Reports that the US is preparing a sustained maritime pressure campaign against Iran — including measures amounting to long-term restriction of port access — have shifted debate beyond selective interdictions. As Washington moves toward quasi-blockade dynamics, a familiar question has re-emerged: Could China adopt similar tactics in the Taiwan Strait?
The comparison is misleading. It assumes similar operational behavior produces comparable strategic effects. In practice, the two cases differ at a systemic level.
US maritime operations against Iran function as bounded exceptions within the international order. They are directed at specific targets, justified through legal or quasi-legal frameworks such as sanctions enforcement and counter-proliferation, and calibrated to limit spillover. Even when contested, they do not fundamentally alter global maritime commerce.
A Chinese interdiction of commercial shipping to Taiwan would be seen differently. It would not be seen as selective enforcement, but as interference with routine lawful transit. It would also raise questions about the continued applicability of freedom of navigation in a critical waterway.
The issue is not whether China would face higher legal or political costs, but whether Beijing can conduct limited coercive actions without triggering systemic responses. Evidence suggests it cannot.
In the US case, escalation is constrained by defined targets, flexible legal framing and manageable second-order effects. In the Taiwan Strait, even a single interdiction could activate global risk mechanisms beyond state control.
Shipping insurance markets illustrate this dynamic. The Joint War Committee designates high-risk maritime zones. Reclassification of the Taiwan Strait would immediately raise premiums, redirect shipping routes and disrupt supply chains.
The effects are driven by perceived risk rather than sustained conflict.
Oil price spikes following reports of an extended US blockade strategy show how quickly markets respond. This creates a non-linear environment in which limited actions produce disproportionate effects.
Escalation dynamics reinforce this asymmetry. US-Iran interactions remain regionally bounded, with limited spillover into the global commons.
However, the Taiwan Strait sits within dense economic and security networks, including Japanese energy imports, South Korean trade flows and Taiwan’s semiconductor supply chains.
Even limited disruption would likely prompt external involvement, including naval deployments and escort operations.
The boundary between gray-zone coercion and conventional conflict would narrow rapidly.
This reflects a broader structural difference. The US operates within and sustains the existing system. China is viewed as testing its limits, probing blockade effects short of formal declaration and assessing how far disruption can be normalized without coordinated response, implying reduced controllability.
China might possess the operational capacity to initiate maritime interdictions. What remains uncertain is its ability to manage resulting chain reactions across markets, alliances and security domains. For Taiwan, this distinction is critical. Gray-zone maritime pressure should not be treated as isolated incidents but as part of a cumulative strategy to reshape operational norms.
External actors risk misreading intent if they treat such actions as discrete events. In the maritime domain, normalization is itself escalation — and accepting it might accelerate instability.
Bonnie Yushih Liao is an assistant professor in Tamkang University’s Department of Diplomacy and International Relations.
What began on Feb. 28 as a military campaign against Iran quickly became the largest energy-supply disruption in modern times. Unlike the oil crises of the 1970s, which stemmed from producer-led embargoes, US President Donald Trump is the first leader in modern history to trigger a cascading global energy crisis through direct military action. In the process, Trump has also laid bare Taiwan’s strategic and economic fragilities, offering Beijing a real-time tutorial in how to exploit them. Repairing the damage to Persian Gulf oil and gas infrastructure could take years, suggesting that elevated energy prices are likely to persist. But the most
Taiwan should reject two flawed answers to the Eswatini controversy: that diplomatic allies no longer matter, or that they must be preserved at any cost. The sustainable answer is to maintain formal diplomatic relations while redesigning development relationships around transparency, local ownership and democratic accountability. President William Lai’s (賴清德) canceled trip to Eswatini has elicited two predictable reactions in Taiwan. One camp has argued that the episode proves Taiwan must double down on support for every remaining diplomatic ally, because Beijing is tightening the screws, and formal recognition is too scarce to risk. The other says the opposite: If maintaining
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文), during an interview for the podcast Lanshuan Time (蘭萱時間) released on Monday, said that a US professor had said that she deserved to be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize following her meeting earlier this month with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). Cheng’s “journey of peace” has garnered attention from overseas and from within Taiwan. The latest My Formosa poll, conducted last week after the Cheng-Xi meeting, shows that Cheng’s approval rating is 31.5 percent, up 7.6 percentage points compared with the month before. The same poll showed that 44.5 percent of respondents
India’s semiconductor strategy is undergoing a quiet, but significant, recalibration. With the rollout of India Semiconductor Mission (ISM) 2.0, New Delhi is signaling a shift away from ambition-driven leaps toward a more grounded, capability-led approach rooted in industrial realities and institutional learning. Rather than attempting to enter the most advanced nodes immediately, India has chosen to prioritize mature technologies in the 28-nanometer to 65-nanometer range. That would not be a retreat, but a strategic alignment with domestic capabilities, market demand and global supply chain gaps. The shift carries the imprimatur of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, indicating that the recalibration is
RSS