The US and Israeli strikes on Iran have drawn global attention, with most commentary focused on escalation risks and energy markets — but this misses the more consequential development.
For China, this is not simply a regional conflict. It is a real-time strategic experiment — a rare opportunity to observe how the US performs under simultaneous military, economic and political strain.
First, the war reveals how Washington manages trade-offs under pressure. As energy prices fluctuate and inflation concerns resurface, US policymakers face a familiar dilemma: how to sustain external military commitments while containing domestic economic costs. For Beijing, the key question is not whether the US can act, but whether it could remain strategically consistent when those costs begin to accumulate. Consistency under pressure is the real test of power.
Second, the conflict exposes the limits of the US’ military capacity. High-intensity operations require sustained use of precision munitions, intelligence coordination and long-range strike capabilities — all of which are finite. China is observing not only battlefield effectiveness, but the rate of resource consumption and, crucially, what remains available for other theaters.
Third, the war tests political endurance. As conflicts drag on, their effects are transmitted through domestic channels: rising energy prices, higher living costs and shifting public opinion. Whether political support holds under such pressure is central to assessing the sustainability of the US’ global engagement. From Beijing’s perspective, this is not about public sentiment alone, but about the durability of political will.
Iran’s ability to absorb sustained pressure and maintain regime stability sends a different signal — one that authoritarian systems are inclined to internalize. Resilience under external shock reinforces the perceived value of centralized authority, internal discipline and preemptive security control.
Taken together, the conflict becomes more than a regional crisis. It is a signal-generating environment — one in which China can evaluate US decisionmaking, military limits and political stamina in real time.
These observations would not remain theoretical.
For Taiwan, the critical issue is not only whether US attention is divided, but how China interprets what it sees. If Beijing concludes that Washington’s resources are stretched, domestic constraints are tightening and political will is conditional, it might begin to reassess the risks of acting elsewhere.
The danger lies not only in shifts in capability, but in changes in perception.
History suggests that conflicts are rarely triggered by clear superiority. They are triggered by miscalculation — when one side believes the strategic environment is more favorable than it actually is. Wars elsewhere could produce simplified or misleading signals, increasing the risk of overconfidence.
For Taiwan, the priority is not to simply monitor developments, but to prevent the emergence of any perceived “window of opportunity.” That requires bolstering resilience across multiple domains: military preparedness, energy security, economic stability and social cohesion.
Deterrence, in this context, is not just about capability. It is about denying confidence.
At a time when geopolitical pressure and economic strain are converging, internal division is not merely a political issue — it is a strategic liability. Fragmentation weakens not only governance, but also credibility. It reinforces precisely the kind of narrative Beijing is already constructing.
Bonnie Yushih Liao is an assistant professor in Tamkang University’s Department of Diplomacy and International Relations.
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
On Monday, the day before Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) departed on her visit to China, the party released a promotional video titled “Only with peace can we ‘lie flat’” to highlight its desire to have peace across the Taiwan Strait. However, its use of the expression “lie flat” (tang ping, 躺平) drew sarcastic comments, with critics saying it sounded as if the party was “bowing down” to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Amid the controversy over the opposition parties blocking proposed defense budgets, Cheng departed for China after receiving an invitation from the CCP, with a meeting with
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
RSS