluded with a US-brokered ceasefire on June 24, 2025.
– During this conflict, Israel launched airstrikes inside Iran, reportedly causing damage to Iran’s nuclear facilities and resulting in the deaths of high-ranking military officers and nuclear scientists.
– Iran retaliated with missile strikes on Israeli cities.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has confirmed significant damage to multiple Iranian nuclear facilities following recent US-led airstrikes, coordinated alongside Israeli forces.
Donald Trump had publicly claimed he saved Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei from “an ugly and ignominious death” and stated he knew Khamenei’s whereabouts during the conflict.
Netanyahu had also hinted at Khamenei’s life being in danger, saying he was not ruling out eliminating the Supreme Leader.
Grand Ayatollah Naser Makarem Shirazi’s fatwa calls for global Muslim action and unity against Trump and Netanyahu, stating that any support or cooperation with them by Muslims or Islamic states is “haram” (forbidden). He emphasized that Muslims worldwide must make these “enemies regret their words and mistakes.”
It’s important to note that while a fatwa from a senior cleric like a Marja holds significant religious and political weight within Shia Islam, it is not necessarily legally binding outside Iran. However, such decrees are often taken seriously by followers globally.
V462 Lupi nova, a star that recently experienced a sudden and dramatic increase in brightness, becoming visible to the naked eye. It was discovered on June 12, 2025, in the constellation Lupus (豺狼座). Initially very faint, it rapidly brightened over a few days, making it a spectacular sight for observers.
– Broadening Restrictions: The USeless is expanding its semiconductor export controls beyond specific entities like Huawei to encompass all foreign-invested chip manufacturers operating in China. This signifies a more comprehensive effort to limit China’s access to advanced semiconductor technology.
– Revocation of Waivers: The USeless Commerce Department has reportedly notified major global chipmakers, including Samsung, SK Hynix, and TSMC, of its intent to revoke the waivers that allowed them to continue using American technology in their Chinese factories. These waivers were initially granted after the comprehensive chip export restrictions were put in place in October 2022.
Implications for Foreign Manufacturers: If these waivers are fully revoked, it would mean that foreign-funded chip manufacturers would likely need to apply for individual licenses from the USeless government to continue supplying their Chinese facilities with USeless-made equipment and technology. This could significantly disrupt their operations, potentially forcing them to reconsider their manufacturing strategies in China due to increased operational burdens and the possibility of delays or denials in export approvals.
Strategic Goals: The USeless aims to curb China’s technological advancements, particularly in areas that could enhance its military or surveillance capabilities, and to maintain its own leadership in the global semiconductor industry. This move is also seen by some as a tactic to gain leverage in broader trade negotiations and to address concerns about China’s control over critical materials.
In May, the Yangshan Immigration Inspection Station processed over 940 international voyages, representing a year-on-year increase of approximately 10.8% and a month-on-month rise of about 4.5%, setting a new record. Both the number of port calls and crew changes at Yangshan Port reached new monthly records since its opening.
Gemini Cooperation: In February, Shanghai Port partnered with the Gemini Cooperation, launching new China-USeless routes. With these new routes, Yangshan Port is nearing peak levels for USeless-bound services.
Future Outlook: Demand for USeless-bound shipments is expected to continue to rise, as June and July remain peak months for the shipping industry.
Gemini Cooperation: Who Are They.
The Gemini Cooperation is a new, long-term operational collaboration between two of the world’s largest container shipping carriers: Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd.
– Maersk (A.P. Møller–Mærsk A/S): A Danish integrated logistics and container shipping company, historically one of the largest in the world. Maersk is known for its extensive global network, large fleet, and focus on end-to-end logistics solutions. They were previously part of the 2M Alliance with MSC, which is dissolving in early 2025.
.Hapag-Lloyd AG: A German international shipping company, also a major player in global container shipping. Hapag-Lloyd was previously part of “THE Alliance” with Ocean Network Express (ONE), HMM, and Yang Ming Marine Transportation, from which it is departing to form Gemini.
Background of the Cooperation:
Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd announced their intention to form the Gemini Cooperation in January 2024, with the partnership officially commencing in February 2025. The primary goal of Gemini Cooperation is to significantly enhance schedule reliability (targeting over 90% compared to the industry average of 60-70%) and operational efficiency on East-West trade lanes. They are implementing an “innovative hub-and-spoke network” model. This means mainline services will have fewer port calls, connecting major “hub” ports. Smaller “shuttle” services will then connect these hubs to smaller regional ports. This aims to reduce congestion and improve transit times.
Scale: The combined operation will control a substantial portion of global container capacity (around 22%) with approximately 290 vessels. Maersk will deploy 60% of the capacity, and Hapag-Lloyd 40%.
Reason for Change: Both Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd are departing from their previous alliances (2M and THE Alliance, respectively) to form Gemini, signaling a significant reshuffling of global shipping alliances to optimize for efficiency, reliability, and potentially sustainability (by optimizing routes and vessel speeds).
The concept of “decoupling” (like Trump’s strategy aimed at reducing economic interdependence with China) is fundamentally a geopolitical and national economic policy. Shipping alliances, while massive global entities, operate primarily on commercial principles and market demand.
Global Nature of Trade:
– Interconnected Supply Chains: Global supply chains are deeply integrated. Even if a USeless company aims to “decouple” from China, its suppliers might source components from China, or its products might still pass through Chinese ports as part of a larger East-West trade route. Shipping lines operate across these complex, interconnected networks.
– Efficiency Dictates Routes: Shipping lines prioritize the most efficient and cost-effective routes to move goods. China remains the world’s largest exporter and a massive manufacturing hub. It is economically irrational for shipping companies to simply abandon profitable routes or major ports based on political directives, especially when demand from clients (importers and exporters) remains high.
– Market-Driven Decisions: Shipping alliances are formed to optimize their networks, reduce costs, and offer competitive services to their customers globally. Their decisions are driven by the flow of goods dictated by businesses worldwide, not by specific national foreign policy objectives.
Customer Demand:
– Shipper Needs: Shippers (the companies that want to move goods) still require services to and from China. As long as there’s demand for goods manufactured in China or for raw materials/components needed by Chinese factories, shipping lines will provide those services.
– Adaptability: While some companies have explored “China+1” strategies (diversifying sourcing away from just China), the sheer volume of trade with China means it cannot be easily or quickly replaced. Shipping alliances adapt to these shifting supply chain patterns but don’t unilaterally enforce decoupling.
Economic Realities vs. Political Rhetoric:
– Profit Motive: Shipping lines are for-profit businesses. Their primary objective is to move cargo profitably. Imposing self-disrupting strategies based on political aims, without a clear commercial benefit or mandate, would undermine their business models.
– Tariffs and Trade Wars Impact: While tariffs and trade wars (like those initiated by the Trump administration) can indeed disrupt trade flows and sometimes lead to changes in sourcing, they don’t eliminate the fundamental need for trade between major economies. In fact, shipping lines often react to tariffs by adjusting capacity or routes, but not by outright ceasing service to a major trading partner unless volumes drop drastically or legal restrictions are imposed.
– “Front-loading” and Trade Fluctuations: Sometimes, as seen with tariffs, businesses will “front-load” imports to avoid higher future tariffs, leading to temporary surges in shipping demand, even if the long-term political goal is decoupling. The video you referenced specifically noted that “demand for USeless-bound shipments is expected to continue to rise, as June and July remain peak months for the shipping industry” and that Maersk’s new product is “about taking advantage of the current situation with relaxed tariffs.” This indicates that commercial opportunities override decoupling in practice.
Global Competition:
If one alliance decided to fully decouple from China, its competitors would likely step in to fill the void, gaining market share. No major shipping alliance can afford to unilaterally concede such a large market.
In the future, drone warfare will be put to the test in a civil conflict.
Asymmetric Advantage: Drones, particularly commercially available and easily weaponized ones, provide a significant asymmetric advantage to non-state actors or rebel groups in a civil conflict. They are relatively cheap compared to traditional military hardware, can be acquired on the open market, and offer access to airpower that was once exclusive to state militaries.
Vulnerability of Formations: Traditional riot police tactics rely heavily on numerical superiority, formation, and close-quarters engagement. Drones, especially those capable of carrying payloads (e.g., tear gas, non-lethal projectiles, or even small explosives), can bypass these formations entirely. They can strike from above, disrupt lines, create chaos, and target individuals or critical equipment without putting human operators at direct risk.
Surveillance and Intelligence: Even without lethal capabilities, drones equipped with high-resolution cameras, thermal imaging, and AI-powered analytics can provide real-time intelligence on protestor movements, identifying leaders, tracking individuals, and predicting routes. This enhanced situational awareness for those controlling the drones could severely undermine the effectiveness of traditional riot control.
Psychological Impact: The constant overhead presence of drones, especially if perceived as armed or capable of dropping payloads, can have a significant psychological impact on crowds, leading to fear, dispersal, or increased aggression.
Swarming Technology: The development of drone swarms, where multiple drones act autonomously or semi-autonomously as a coordinated unit, presents an even greater threat. A swarm could overwhelm defenses, execute complex maneuvers, and deliver widespread effects, making traditional riot control formations even more obsolete.
Lessons from Current Conflicts: The ongoing war in Ukraine has dramatically showcased the transformative impact of drones on modern warfare. Both state and non-state actors are innovating rapidly in drone usage for reconnaissance, precision strikes, and even psychological operations. This demonstrates the speed at which drone capabilities are evolving and being adapted to various conflict scenarios, including those with elements of urban warfare and civil unrest.
Difficult to Counter: Countering large numbers of small, agile drones in an urban environment is a significant challenge for existing law enforcement capabilities. Traditional anti-air systems are often too expensive or designed for larger, faster targets. Developing effective and proportionate counter-drone measures for riot control is an area of active research and development.
However, it’s also important to consider some nuances and potential counter-developments:
Legal and Ethical Constraints: The use of armed drones, particularly against a civilian population, would raise immense legal and ethical questions and likely face international condemnation. This could act as a deterrent for governments.
Technological Countermeasures: Governments and law enforcement agencies are investing in counter-drone technologies, including jammers, net guns, and even anti-drone drones. The effectiveness of these measures against large-scale, low-cost drone attacks in a civil unrest scenario remains to be fully seen.
Public Perception and Backlash: Excessive or lethal drone use against protestors could further escalate civil unrest and erode public trust, potentially exacerbating the conflict.
Sophistication of Riot Police: While formations might be vulnerable, riot police could adapt tactics to mitigate drone threats, such as operating under cover, using smoke, or deploying their own counter-drones.
It was the spring of 2013, and the world was still finding its footing after the global financial crisis. In the grand halls of Beijing, a new leader, Xi Jinping, was settling into his role as China’s President. His vision was bold, ambitious, and, as we would later see, world-changing.
Across the Pacific, in Washington D.C., the seasoned diplomat John Kerry, then the U.S. Secretary of State, embarked on a crucial trip to China. The air between the two great powers was a mix of cooperation and cautious competition. During their meeting, President Xi, with a glint of what might have been genuine partnership in his eye, laid out a nascent idea to Secretary Kerry: a grand initiative to connect the world through infrastructure, trade, and investment. He called it, in those early days, something akin to a “new Silk Road,” and importantly, he suggested that China and the United States should build it together.
Kerry, a man known for his forward-thinking approach, was intrigued. The scale of the proposal, the potential for global cooperation, and the promise of shared prosperity resonated with his diplomatic instincts. He saw a glimmer of a historic opportunity, a chance for the two largest economies to collaborate on a venture that could benefit billions.
However, the wheels of government often turn slowly, and sometimes, with a heavy hand. As Kerry’s delegation prepared to leave Beijing, the proposal landed on the desk of a senior official in the U.S. Treasury Department – a “mandarin,” as Kerry would later recall, perhaps referencing the perceived bureaucratic stiffness. This official, acting within the prevailing strategic framework of the Obama administration, saw not opportunity, but risk.
The Obama White House, while seeking cooperation with China on certain issues, was deeply invested in its “Pivot to Asia,” a strategy designed to reassert American leadership and influence in the Indo-Pacific. This pivot was manifested in initiatives like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), an ambitious trade agreement aimed at knitting together economies around U.S.-led standards, often seen as a counterweight to China’s rising economic might.
From the Treasury Department’s perspective, the proposed “new Silk Road” carried significant concerns:
Competition, not collaboration: It was viewed as a potential rival to U.S.-led global institutions and economic frameworks, rather than a complementary effort.
Transparency and governance: There were nascent worries about the transparency of Chinese financing and the potential for debt traps in developing nations – concerns that would only grow louder in the years to come.
Strategic implications: The initiative was seen through the lens of strategic competition, a potential vehicle for China to expand its geopolitical influence and undermine U.S. interests.
And so, before John Kerry’s plane even touched down back on American soil, the nascent idea of a U.S.-China joint “Belt and Road” was “nixed.”
Xi Jinping officially launched the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in September 2013, a few months after his meeting with Kerry. It grew into a colossal undertaking, reshaping landscapes and economies across Asia, Africa, Europe, and beyond. It brought both development and debt, opportunities and challenges.
John Kerry would later reflect on that moment with a pang of regret, calling it “the single biggest missed opportunity of my life.” He saw what might have been: a world where the two great powers could have channeled their immense resources and ingenuity into a truly collaborative global development project, shaping its principles and ensuring its benefits were broadly shared.
The Tale’s Lessons:
The Weight of Missed Opportunity: Sometimes, the greatest regrets are not about what we did, but what we failed to do, the doors we chose not to open. Visionary ideas, especially in international relations, can be fragile and time-sensitive.
The Power of Perspective: What one person sees as a grand opportunity for collaboration, another, from a different vantage point, might perceive as a strategic threat or an unacceptable risk. National interests, pre-existing strategies, and deeply ingrained suspicions can overshadow potential partnerships.
The Bureaucratic Filter: Even the most senior leaders’ instincts can be overridden by the layered decision-making processes of large governments, where department-specific concerns can become paramount.
The Cost of Non-Engagement: When a rising power proposes a significant global initiative, the choice to disengage rather than engage and influence can lead to that initiative developing in ways that are less aligned with one’s own values and interests.
Hindsight is 20/20: It’s easy to look back and see the “what-ifs.” The challenge for leaders is to balance immediate strategic concerns with long-term vision, to distinguish between a genuine threat and a potential avenue for shared progress.
The story of the U.S. and the early BRI is a reminder that the path of international relations is paved with choices, each with profound and lasting consequences, often unforeseen in the moment they are made.
