The War They Studied: Strategic Shock, Hormuz, and China’s Deepening Turn to Systemic Self-Reliance

Abstract

The 2026 Iran war, precipitated by coordinated United States and Israeli strikes on Iranian leadership and strategic infrastructure, has been widely analysed in Western policy discourse as a regional conflict with global economic implications. This article argues that such framing obscures a more consequential dimension: the war as a live demonstration of contemporary system-level vulnerability, observed in real time by a Chinese strategic apparatus that interprets conflict not as discrete events but as configurations of resilience and exposure. Drawing on Chinese-language policy commentary, Qiushi theoretical texts, and emerging Fifteenth Five-Year Plan (十五五) guidance, the article contends that Beijing is unlikely to derive primarily tactical or operational lessons from the conflict. Rather, the war is best understood as a confirmatory event reinforcing an existing strategic trajectory centred on technological self-reliance (自立自强), supply chain security (产业链供应链安全), energy resilience (能源安全), and strategic corridor redundancy (战略通道安全). The article concludes that the Iran war does not represent a turning point in Chinese strategy, but a validating shock that deepens the structural logic already embedded in China’s long-horizon planning framework.

Prologue: A War China Did Not Fight

The 2026 Iran war has been treated, in much Western analysis, as a discrete geopolitical event: a short-duration, high-intensity conflict between the United States, Israel, and Iran, with immediate implications for regional stability and global energy markets. This framing, while descriptively accurate, is analytically incomplete. It assumes that the primary significance of the war lies in its conduct and outcome. For Beijing, the significance lies elsewhere.

China did not participate in the conflict. It did not intervene diplomatically in any decisive way. It did not shape the battlefield. It observed.

This distinction matters. In Western strategic culture, wars are treated as events to be managed, resolved, or deterred. In the Chinese strategic tradition, conflict is more often read as a configuration to be studied; an exposure of underlying structural conditions that might otherwise remain partially obscured. The difference is not merely cultural but methodological. It reflects a deeper divergence in how strategy itself is understood.

As argued in earlier work, Chinese strategic analysis operates within a temporal and conceptual framework that differs fundamentally from that of Western policy institutions. It is shaped by a long-horizon conception of time, a system-oriented understanding of power, and a consistent emphasis on the accumulation of strategic potential (势, shi) rather than the pursuit of decisive confrontation (Gilbert, 2026a). Within this framework, the question is not what happened in the Iran war, nor even who prevailed in any immediate sense. The question is what the conflict revealed about the structure of modern power.

The war exposed, with unusual clarity, the interaction between kinetic capability and systemic vulnerability. It demonstrated the United States’ continued dominance in precision strike, intelligence integration, and rapid force projection. It also revealed the extent to which modern conflict propagates beyond the battlefield, disrupting energy flows, supply chains, financial systems, and political legitimacy across multiple regions simultaneously. These are not secondary effects. They are constitutive features of contemporary war.

For a strategic system oriented toward long-term resilience rather than short-term victory, such observations are not incidental. They are instructive. The Iran war, in this sense, is best understood not as a geopolitical rupture, but as a stress test; one that has likely reinforced existing Chinese assessments of systemic vulnerability and accelerated the prioritisation of policies designed to mitigate them.

I. The Demonstration of American Power

The opening phase of the 2026 Iran war demonstrated, once again, the United States’ capacity for rapid, high-intensity, precision strike operations. Coordinated attacks targeting Iranian leadership, nuclear facilities, and missile infrastructure reflected a level of operational integration that remains unmatched. Intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities were effectively fused with long-range strike assets, enabling the degradation of critical nodes within the Iranian system in a compressed timeframe.

This form of warfare is not new. It reflects a doctrinal continuity in American military practice: the pursuit of early dominance through the application of overwhelming force against high-value targets. The objective is to disrupt adversary decision-making, degrade capability, and create conditions favourable to rapid conflict termination. In operational terms, the Iran war confirmed the continued effectiveness of this approach.

What it did not demonstrate, however, is the capacity to translate operational success into durable strategic resolution.

Despite the initial strikes, the conflict did not produce regime collapse, nor did it eliminate Iran’s ability to retaliate. Missile and drone attacks against regional targets continued, and the conflict quickly expanded into the economic domain, with disruptions to maritime traffic and energy flows through the Strait of Hormuz generating global effects. The transition from kinetic dominance to strategic ambiguity occurred rapidly, and without a clearly defined end state.

This pattern is not unique to the Iran war. It reflects a broader structural feature of contemporary American strategy: a high degree of operational capability coupled with a more limited capacity for sustained systemic reordering. The reasons for this are complex, but they include the constraints imposed by domestic political cycles, alliance management requirements, and the absence of a coherent framework for post-conflict reconstruction in environments where regime change is either undesirable or unachievable.

From a Chinese analytical perspective, this distinction between operational excellence and strategic discontinuity is significant. It suggests that while the United States retains the ability to impose immediate costs on adversaries, its capacity to shape long-term outcomes is more constrained. This is not a weakness in the conventional sense. It is a structural characteristic of a system operating within what may be termed an “electoral temporality,” in which strategic horizons are necessarily compressed (Gilbert, 2026a).

The implication is not that American power is declining, but that it is differently configured than often assumed. It is highly effective in the initial phases of conflict, less so in the sustained management of complex systems over extended periods. For a state like China, whose strategic planning is explicitly calibrated to multi-decade horizons, this distinction is analytically consequential.

The Iran war, therefore, does not simply reaffirm American military strength. It also illuminates the boundaries within which that strength operates. For Beijing, the lesson is unlikely to be how to replicate American operational methods. It is more likely to be how to structure its own systems in ways that avoid exposure to the kinds of vulnerabilities that such methods are designed to exploit.

II. System Resilience and the Limits of Decapitation

A central feature of the 2026 Iran war was the targeting of senior leadership and strategic command infrastructure in its opening phase. This reflects a longstanding assumption within Western military doctrine: that the removal or degradation of leadership nodes can produce systemic collapse or, at minimum, rapid disorientation sufficient to enable decisive advantage. The logic is coherent within a framework that treats political systems as hierarchical and leadership-dependent.

The Iranian response, however, did not conform neatly to this expectation. While the initial strikes degraded elements of command and control, they did not produce regime failure, nor did they eliminate the capacity for coordinated retaliation. Missile and drone operations continued, regional proxies remained active, and the broader system adapted under pressure. This does not suggest that the strikes were ineffective in operational terms. It suggests that their strategic effect was bounded.

For a Chinese analytical framework informed by Legalist principles and system-oriented governance, this outcome is instructive. As outlined in earlier work, the Legalist tradition places emphasis on institutional design, redundancy, and the maintenance of control through structured systems rather than individual authority (Gilbert, 2026a). Contemporary Chinese governance reflects this logic in its emphasis on distributed accountability, overlapping institutional responsibilities, and the prevention of excessive concentration of power outside Party control.

Within such a framework, the resilience of the Iranian system under decapitation pressure is unlikely to be read as an anomaly. It is more plausibly interpreted as evidence that modern state systems—particularly those that have internalised prolonged external pressure—can sustain functionality despite leadership disruption. The implication is not that leadership targeting is strategically irrelevant, but that its effects are contingent upon the underlying structure of the system being targeted.

This has two important consequences for Chinese strategic thought.

First, it reinforces the importance of systemic resilience as a design principle. If adversaries are capable of precision strikes against leadership and infrastructure, then survivability must be embedded across the system rather than concentrated at its apex. This aligns closely with existing Chinese emphases on institutional continuity, redundancy, and the integration of civil and military systems (军民融合) as a means of enhancing overall resilience.

Second, it complicates the assumption that conflict outcomes can be determined through early decisive action. If systems can absorb and adapt to initial shocks, then the temporal horizon of conflict extends, and the variables that determine success shift from immediate capability to sustained endurance. This, again, aligns with a strategic tradition that prioritises the management of conditions over time rather than the pursuit of rapid resolution.

It is important, however, not to overstate the clarity of this lesson. The Iranian system is not structurally identical to that of China, nor does its performance under pressure provide a direct model for replication. There are significant differences in scale, institutional capacity, and economic integration. What the conflict provides is not a template, but a demonstration of possibility: that systems designed with a degree of redundancy and decentralisation can resist rapid collapse even under sustained external attack.

In this sense, the Iran war reinforces an existing Chinese inclination toward system-level resilience. It does not create it. The emphasis on continuity, redundancy, and institutional control is already embedded in Chinese planning documents and governance practice. The conflict simply illustrates, in real time, the conditions under which such design choices become decisive.

III. Hormuz and the Exposure of Strategic Corridor Vulnerability

If the opening phase of the war demonstrated the reach of American military power, the subsequent disruption of maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz revealed a different dimension of contemporary conflict: the vulnerability of global systems organised around narrow logistical corridors.

The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s most critical energy chokepoints, through which a substantial proportion of global oil exports transit. Even limited disruption to this corridor produces disproportionate effects, amplifying price volatility, destabilising markets, and generating secondary impacts across industrial supply chains. During the 2026 conflict, the threat of closure—combined with targeted attacks on shipping—was sufficient to trigger immediate global economic consequences.

Chinese-language commentary on the crisis reflects a clear awareness of this dynamic. A People’s Daily analysis published in April 2026 noted that the conflict had accelerated a shift in global energy thinking “from efficiency to security,” with states placing increased emphasis on strategic reserves, diversification of supply sources, and the development of alternative energy systems (People’s Daily, 2026). This framing is significant. It does not treat the disruption as an anomaly, but as evidence of a broader structural vulnerability in the global energy system.

For China, this vulnerability is particularly acute. As of the mid-2020s, China remains heavily dependent on imported oil and gas, with a substantial proportion of these imports transiting maritime routes that include the Strait of Hormuz and the Strait of Malacca. This creates what Chinese analysts have long identified as a “chokepoint problem” (通道瓶颈), in which the concentration of critical flows through narrow passages exposes the system to disruption.

The Iran war provides a real-time demonstration of this risk. It shows that even a regional conflict, limited in geographic scope, can propagate through global energy networks in ways that directly affect states far removed from the immediate theatre. The implication is not merely that such disruptions are possible, but that they are increasingly likely in a geopolitical environment characterised by heightened competition and reduced tolerance for instability.

Within Chinese strategic discourse, this reinforces the importance of what is termed 战略通道安全 (strategic corridor security). This concept extends beyond the physical protection of routes to include diversification, redundancy, and the development of alternative pathways. It is reflected in long-term investments in overland energy corridors, pipeline infrastructure, and the broader Belt and Road Initiative, which can be understood, in part, as an effort to mitigate dependence on vulnerable maritime chokepoints (National Development and Reform Commission [NDRC], 2015).

At the same time, Chinese commentary emphasises the role of internal adjustment. The expansion of strategic petroleum reserves, the acceleration of renewable energy deployment, and the diversification of energy imports across multiple regions are all framed as components of a broader effort to enhance systemic resilience. These measures do not eliminate vulnerability, but they reduce the extent to which any single disruption can produce systemic failure.

The key analytical point is that the Hormuz disruption is not treated as a discrete event, but as a signal. It reveals the structural conditions under which modern economies operate and highlights the points at which those conditions are most fragile. For a strategic system oriented toward long-term planning, such signals are valuable precisely because they expose vulnerabilities that can be addressed before they are exploited at scale.

In this sense, the Iran war functions as a form of empirical validation for existing Chinese concerns about corridor security. It does not introduce a new problem. It demonstrates the practical consequences of a known one. The likely effect is not a radical shift in policy, but an intensification of efforts already underway to diversify routes, build redundancy, and reduce exposure to critical chokepoints.

“能源安全观正从单纯追求效率转向更加注重安全与韧性”(“The concept of energy security is shifting from a singular focus on efficiency toward a greater emphasis on security and resilience”) (People’s Daily, 2026).

IV. War as Supply Chain Shock: Industrial Systems Under Stress

If the disruption of Hormuz exposed the vulnerability of energy corridors, the broader trajectory of the 2026 Iran war illustrates a second, equally consequential dimension of contemporary conflict: its capacity to propagate through industrial and supply chain systems with speed and complexity.

Modern economies are not organised as discrete sectors, but as interconnected production networks in which raw materials, intermediate goods, logistics systems, and financial mechanisms operate in continuous synchronisation. Disruption at any critical node—whether physical, financial, or regulatory—can cascade across multiple layers of the system. War, in this context, is not confined to the battlefield. It becomes a systemic event.

The Iran conflict demonstrated this dynamic in several ways. Attacks on energy infrastructure and shipping lanes did not only affect oil supply. They influenced shipping insurance costs, rerouted maritime traffic, delayed industrial inputs, and introduced volatility into financial markets. Fertiliser supply chains, dependent on energy inputs, experienced secondary stress. Industrial planning cycles, calibrated to stable logistics assumptions, were disrupted. These effects unfolded rapidly, and across regions far removed from the immediate theatre of conflict.

Chinese policy discourse has increasingly conceptualised such dynamics through the framework of 产业链供应链安全 (industrial chain and supply chain security). This concept extends beyond the movement of goods to encompass the entire structure of production: the sourcing of raw materials, the processing and manufacturing stages, and the distribution of finished outputs. It is, in effect, a systems-level view of economic security.

Recent Chinese-language commentary, particularly in state-affiliated policy and energy journals, has framed the Iran war as evidence of the fragility inherent in globally optimised supply chains. Systems designed for efficiency—minimising cost, inventory, and redundancy—are, by definition, exposed to disruption when the conditions that support that efficiency deteriorate. The implication is not that globalisation is unsustainable, but that its current configuration prioritises efficiency at the expense of resilience.

This distinction is central to contemporary Chinese planning. The objective is not to dismantle participation in global production networks, but to ensure that critical segments of those networks remain “autonomous and controllable” (自主可控) under conditions of external stress. This involves several interrelated measures: the development of domestic capacity in key industrial sectors, the diversification of supply sources for critical inputs, the establishment of strategic reserves, and the creation of redundancy within production systems.

The Iran war does not introduce this logic. It illustrates its necessity. By demonstrating how quickly disruption in one domain—energy—can cascade into broader industrial and financial systems, the conflict reinforces the importance of viewing supply chains not as neutral conduits of commerce, but as strategic infrastructures subject to geopolitical risk.

From an analytical perspective, the significance of this lies in the shift it implies in how economic systems are conceptualised. Where Western policy discourse has often treated supply chain resilience as a technical or managerial issue, Chinese discourse increasingly frames it as a core component of national security. This is not merely a difference in emphasis. It reflects a broader integration of economic and strategic planning.

The lesson, as it is likely to be interpreted in Beijing, is not that supply chains must be shortened or localised in an absolute sense. It is that they must be structured in such a way that disruption does not produce systemic failure. This requires a balance between efficiency and redundancy, global integration and domestic capacity. The Iran war, by exposing the consequences of imbalance, provides a practical demonstration of why such a balance is necessary.

“提升产业链供应链韧性和安全水平，增强自主可控能力”(“Enhance the resilience and security level of industrial and supply chains, and strengthen autonomous and controllable capabilities”) (Qiushi, 2026).

V. The Fifteenth Five-Year Plan and the Logic of Strategic Reinforcement

The themes identified in the preceding sections—energy security, corridor vulnerability, and supply chain resilience—are not emergent responses to the 2026 Iran war. They are already embedded within the conceptual architecture of China’s medium-term planning framework. The significance of the conflict lies in the extent to which it appears to reinforce, rather than redirect, these priorities.

Emerging guidance associated with the Fifteenth Five-Year Plan (十五五规划), covering the period 2026–2030, places consistent emphasis on what may be termed systemic resilience. Official planning language highlights the need to strengthen 产业链供应链安全 (industrial and supply chain security), ensure the reliable supply of strategic resources, and enhance the capacity of the economy to operate under conditions of external pressure (Qiushi, 2026). These objectives are framed not as reactive measures, but as components of a long-term development strategy.

Central to this framework is the concept of 自立自强 (self-reliance or self-strengthening). As noted earlier, this term is frequently misunderstood in Western discourse as implying a movement toward isolation or autarky. In contemporary Chinese usage, it carries a more precise meaning: the development of independent capability in critical domains sufficient to reduce vulnerability to external coercion, while maintaining selective integration with the global economy.

This distinction is important. The objective is not to withdraw from global systems, but to participate in them on terms that do not expose the domestic economy to disproportionate risk. This involves identifying sectors in which external dependence is strategically unacceptable—advanced semiconductors, key industrial technologies, energy systems—and prioritising domestic capacity in those areas. It also involves building mechanisms to manage disruption in sectors where dependence cannot be entirely eliminated.

The Fifteenth Five-Year Plan framework also introduces a stronger emphasis on what is termed 战略腹地建设 (strategic hinterland construction) and 关键产业备份 (backup capacity for key industries). These concepts reflect an awareness of the spatial dimension of vulnerability. Concentration of industrial capacity in specific geographic regions, particularly along vulnerable coastal areas, creates exposure to both kinetic and logistical disruption. Developing distributed capacity in interior regions, and ensuring that critical industries can continue to operate under adverse conditions, is therefore treated as a strategic priority.

In addition, planning documents highlight the importance of securing 战略通道 (strategic corridors) and ensuring the stable supply of 战略性矿产资源 (strategic mineral resources). These priorities align closely with the vulnerabilities exposed by the Iran war. Disruption to maritime routes and energy flows underscores the importance of corridor diversification, while volatility in global markets reinforces the need for secure access to critical inputs.

The analytical point is that these priorities were articulated prior to the conflict. The Iran war does not appear to have generated a new strategic direction. Rather, it provides a concrete illustration of the risks that these planning frameworks are designed to mitigate. In this sense, the conflict functions as a validating shock: an event that confirms the relevance of existing assumptions and strengthens the case for their continued implementation.

It is important, however, to maintain analytical caution. The relationship between external events and internal planning processes is not linear or transparent. Chinese policy development is shaped by a complex interaction of institutional, economic, and political factors, and it would be reductive to attribute specific planning decisions directly to a single external event. What can be observed, with greater confidence, is the alignment between the vulnerabilities exposed by the Iran war and the priorities already present in Chinese planning discourse.

This alignment suggests that the conflict is likely to be incorporated into an existing narrative of systemic risk, rather than treated as an isolated anomaly. It reinforces the view that the global environment is characterised by increasing instability and that resilience must be built into the structure of the economy itself. For Beijing, the lesson is not that new vulnerabilities have emerged, but that known vulnerabilities have been demonstrated under real-world conditions.

“加快实现高水平科技自立自强，保障国家能源资源安全和重要产业链供应链安全”(“Accelerate the achievement of high-level technological self-reliance, and ensure national energy and resource security as well as the security of key industrial and supply chains”) (National Development and Reform Commission [NDRC], 2025).

VI. From Efficiency to Resilience: The Reconfiguration of Systemic Priorities

Taken together, the dynamics observed in the 2026 Iran war—energy disruption, corridor vulnerability, and supply chain stress—point toward a broader reconfiguration in how complex systems are understood and managed. The underlying issue is not the existence of vulnerability, which is inherent in any interconnected system, but the degree to which that vulnerability is concentrated, unmitigated, and exposed to external disruption.

For much of the post-Cold War period, global economic organisation has prioritised efficiency. Production networks have been optimised to minimise cost, reduce inventory, and exploit comparative advantage across regions. This model has generated substantial gains in productivity and growth. It has also, as the Iran war illustrates, produced systems that are highly sensitive to disruption at critical nodes.

Chinese policy discourse increasingly frames this trade-off in explicit terms. Efficiency is not rejected, but it is subordinated to resilience. The objective is to construct systems that retain the benefits of global integration while reducing the risk that disruption in any single domain—energy, logistics, finance—can propagate into systemic failure. This requires a shift in emphasis from optimisation to robustness.

Within this framework, concepts such as 能源安全 (energy security), 产业链供应链安全 (industrial and supply chain security), and 战略通道安全 (strategic corridor security) are not discrete policy areas. They are components of a single analytical model: the management of systemic exposure under conditions of uncertainty. The emphasis on 自立自强 (self-reliance) functions as the organising principle that connects them, providing a mechanism through which vulnerability can be reduced without abandoning participation in the global system.

The Iran war does not create this model. It provides a practical demonstration of the conditions under which it becomes necessary. By illustrating how quickly disruption can propagate across interconnected systems, the conflict reinforces the argument that resilience must be designed into the structure of the economy, rather than treated as an afterthought.

This reconfiguration has implications beyond the specific case of China. It suggests a broader shift in how states conceptualise economic security in an environment characterised by geopolitical competition and systemic risk. However, the extent to which different states are able to implement such a shift depends on their institutional capacity, economic structure, and strategic orientation. In the Chinese case, the integration of economic and strategic planning provides a framework within which such reconfiguration can be pursued with relative coherence.

VII. Shi and the Avoidance of War

The preceding analysis has focused on the systemic implications of the Iran war. To understand its broader strategic significance for China, it is necessary to return to the conceptual framework within which Chinese strategic thought operates. Central to this framework is the concept of 势 (shi), variously translated as strategic configuration, potential, or the propensity of a situation.

In classical Chinese thought, the objective of strategy is not to seek decisive confrontation, but to shape the conditions under which outcomes become favourable. This involves the gradual accumulation of advantage, the management of relationships, and the positioning of resources in ways that make direct conflict unnecessary or, if unavoidable, more likely to succeed (Jullien, 2004). The emphasis is on preparation and configuration rather than immediate action.

Within this framework, the Iran war is unlikely to be interpreted primarily in terms of military tactics or operational lessons. Its significance lies in the way it reveals the interaction between power and vulnerability in a contemporary context. It demonstrates both the capabilities of the United States and the constraints within which those capabilities operate. It also highlights the points at which global systems are most exposed to disruption.

For a strategic system oriented toward the management of shi, such observations are valuable not because they suggest how to fight, but because they inform how to shape the environment in which future conflict might occur. If energy corridors can be disrupted, then dependence on those corridors must be reduced. If supply chains can propagate shock, then they must be restructured to absorb it. If adversaries can impose rapid costs but struggle to sustain long-term control, then the temporal dimension of strategy becomes a critical variable.

The implication is that the most effective response to the demonstrated capabilities of the United States is not to replicate them directly, but to reduce the conditions under which those capabilities can be applied with decisive effect. This aligns with a broader Chinese emphasis on avoiding premature confrontation and allowing strategic conditions to mature over time.

It is important to avoid deterministic interpretations of this framework. The concept of shi does not imply inevitability, nor does it eliminate the possibility of miscalculation or conflict. It provides a way of understanding how strategic actors might seek to position themselves within a dynamic environment. The Iran war, by revealing key features of that environment, contributes to this process of positioning.

Conclusion: The War They Studied

The 2026 Iran war will be remembered, in most accounts, as a regional conflict with global consequences. Its immediate effects—on energy markets, regional stability, and international politics—are significant and will continue to shape policy discussions in the near term. Yet its longer-term significance may lie elsewhere.

For China, the war is unlikely to be understood as a turning point requiring a fundamental reassessment of strategy. The core elements of its planning framework—emphasis on self-reliance, supply chain security, energy resilience, and strategic corridor diversification—precede the conflict and are rooted in a broader analysis of systemic vulnerability. What the war provides is not a new direction, but a confirmation.

By exposing the fragility of critical nodes within the global system, the conflict reinforces the logic of policies designed to mitigate such vulnerabilities. It demonstrates, under real-world conditions, the kinds of disruption that Chinese planning frameworks anticipate. In doing so, it strengthens the internal coherence of those frameworks and the rationale for their continued implementation.

This does not mean that the lessons of the war are unambiguous or uncontested. Chinese policy development, like that of any complex system, involves internal debate, competing priorities, and constraints imposed by economic and political realities. The translation of strategic insight into policy is neither automatic nor uniform. What can be observed, however, is a clear alignment between the vulnerabilities revealed by the conflict and the priorities articulated in Chinese planning discourse.

The distinction between participation and observation, introduced at the outset of this article, remains central. The United States and Israel acted within the conflict, applying military power to achieve defined objectives. China observed the conflict, analysing its dynamics and implications within a broader strategic framework. These are different forms of engagement, each with its own logic and consequences.

The full implications of the Iran war, from a Chinese perspective, will not be visible in the immediate aftermath of the conflict. They will emerge gradually, in the configuration of policies, investments, and institutional developments that shape China’s approach to systemic resilience over the coming decade. In this sense, the war is less a discrete event than a data point within a longer process of strategic adaptation.

The war has paused. The observation has not.

References

Gilbert, C. E. (2026a). The clock they cannot read: Why Western policy analysts consistently misunderstand Chinese strategic intent. LinkedIn.

Gilbert, C. E. (2026b). The port they cannot read: Puerto Chancay, Chinese strategic infrastructure, and the civilisational grammar of hemispheric influence.

Jullien, F. (2004). A treatise on efficacy: Between Western and Chinese thinking (J. Lloyd, Trans.). University of Hawai‘i Press.

National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC). (2015). Vision and actions on jointly building Silk Road Economic Belt and 21st-Century Maritime Silk Road.

National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC). (2025). Outline of the Fifteenth Five-Year Plan for National Economic and Social Development (Draft guidance). (中华人民共和国国民经济和社会发展第十五个五年规划纲要草案).

People’s Daily. (2026, April). 能源安全观正从效率导向转向安全与韧性导向 [Energy security is shifting from efficiency orientation to security and resilience orientation]. 人民日报.

Qiushi. (2026). 加快构建自主可控的现代产业体系 [Accelerating the construction of an autonomous and controllable modern industrial system]. 求是.

Xi, J. (2023). Promoting Belt and Road cooperation to create a better future. Speech at the Third Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation.

International Energy Agency. (2021). The role of critical minerals in clean energy transitions.

U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2024). World oil transit chokepoints.