Following US President Donald Trump’s airstrikes on Iran’s three major nuclear facilities — Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan — on June 22, analysts have been questioning what the decision, seemingly signaling a more active US military role in shaping the Middle East security landscape, means for the global strategy of the US.
The Trump administration had declared that the Indo-Pacific region and Taiwan would be its “priority theater.”
However, the strikes should not be seen in isolation. As Johns Hopkins University Henry A. Kissinger distinguished professor of global affairs Hal Brands wrote for Bloomberg, Israel’s war against Iran was about three overlapping conflicts: a war for the future of the Middle East, a war for nuclear non-proliferation and a war that squeezes the axis of aggressors — China, Russia, North Korea, Iran and its proxies — by pressuring its weakest link.
Trump’s bombing of Iran — something Israeli leaders had long requested from former US presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Trump in his first term and Joe Biden, but were denied — has not only shown that Trump is willing to act decisively in theaters he believes to be of primary interest to his administration, but also demonstrated the centrality of unpredictability to his foreign policy strategy. By giving Iran a two-week deadline to negotiate, only to order strikes just days later, the administration showed that it views ambiguity and unpredictability as a key tool to enhance US leverage over allies and adversaries.
This approach has deeply unnerved China.
Trump’s departure from the predictable patterns of previous US presidents, under whom Beijing believed it could secure incremental gains with minimal consequences, might force Beijing to reassess its assumptions. In the Indo-Pacific region, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) cannot be sure of Trump’s threshold for escalation, or confident in how the US might respond if China raises tensions around Taiwan.
“The Trump administration sees the previous US strategy — which aimed to build and maintain a global order led by the United States — as a misguided effort that has sapped US power,” academics Jennifer Lind and Daryl Press wrote in Foreign Affairs magazine. “Instead of trying to create global order, the Trump administration now appears to be pursuing a more focused strategy: prioritization.”
Trump’s decisiveness in the Middle East, coupled with his willingness to scale back US commitments in regions deemed secondary — such as Europe — while urging allies to take greater responsibility for their own defense in their region, reflects a strategy of prioritization. If implemented with strategic discipline and translated into sustained, tangible policy, this approach would improve global security and bolster the collective defense of democratic nations, benefiting Taiwan and its partners by keeping authoritarian expansionism in check.
However, even with the US’ strategy of prioritization, Taiwan must not rest on its laurels, and should demonstrate that it takes its defense seriously and fully grasps the severity of the threat posed by China.
Taiwan this year plans to raise defense spending to about 3 percent of GDP through a special budget, up from the initially earmarked 2.45 percent. While this would mark the highest defense allocation in Taiwan’s history, with NATO nations such as Poland already spending nearly 5 percent of GDP, it might still fall short of meeting the expectations of the Trump administration’s “peace through strength” doctrine.
The global trend among democracies is shifting toward significantly higher defense spending and it is important for President William Lai’s (賴清德) administration not to appear to be getting left behind.
Chinese state-owned companies COSCO Shipping Corporation and China Merchants have a 30 percent stake in Kaohsiung Port’s Kao Ming Container Terminal (Terminal No. 6) and COSCO leases Berths 65 and 66. It is extremely dangerous to allow Chinese companies or state-owned companies to operate critical infrastructure. Deterrence theorists are familiar with the concepts of deterrence “by punishment” and “by denial.” Deterrence by punishment threatens an aggressor with prohibitive costs (like retaliation or sanctions) that outweigh the benefits of their action, while deterrence by denial aims to make an attack so difficult that it becomes pointless. Elbridge Colby, currently serving as the Under
The Ministry of the Interior on Thursday last week said it ordered Internet service providers to block access to Chinese social media platform Xiaohongshu (小紅書, also known as RedNote in English) for a year, citing security risks and more than 1,700 alleged fraud cases on the platform since last year. The order took effect immediately, abruptly affecting more than 3 million users in Taiwan, and sparked discussions among politicians, online influencers and the public. The platform is often described as China’s version of Instagram or Pinterest, combining visual social media with e-commerce, and its users are predominantly young urban women,
Most Hong Kongers ignored the elections for its Legislative Council (LegCo) in 2021 and did so once again on Sunday. Unlike in 2021, moderate democrats who pledged their allegiance to Beijing were absent from the ballots this year. The electoral system overhaul is apparent revenge by Beijing for the democracy movement. On Sunday, the Hong Kong “patriots-only” election of the LegCo had a record-low turnout in the five geographical constituencies, with only 1.3 million people casting their ballots on the only seats that most Hong Kongers are eligible to vote for. Blank and invalid votes were up 50 percent from the previous
Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi lit a fuse the moment she declared that trouble for Taiwan means trouble for Japan. Beijing roared, Tokyo braced and like a plot twist nobody expected that early in the story, US President Donald Trump suddenly picked up the phone to talk to her. For a man who normally prefers to keep Asia guessing, the move itself was striking. What followed was even more intriguing. No one outside the room knows the exact phrasing, the tone or the diplomatic eyebrow raises exchanged, but the broad takeaway circulating among people familiar with the call was this: Trump did