Trump-Xi Summit Moves Forward Despite Iran Strikes

Scott Bessent, Jamieson Greer, and He Lifeng will sit down in Paris next week to hash out deals that could emerge from a Trump-Xi summit. The fact that they're still meeting—despite American strikes against Iran rattling the Middle East—says something important about how both superpowers are prioritizing economics over geopolitics right now.

The Treasury Secretary, Trade Representative, and Chinese Vice-Premier aren't just going through the motions. They're preparing for what could be one of the most consequential economic negotiations of the decade, even as military tensions flare elsewhere.

Business Before Bombs

The timing tells a story. Donald Trump's administration could have easily postponed these talks, citing the volatile situation in Iran. Instead, they're pushing forward with plans that were set in motion weeks ago. This suggests a deliberate strategy: compartmentalize foreign policy, keep economic relationships separate from military ones.

For Trump, the calculus is straightforward. He needs economic wins—Boeing plane orders, soybean purchases, concrete deals that translate into American jobs. The Iran strikes might play well with his security-focused base, but it's economic performance that will likely determine his political future.

Xi Jinping has his own reasons to proceed. China's economy needs stability, and a prolonged trade war serves no one's interests. The Chinese leader can afford to appear above the Middle East fray while securing crucial economic concessions.

What's Actually on the Table

The Paris agenda reads like a wish list for American exporters. Chinese purchases of Boeing aircraft would be a massive win for the aerospace giant and its suppliers across multiple states. US soybean commitments would directly benefit Trump's agricultural base in the Midwest.

But then there's Taiwan—the issue that makes every other negotiation point look simple by comparison. Beijing views the self-governed island as a breakaway province to be reunited "by force if necessary." Washington opposes any military action while maintaining arms sales to Taipei.

How do you negotiate around that fundamental contradiction? The answer might be to not negotiate around it at all—to simply acknowledge the disagreement and focus on areas where cooperation is possible.

The Fentanyl Wild Card

One unexpected item on the agenda could be fentanyl tariffs—specifically, what happens now that the Supreme Court has struck down Trump's previous attempts to impose them. The opioid crisis remains a massive domestic political issue, but traditional trade tools have proven legally inadequate.

This creates an opening for creative diplomacy. China has shown willingness to crack down on fentanyl precursor chemicals, seeing it as a relatively low-cost way to improve relations. For Trump, any visible progress on the fentanyl front would be politically valuable, even if it doesn't involve tariffs.

Compartmentalized Diplomacy

What we're witnessing might be the emergence of a new model for great power relations: economic pragmatism decoupled from security competition. The US can strike Iran while simultaneously negotiating agricultural deals with China. Beijing can prepare for potential conflict over Taiwan while buying American soybeans.

This isn't necessarily unprecedented—Cold War America and Soviet Union managed limited cooperation even during periods of intense rivalry. But the scale and complexity of US-China economic integration makes today's balancing act far more delicate.

The question is whether this compartmentalization can hold under pressure. What happens when economic interests and security concerns directly collide? The Taiwan issue looms as the ultimate test case.