As things heated up in the Middle East in early June, some in the Pentagon resisted American involvement in the Israel-Iran war because it would divert American attention and resources from the real challenge: China. This was exactly wrong. Rather, bombing Iran was the best thing that could have happened for America’s Asia policy.
When it came to dealing with the Iranian nuclear program, “all options are on the table” had become an American mantra over the past two decades. But the more often US administration officials insisted that military force was in the cards, the less anyone believed it. After all, US governments spent decades insisting that North Korea would never be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, but neglected to use force to avoid precisely that outcome.
Now, foreign powers will have to take Trump administration threats much more seriously. Not only has he proven he is willing to back up threats with action, but he has demonstrated notable risk tolerance as well. Israel’s ability to gain control of Iranian skies significantly mitigated those risks, but they were real nonetheless. The United States put fourteen airmen and seven of the most expensive airplanes in history over enemy territory, attacked a sovereign country with whom it was not in open warfare, employed weapons of war never before used in combat, and made little effort to secure political buy-in at home before acting. Much could have gone wrong.
The recent trade contretemps, in which Chinese reprisals succeeded in getting the Trump administration to the negotiating table, may have had China buying into Wall Street traders’ moniker for the US president: TACO, for “Trump Always Chickens Out.” Chinese leaders should be rethinking that assessment. Going forward, in a contest of wills in which American national security interests are in play, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) cannot assume Donald Trump will blink — a huge win for the president and for efforts to contain China.
Donald Trump has also put Chinese impotence on display. Beijing has invested significantly in Middle East relationships in recent years. Its oil and gas purchases, its first overseas military base (in Djibouti), its 2023 mediation of Iran-Saudi negotiations, and its 25-year security agreement with Tehran had many believing China was emerging as a major power in the Middle East. Beijing may have believed this itself.
Things look different now. China’s open support for Hamas did not hinder Israel in Gaza. As Israel methodically dismantled Iran’s air defenses and much of its nuclear program, Beijing didn’t lift a finger to support its purported regional ally. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi (王毅) refused to even condemn Israeli actions in direct communications with Tel Aviv, even as he did so on calls with other capitals. And Xi could do little more than watch in awe as American B-2 bombers flew 18 hours to their target, spent 20 minutes over hostile territory, dropped 14 of the world’s largest-ever non-nuclear bombs on two underground nuclear facilities, and then flew home.
Put simply, China was helpless to prevent Israel from attacking its closest ally in the region, helpless in bringing the war to an end, and will likely be helpless in shaping the peace. Beijing has played no substantive role whatsoever in the region in recent weeks.
Middle powers and smaller countries that have aligned with China now know what that alignment is worth: not much, not when American national security is at stake. And capitals that have long sought to avoid taking sides in the US-China rivalry may be rethinking that approach. It must look pretty good to be on America’s side right now.
From here on, the Trump administration should feel more confident in dealing with China directly and in confronting China’s attempts to expand its influence around the world. And Beijing should feel less confident both in handling Trump and in its own ability to shape events beyond its borders.
China, a great power? More like a great bystander.
Michael Mazza is senior director for research at the Institute for Indo-Pacific Security (formerly the Project 2049 Institute) and a senior non-resident fellow at the Global Taiwan Institute.
In a summer of intense political maneuvering, Taiwanese, whose democratic vibrancy is a constant rebuke to Beijing’s authoritarianism, delivered a powerful verdict not on China, but on their own political leaders. Two high-profile recall campaigns, driven by the ruling party against its opposition, collapsed in failure. It was a clear signal that after months of bitter confrontation, the Taiwanese public is demanding a shift from perpetual campaign mode to the hard work of governing. For Washington and other world capitals, this is more than a distant political drama. The stability of Taiwan is vital, as it serves as a key player
Yesterday’s recall and referendum votes garnered mixed results for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). All seven of the KMT lawmakers up for a recall survived the vote, and by a convincing margin of, on average, 35 percent agreeing versus 65 percent disagreeing. However, the referendum sponsored by the KMT and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) on restarting the operation of the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant in Pingtung County failed. Despite three times more “yes” votes than “no,” voter turnout fell short of the threshold. The nation needs energy stability, especially with the complex international security situation and significant challenges regarding
Much like the first round on July 26, Saturday’s second wave of recall elections — this time targeting seven Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers — also failed. With all 31 KMT legislators who faced recall this summer secure in their posts, the mass recall campaign has come to an end. The outcome was unsurprising. Last month’s across-the-board defeats had already dealt a heavy blow to the morale of recall advocates and the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), while bolstering the confidence of the KMT and its ally the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP). It seemed a foregone conclusion that recalls would falter, as
The fallout from the mass recalls and the referendum on restarting the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant continues to monopolize the news. The general consensus is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has been bloodied and found wanting, and is in need of reflection and a course correction if it is to avoid electoral defeat. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has not emerged unscathed, either, but has the opportunity of making a relatively clean break. That depends on who the party on Oct. 18 picks to replace outgoing KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫). What is certain is that, with the dust settling
RSS