I spent 30 years in the military. Trump should be as far away from U.S. armed forces as possible

In October 1973, four days after President Richard Nixon ordered the firing of the special prosecutor investigating the Watergate scandal, America’s global nuclear alert level was raised to DEFCON III — one step short of imminent nuclear war. That raising of the alert level was ostensibly a response to the then-Soviet Union announcing fresh support for Egypt during the Yom Kippur War, which was then going on.

I was a second lieutenant on West Germany’s border with what was then East Germany, and my battalion received orders to load our conventional and nuclear wartime ammunition and prepare for a potential war that could have resulted in global annihilation. Was the decision to go to  DEFCON III driven by national security concerns? Or was it the Nixon White House’s attempt to distract the public from his scandal-plagued presidency?

As we prepare for Tuesday’s election, it's important to remember that we’re not just electing a president, but we are also electing the commander in chief of our armed forces. And we need one we can trust to not use the military inappropriately.

At an Oct. 24, 1973, meeting in the Situation Room, Adm. Thomas Moorer, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recorded in his diary Secretary of State Henry Kissinger’s remarks that “the Soviets were influenced by the current situation the President finds himself in,” that the Democrats and U.S. public were “laying siege  to their government” and that “we must prevent them from getting away with this.” In private interviews I had with four Nixon officials, including three who were in the Situation Room that night, Nixon felt that he needed to make the news about something other than Watergate.

Remembering how close Nixon brought us to nuclear war is why I say we cannot trust Donald Trump with the presidency. I don’t think he’d hesitate to use his position as commander in chief for his personal and political benefit. We know this because he has promoted policies that threaten our military, democracy and those who call the United States home.

Multiple times in the past month alone, Trump has said he’d use the military against citizens opposed to his candidacy and he has reshared social media posts that suggest bringing his adversaries, including former President Barack Obama and former Republican Rep. Liz Cheney, before military tribunals. He has repeatedly declared that the country’s biggest threat is from his political opponents, whom he has labeled “the enemy from within.”

The thought of Trump exacting retribution by politicizing the American military should terrify us all. It is antithetical to the principles that underpin our democracy, and his plans to do just that should disqualify him from entering the White House again.

The former president has repeatedly insisted that millions of undocumented immigrants must be rounded up and deported. Such a mammoth operation would require the American military, which Trump has promised to use. Imagine using American soldiers to round up, house, guard, transport and deport millions of immigrants. They would be knocking on the doors, searching for anyone who might be undocumented and placing them in camps.

He has also said he would consider using the military for domestic law enforcement in major cities without the involvement of local mayors or governors. These are all policies reminiscent of Nazi Germany, not the United States. 

Because Trump has promised to “weed out military officers” ideologically opposed to him, military officers in the future might be promoted or assigned based solely on party affiliation. The members of our professional military swear an oath to the Constitution, but Trump appears to believe they should pledge a loyalty oath to him.

Trump would be unrestrained during a second term. He’d surround himself with sycophants selected for their total loyalty — not their expertise or their willingness to speak hard truths. The absence of officials willing to “speak truth to power” could be disastrous during a major crisis.  

If Trump follows through with his plans to politicize the military and turn it against the American people, I fear we could witness a mass resignation of senior officers who find such orders contrary to their oath to support the Constitution, and chaos might follow in the ranks at a time of rising global conflicts. Going forward, there might even be massive turnover in the officer corps depending on which political party wins a future election.

This wouldn’t be a professional military focused on the defense of the nation, but a politicized one in which the American people would likely lose trust. And I wouldn’t blame them because, if Trump follows through with his threat, then that military would no longer exist to protect them — it would be a force used to threaten them.

My three-decade military career was defined by continuous training, numerous operations, wars, strategic arms control negotiations and the study of civil-military relations. All these experiences, but especially my study of our civilian government’s relationship with the American military, contributed to my conclusion that Trump is unfit to be president.

Trump has repeatedly demonstrated that he has no respect for the historic relationship between America’s military and civilian leadership — or for honor, duty, service and sacrifice — and his policies will not only erode Americans’ trust in the military, but also put our democracy at the brink of disaster.

Our system of civil-military relations is essential to our military’s professionalism.  The members of our military take an oath to the Constitution — not a military or political leader. This was fundamental to me when I was a young lieutenant in West Germany, commanding troops in combat in Iraq, serving in senior positions in the Pentagon and the White House or teaching the subject to students at West Point, the Naval Academy and the Army War College.

The relationship between America’s civilian and military leadership rests on an implicit “contract” requiring mutual respect, trust, and consultation. The military accepts the final authority of civilian leadership but in return seeks to remain apolitical. Why would we give up something that has served our democracy so well for someone who has served our nation so poorly?

I fear that if we abandon this basic tenet of our democracy, my service and that of other veterans will have been in vain.

Who Will Sound the Call to Service?

A soldier's day was once regulated by bugle calls, from morning reveille to chow call at noon to retreat at sunset and taps late at night. Thus the phrase "to answer the bugle call" has been used to describe citizens responding to a national threat. Those who rise to this call to defend their country are the young, and they sacrifice accordingly.

We witnessed this during World War II with my father's generation. We heard it clearly in the words of John F. Kennedy, who told us to ask not what our country can do for us but what we can do for our country. But we've also witnessed serious divisions.

Our nation has been in a state of war for nearly six years. American forces have been in Iraq for more than four years, a longer commitment than during World War II. A new generation has risen to defend us once again, but strangely this time there has been no bugle call. No leader has made a broad appeal for service in a time of need, and no real request has been made for most Americans to sacrifice in any way. Most of us go about our daily lives unaffected by the trauma and tragedy that occur daily in Iraq and Afghanistan, whether we support the war or oppose it.

But some heard a call and answered. I met a number of them as I traveled to Balad, Iraq, with an air-medical team from Mississippi and California to pick up wounded GIs and Marines and ferry them to the Landstuhl military hospital in Germany and then on to Walter Reed. I met not only these injured but the many others from this generation -- doctors, nurses, pilots, air crews -- who tended to their needs along the way home. These caregivers are unsung heroes, and they treasure the brotherhood they share with their injured comrades. They perform countless acts of kindness and healing to little public acclaim.

All these men and women are truly extraordinary -- the injured and those who care for them. They represent all of America in a mosaic of old and young, male and female, Hispanic, black, Asian, white.

They include a young Minnesota National Guardsman wounded after 14 months in Iraq. His unit had been scheduled to head home but was extended to 15 months. He is 21. Last month he lost both his legs to an explosively formed projectile.

He has a right to be bitter, but he isn't. Two days after his personal tragedy he laughed with me in the hospital and said that when he was hurt he told his sergeant, "I guess this means I won't have to take that PT test you scheduled for me." He did that to keep up the morale of his buddies as they applied the tourniquets that saved his life.

I talked to an intensive care nurse who has been handling severely wounded people for more than five years. As the senior nurse, she stayed with those diagnosed as terminal. She did not want them to die alone, and she placed a personal note with their effects so their families would know that they hadn't.

There was a soldier who had been blown from his tank by an improvised explosive device that broke his back. He was 37 and had recently joined the active Army. He continued to smile as he lay on a pillowcase decorated with scenes from "Superman" and talked about his buddies. He told me that he was sure that his kids were proud of him.

A trauma surgeon who has been operating and saving lives in Afghanistan and Iraq and at the hospital in Germany since the war began told me how he kept his morale so high: by keeping in mind always that he cared for heroes every day.

This account is not pro-war or anti-war. It is simply about war and the terrible tragedy that it is. The people I had the privilege to meet had several things in common. They all believed they had responded to the bugle call, no matter how faint. None spoke of politics or party. They came even though they did not have to -- no one really asked them to -- and they represent but a small fraction of their generation.

They have served, suffered, sacrificed and endured. America marks a number of patriotic moments at the onset of summer -- Memorial Day, D-Day, the Fourth of July. I hope most of us take time on these days to reflect on those past and present who have sacrificed. Sadly, this reflection should also remind us that this long twilight struggle will continue no matter how the Iraq war turns in the coming months.

If we are to survive as a nation with our values intact, then we must find leaders willing to make the call. Leaders who will call us to serve each other, to serve in our towns and cities, churches and schools and, if needed, in the military -- leaders who will urge us to care for these young veterans and their families in need of our help for many years to come.

This coming together to meet a challenge has always been one of our nation's greatest strengths, and we need that strength now.

Death of Nasrallah and Israel's Invasion of Lebanon

On 30 September, Israel confirmed that its troops had invaded Lebanon in what Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) called a “limited, localized and targeted” ground operation against Hezbollah – the Shia militant group that has become Israel’s focus in recent weeks. This incursion followed the killing of Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, by the IDF. This has threatened a major escalation in the ongoing conflict in the Middle East and risks dramatically altering geopolitics in the region.  

Israel also expanded its bombing campaign across Lebanon in recent weeks and killed Nasrallah in a massive airstrike on a residential area in southern Beirut. Hezbollah had established an underground command-and-control center below a multi-story apartment building. The Israelis used American two-thousand pound bombs in the attack.  

Iran launched a ballistic missile attack against Israel in response to Nasrallah’s death and the invasion of southern Lebanon. They also linked this attack to the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, a senior Hamas political leader during a visit to Tehran. Iran signaled the US that it does not want a wider war. In response Prime Minister Netanyahu said Tehran “made a big mistake, and it will pay for it.”  

Washington’s priorities now include defending Israel, American military forces in the region (numbering 40,000), and US civilians living in Lebanon and across the Middle East. “We are actively supporting defensive preparations to defend Israel against this attack. A direct military attack from Iran against Israel will carry severe consequences for Iran,” a White House official told reporters Tuesday morning.  

But why and how has the conflict escalated so quickly? Why did Israel shift its focus from Gaza and Hamas to northern Israel, Lebanon and Hezbollah? What actions will Israel take in response to the missile attack? And what greater fallout could we expect because of it? 

 The Israel-Hezbollah conflict  

Hezbollah was established as a Shia Islamist political party and military organization in Lebanon in 1985. For much of its existence, it has taken part in the proxy war between Iran and Israel, the South Lebanon conflict, and several other low-level hostilities on the Lebanese-Israeli border.  

But tensions escalated on 8 October 2023 when Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s leader, ordered his forces to begin missile, rocket, and artillery attacks against northern Israel. This was in support of the Hamas attack the day before that had resulted in the death of over a thousand Israeli civilians, the wounding of thousands more, and the seizure of over 200 hostages.  

Israel responded in kind and this “tit-for-tat” conflict has continue for the past year. Over 60,000 Israelis have been forced from their homes in northern Israel and an estimated 100,000 Lebanese have fled to Syria – while another 200,000 are displaced within the country. Nasrallah insisted attacks by his forces would continue until a ceasefire was achieved between Israel and Hamas. Despite the efforts of the US, UAE, and Egypt, achieving a ceasefire has been increasingly elusive.  

As fighting between Israel and Hamas lessened in the Gaza Strip over the past few weeks, the pressure on the Israeli government to end attacks by Hezbollah and allow Israeli citizens to return home mounted. The IDF leadership even described Hamas as a spent military force, and now characterizes it as largely a guerilla movement.  

With political pressure mounting to address the attacks in Israel’s north, the government’s cabinet agreed on 16 September that ending hostilities with Hezbollah was now of equal importance to destroying Hamas and securing the release of Israeli hostages. Consequently, the IDF began repositioning forces towards its northern frontier, and on Monday it announced that it had begun a ground operation in southern Lebanon.  

“In accordance with the decision of the political echelon, a few hours ago, the IDF began limited, localized, and targeted ground raids based on precise intelligence against Hezbollah terrorist targets and infrastructure in southern Lebanon,” the IDF said in a statement. “These targets are located in villages near the border and pose an immediate threat to Israeli communities in northern Israel.”  

Israel has since told people in about 25 Lebanese villages to evacuate, and Hezbollah's deputy leader Naim Qassem has said the group was ready for an Israeli ground offensive, warning that the battle "may be long". The US and its allies had even predicted that an Iranian attack was imminent in response to Israel’s escalation.  

Air alerts were issued across central Israel the day after the IDF’s announcement, and the country banned groups of 30 or more people from assembling nationwide. The Israel Defense Forces urged Israelis to "remain alert and precisely follow the home front command's instructions". On 1 October Tehran launched 180 ballistic missiles against Israel. The targets included three airfields and headquarters for Mossad – Israel’s intelligence service, but the attack was largely frustrated in a coordinated response between the US and Israeli forces.  

The death of Hassan Nasrallah  

Hassan Nasrallah, a Lebanese cleric, served as the secretary-general of Hezbollah for 32 years. Ironically, he came to power after the Israeli’s assassinated Abbas al-Musawi, who many Israeli security experts believed was a less effective leader than his successor. Nasrallah increased Hezbollah’s power and influence, while his predecessor had appeared unwilling to expand the group’s political operation in the aftermath of the Iran-Iraq War and the Lebanese Civil War.  

Many Shia Muslims listened closely to Nasrallah’s words and direction. He has been described as the “most powerful man in the Middle East” and as the “only Arab leader who actually does what he says he’s going to do”. His legacy will be connected to a certain aspect of Islamic and Arabic pride, his views and influence go a long way – as do the consequences of his assassination.  

It is important to remember that Nasrallah – who will likely be replaced by Sayyed Hashem Safieddine, head of HZH executive council – had long demanded that Israel cease to exist, calling it “a cancer that must be eradicated”. He opposed reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians at various points and encouraged resistance in Gaza and the West Bank, though he emphasized that a two-state solution is a “Palestinian matter”.  

Still, in the aftermath of the 7 October attacks, he characterized the Hamas operation as heroic and called for the “liberation” of Jerusalem and directed attacks against Israel in solidary with the Palestinians. This is not a minor military operation. Hezbollah is a far superior military force to Hamas and has approximately 100,000 fighters – many of which are veterans of the Syrian civil war. The militant group is also estimated to have over 150,000 rockets and missiles in its arsenal.  

Nasrallah’s death is significant. The so-called Axis of Resistance that includes Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, Shiite militia groups in Iraq, as well as Iran have reacted with outrage and sympathy. Many have promised further attacks against Israel, creating a multi-front war for the Jewish state. But his demise occurred after a series of preparatory steps by Israel.  

On 8 September, Israeli commandos conducted a special operations mission in Syria that destroyed a weapons laboratory. Israeli military leaders believed that Iran and the Lebanese militia Hezbollah planned to manufacture a new generation of precision missiles there.  

Nine days later thousands of pagers in the possession of Hezbollah leaders and operatives exploded across Beirut leaving many dead and seriously injured. The following day walkie talkies used by Hezbollah also exploded. It is widely believed this was orchestrated by Israeli intelligence services, and it left Hezbollah in chaos. Not only did it lose many leaders at all levels, but these attacks demonstrated the level of penetration Israel had achieved, forcing the militant group to be concerned about using any communications device.  

This was followed by increasing numbers of Israeli airstrikes in the days that followed that ultimately resulted in the killing of Nasrallah, numerous other Hezbollah leaders, an Iranian Quds Force General, and the destruction of a large portion of the missiles and launchers in Hezbollah’s arsenal that could threaten Israeli cities.  

The IDF strategy seems clear: Take out the group’s leadership, disrupt its command/control, and significantly reduce their military capabilities. Some would describe this as a strategy to “escalate to deescalate” or convince the new leadership of Hezbollah as well as its Iranian masters that they were not only incapable of executing a major attack against Israel but that such an attack could well lead to their destruction.  

But the elimination of Nasrallah was an “important step, but it is not the final one,” Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant told Israeli military troops in northern Israel after his death was confirmed. He then appeared to telegraph the ground operation that was to come in his follow up statement: "In order to ensure the return of Israel’s northern communities, we will employ all of our capabilities.”  

Israel invades southern Lebanon  

The Biden administration’s efforts to secure a ceasefire with Hamas that might have resulted in Hezbollah halting its attacks has clearly failed. Washington also pushed for a 21-day ceasefire between Hezbollah and Israel, but that has gone nowhere. It appears the administration believed a ceasefire agreement was supported by Netanyahu only to have him publicly repudiate it. It seems increasingly true that President Biden’s leverage over Netanyahu is limited. It is tough to ignore that the two leaders have not spoken in over a month.  

This is a difficult moment for the US and Israel. Washington has dispatched additional American forces to the region to help defend the country, as well as deploying units that can facilitate the evacuation of the roughly 86,000 Americans in Lebanon.  

An expanding conflict could also have an adverse impact on the upcoming American election, particularly if the US is dragged into a major war or is involved in a large-scale evacuation of American civilians from Lebanon as voters head to the polls.  

At this juncture, it is unclear how far this conflict might further escalate, despite Israel emphasizing that its military operation is “limited, localized and targeted”. To illustrate that point, the IDF shared a map showing where missile sirens sounded when Iran launched missiles toward Israel on Tuesday – the entire country was covered in red dots, and Israeli retaliation for Iran’s missile attack will likely occur during the next few days. 

Israel has certainly had success against Hezbollah. It does not appear that the militant group can currently organize and coordinate a response as effectively as it did prior to Israel’s actions. It continues to fire rockets, but not at the same rate.  

But there is a real fear in the region that this could be the start of something wider, and that history is repeating itself. Israeli troops have easily entered Lebanon in the past, but they have often found it very difficult to leave. It is also hard to ignore that Hezbollah – which means Party of God – is deeply ingrained in Lebanese society. It is often considered a state within the state that incurs much loyalty and favor, so what effect Israel’s invasion might have long term could prove dangerous.  

We must also remember that having a strong Hezbollah in Lebanon was a key aspect of Iran’s deterrence strategy. It was long considered the most powerful group in the Axis of Resistance. Without that deterrent, Iran may believe that it must respond massively to the expected Israeli attack, accelerate its efforts to acquire a nuclear weapon, and take greater actions across the region. This means further escalation, conflict and – possibly – war. 

Biden Drops Out

Biden drops out and the Harris candidacy! 

When President Joe Biden announced his withdrawal from the 2024 presidential race, it sent shockwaves through the nation during a particularly tense election season. But that shockwave also extended around the globe at a time of unprecedented conflict and crisis. Past American presidential elections have rarely been fought over foreign or national security policy, but the 2024 election could be different. Whoever is elected in November will face confrontations with America’s nuclear rivals – China and Russia. Both these ongoing “cold wars” are just one crisis away from dramatic escalation. 

Biden, known for his foreign policy bona fides and support for US allies, was considered a steady hand on the international stage. His decision to endorse his running mate – Vice President Kamala Harris – to take up his mantle has raised some questions, however, especially since many believe she has limited international experience.   

So, what does this decision mean for American national security and foreign affairs between now and the inauguration of a new president? Since it now appears Harris is the presumptive candidate for the Democratic Party, what is her background on national security issues and foreign policy views? How would a Harris administration differ from Biden’s or former President Donald Trump’s – and what policies might she pursue?  

Biden’s lame duck six months 

Before reviewing Biden’s final six months as president, It is important to acknowledge that there is no possibility that he will step down from the presidency despite the recommendation of the Speaker of the House and other Republicans.   

What is accurate, however, is that during these final days Biden will essentially operate as a “lame duck”. This was already likely to be true in terms of legislative or budgetary matters, as there was little chance of a significant vote by Congress prior to the election. As of now, considering their eagerness to return to the campaign trail, it appears Congress is more likely to lean onto a continuing resolution for the budget issues that remain. 

But that means that Biden can spend these final months focused on what has been a key part of his presidency – foreign policy and national security. Secretary of State Antony Blinken appeared to make it clear that would be a continuing focus in a statement that he made on X after Biden announced the end of his re-election campaign. 

President Biden “has restored U.S. leadership around the world and delivered historic accomplishments as President. I look forward to building on that record with him over the next six months,” Blinken wrote.  

Biden will undoubtedly want to use this time as an opportunity to cement his legacy. As with any transition of power, some of America’s foes may believe that the time is ripe to challenge the US or seek to simply “wait Biden out”. Moscow or Beijing might believe they will have an easier time with an untested Kamala Harris or a historically volatile Donald Trump. But the president has always maintained that this area is one of his key strengths, and he reportedly cited that regularly when he argued he should remain in the race despite questions over his mental acuity and age.  

He had an immense opportunity to push his legacy forward when he met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The president was expected to press the foreign leader on a ceasefire agreement in the Gaza Strip that both sides have reportedly agreed to, and the lack of electoral pressure could allow him to act more boldly. This might further set the stage for a larger agreement that the Biden administration has sought – Saudi normalization of relations with Israel. If this could be achieved, it would isolate Iran and send  a geopolitical earthquake through the Middle East.   

He will also likely continue his ongoing efforts in the aftermath of the recent NATO Summit to solidify support for Ukraine and the transatlantic alliance, while also providing further challenges to Russia and China. Biden and his political allies likely noted a night at the Republican National Convention themed “Make America Strong Again,” when numerous speakers blasted the president for his policies toward Iran, Russia and China. They will want to push back against that narrative.  

The Biden White House was already discussing future action against China over its support of Russia, with National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan suggesting that the US could announce additional sanctions against Beijing. Some believe this could include Chinese banks, which would be seen as extraordinarily escalatory. But that is only one action that was telegraphed just before Biden dropped out of the race. He could be much bolder from here.  

Harris’s national security experience 

It is well known that Kamala Harris does not have the foreign policy experience of President Biden, who chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for many years and served as vice president during the Obama administration. But Harris has also gained significant understanding as vice president, meeting with more than 150 world leaders and visiting 21 countries while in that role. 

Biden has also made her a key part of his national security team from the onset of the administration – continuing the tradition of his predecessors. As such, she receives daily top-secret briefings and has been reportedly consulted on major US foreign policy challenges, such as China’s efforts in the South China Sea, Iran’s work with militant groups, and the growing Chinese and Russian influence campaigns in Africa.  

She attended the Munich Security Conference in the past year, and she delivered remarks in support of NATO that denounced isolationism and vowed to support Ukraine “for as long as it takes”. She also represented the US in June at the “peace conference” convened by Ukraine in Switzerland where she also reaffirmed US support to Kyiv.   

Harris will likely take a different approach to the Israel-Gaza War than President Biden, who has maintained “unwavering” support for Israel. The vice president is an outspoken supporter of a two-state solution and was one of the first members of the administration to call for an “immediate cease-fire”. She has regularly raised concerns over the “humanitarian catastrophe for Palestinians” and has announced that she would not attend Netanyahu’s speech before Congress due to a previously planned campaign event. She will meet with the Israeli Prime Minister during his visits the US and tell him that the war needs to end, though reports suggest she will seek a direct confrontation.  

Despite a vice-presidential term heavy on foreign policy, some still question whether she is prepared to be commander-in-chief. In an effort to quash that narrative, more than 350 US national security leaders – largely Democrats – released a signed letter expressing their belief that she is the “best qualified person” to lead the country given her international experience. 

Harris may also choose to respond to such questions with her vice-presidential pick. While she is reportedly considering some governors who have limited national security experience, she is also vetting Arizona Senator Mark Kelly – a retired NASA astronaut and fighter pilot – and retired Admiral William McRaven, the man credited with overseeing the operation that led to the killing of Osama bin Laden.   

Both are also moderates in their party and their experiences contrast greatly with Trump’s running mate, JD Vance, who served in the Marines. Their views also could not be more different than Vance and Trump who have advocated for an isolationist foreign and security strategy. 

How a Harris administration might differ from Trump’s 

Harris’s campaign has seemed to push for an image of stability and continuity, which likely means she would pursue many of the policies of the Biden administration in the field of national security and foreign policy. Consequently, the distinction between a future Harris or Trump administration would be quite stark.  

Based on the Republican national platform and Trump’s remarks at the convention, this is not the party of Ronald Reagan with respect to national security policy. Great power confrontations have returned, and the country’s traditional approach to both allies and global security is being redefined. Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice observed recently at the Aspen Security Forum that there has been a return of “the Four Horseman of the Apocalypse – populism, nativism, isolationism, and protectionism”.  
 
Former President Trump opposes future military aid to Ukraine and has been – at best – skeptical about NATO and other American alliances. He has successfully helped push NATO members to meet their defense obligations, but he has also said he would “encourage” Russia” to do whatever the hell they want” to further increase pressure on those member states that fail to achieve NATO goals for defense spending. 

It is largely expected that Trump will maintain the transatlantic alliance, however, but he will downsize the US footprint in Europe and redirect military power toward the Pacific. Vance’s views regarding NATO and Ukraine are perhaps even harsher. He has been the leading congressional critic of American involvement in Ukraine, and his candidacy was welcomed by the Russians. 

“He stands for peace, for cessation of aid [to Ukraine],” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said of the pick at a press conference at the United Nations. “We can only welcome this because, in fact, it is necessary to stop pumping Ukraine with weapons, and the war will end.” 

Trump advisors have promoted a peace proposal if he wins the White House that calls for cutting off weapons to Ukraine if Kyiv doesn’t agree to peace talks. It also notably calls for “flooding Ukraine with weapons” if Russia doesn’t negotiate.   

The former president appears to be pursuing similar tactics with allies in the Pacific, as he recently stated that “Taiwan should pay us for defense…You know, we’re no different than an insurance company.”   

In response the conservative Hudson Institute noted, “A significant disruption to Taiwan’s semiconductor industry could affect as much as $1.6 trillion, or roughly 8%, of America’s annual gross domestic product — hurting industries like personal electronics, automotives and telecommunications.”  

Events are moving quickly, and there is still much that could happen in the approximately 100 days until Election Day. A normal election has its surprises, but this one seems to have shockwaves. That isn’t without its precedent.  

Mark Twain once observed that history does not repeat, but it may occasionally rhyme. Nearly 60 years ago, an incumbent president announced he would not run for re-election, the Democrats held a convention in Chicago, a Kennedy was running for president, an assassin shot a presidential candidate and there was an unpopular foreign war causing civil unrest in the US. The times and terms of 2024 are certainly much different than they were in 1968, but – whatever happens – we can be certain that the country will have an interesting and historical next 100 days.  

And the War Came

 Nearly 100 hundred years ago, President Abraham Lincoln said of the Civil War that “all sought to avert it…And the war came.”  History is replete with examples of wars that occurred despite the desire of leaders on both sides to avoid them.  Over the past couple of weeks, events in the Middle East have brought Lincoln’s words new resonance.    

The assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, a top leader of Hamas, in Iran – in addition to other recent Israeli military strikes – has rapidly edged Israel’s war in Gaza to a greater regional conflict. President Joe Biden and others have worked intensely on a ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas, but that is now in jeopardy. The coming days may determine whether the situation moves from bad to much worse.  

Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has reportedly issued an order to strike Israel directly – again – due to the killing of Ismail Haniyeh, the political leader of Hamas and head of their delegation negotiating a ceasefire agreement. Meanwhile, Hassan Nasrallah, the influential and long-time Hezbollah leader, said the war with Israel had entered a “new phase” after Fuad Shukr, his senior military advisor, was assassinated in an Israeli strike on Beirut. Israel has successfully killed leaders of various terrorist groups in past, but the seniority of these two figures and the circumstances of their assassinations may have undermined any chance for peace.    

Crises and wars, when examined in retrospect, follow a pattern of escalation and de-escalation – an increase (or decrease) in the intensity or geographical scope of conflict or confrontation. They proceed in an “action-reaction cycle” until ultimately arriving at a “strategic inflection point.”   At that moment, escalation either spirals and a much larger conflict ensues, or serious de-escalation begins and leads to eventual stability.   Finding a path to stability grows more complex with a greater number of actors, as each has its own demands and narratives.    

Many now fear this conflict could rapidly spiral into a regional war that would stretch from the Mediterranean to Iran and draw the United State directly into the conflict.   With that in mind, let’s consider how we got here and what this might mean for American national security.      

The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have battled Hamas for over eight months following the horrific attack on 7 October 2023.  More than 1,200 Israelis were killed that day and another 250 taken hostage.  116 hostages have been released alive.  Most were released during a brief ceasefire between Israel and Hamas in late November that was honored by all sides.  It is believed approximately 130 are still being held, though 30 or more may have been killed in the fighting. 

Over 39,000 Palestinians have been killed and roughly 90,000 injured in the Gaza Strip – a land area roughly the size of metropolitan Philadelphia.  Other actors in the region joined the war almost immediately in support of Hamas – Hezbollah in Lebanon, Palestinian groups in the West Bank, the Houthis in Yemen, and various militia groups operating in Syria and Iraq.  All are armed and equipped by Iran and described as the Axis of Resistance. 

It is widely believed, however, that Tehran has sought to avoid a larger war, as it is beset by social and economic challenges. It recently had a sudden national election after the unexpected death of its president. Over the decades, Iran has relied on Hezbollah, which is its primary regional client, to serve as a key deterrent to balance against any possible large-scale Israeli attack.  At the onset of this crisis, Hezbollah forces included 100,000 armed fighters and possibly 150,000 missiles and rockets capable of striking the entirety of Israeli territory.     

Various forms of escalation have subsequently occurred to challenge that delicate balance. Israel has employed over 35,000 airstrikes against Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis since the October attack.  The Houthis have launched missiles against Israel and attacked commercial shipping as well as the US Navy resulting in an ongoing American air campaign against them.  Furthermore, Iranian-supported militia groups operating in Syria and Iraq have attacked US bases in both countries nearly 200 times.  These attacks stopped in February following retaliatory airstrikes ordered by the Biden administration, but they have recently resumed, and the United States has now – once again – targeted militants in Iraq.   

In the aftermath of an Israeli airstrike in Syria that killed several senior Iranian Revolutionary Guard officers, Tehran became a direct protagonist and conducted large scale drone/missile attack against Israel on 19 April.  This was largely defeated by Israel and a coalition of nations including the US, the United Kingdom, Jordan, and others. It also elicited a retaliatory raid by Israel against targets in and around Tehran.  Consequently, the decades-long “shadow war” between Iran and Israel – whereby both sides had attacked each other clandestinely or via proxies – emerged into the open. This attack now serves as a baseline for any future Iranian retaliation against Israel.  

On 22 July Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu arrived in Washington at the invitation of the Speaker of the House to address a joint session of Congress. There was growing optimism that the ongoing negotiations brokered by the US, Egypt, and the UAE between Israel and Hamas might result in a ceasefire that would also allow Hezbollah, Iran, and the Houthis to stop hostilities and lead to the release of some of the hostages still held by the Hamas.   
 
Congressional leaders warmly received Netanyahu’s speech in which he underscored the need for even greater American support and solidarity with Israel.  He subsequently had private meetings with President Biden, Vice President (and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee) Kamala Harris, and finally stopped in Mar-a-Lago for a private meeting with former President Donald Trump.   

But events suddenly moved in an even deadlier direction.  On 27 July a rocket launched from Lebanon struck a soccer field in the village of Majdal Shams, which is located in the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights.  It killed 12 children and was described by the Israeli military as the deadliest attack on civilians since the war began.   

A few days later Israel retaliated with a drone strike against a residential neighborhood in Beirut that killed Fuad Shukr, the senior Hezbollah military commander.  The IDF alleged he was responsible for the Majdal Shams attack. Ironically, Shukr was also accused by the United States of overseeing the bombing of an American Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983 that killed 241 Marines. This attack clearly escalated tensions due to Shukr’s seniority but also the fact that Israel had largely restricted attacks to southern Lebanon and only struck Beirut a few times – the last such attack was in January.  

Only a few hours later an explosion occurred in an IRGC guesthouse in Tehran killing Ismail Haniyeh. No group has claimed responsibility for the attack, but it is widely believed Israeli intelligence was behind it.  Haniyeh was chief of the Hamas leadership group since 2017 and a key figure in the ongoing ceasefire negotiations. He was in Tehran to attend the inauguration of the new Iranian President, Masoud Pezeshkian.  It has been reported that a bomb had been planted in the IRGC guesthouse several months ago, which was detonated remotely when it was determined Haniyeh was present in the building. 

This attack is clearly a global embarrassment as well as a strategic disaster for the Iranian regime and its new president.  In the aftermath, the Iranian stock market suffered one of its biggest crashes, Iran’s currency hit a new low, and citizens mocked the government on social media with suggestions that it should focus more on protecting high-level guests than sending security forces to arrest women.   

The attack in Tehran was clearly planned far in advance and shows that Israeli intelligence has been able to penetrate the security of the IRGC for a long time.  This is of enormous concern to the Iranian regime and may only encourage Iran to respond in a much more aggressive manner. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has said, “the criminal and terrorist Zionist regime has prepared the ground for severe punishment with this action.”  The implications for all members of the Axis of Resistance as they calculate their next steps are huge, and the possibility of achieving a ceasefire and a hostage release is increasingly remote.  

Iran and Hezbollah now have major incentives to escalate, and Tehran is reportedly conducting efforts to coordinate a large-scale attack by all members of the Axis of Resistance.  Hezbollah may escalate its ongoing missile and drone attacks by striking more deeply into Israeli territory or by using so many weapons that it overwhelms Israel’s Iron Dome.  Iran may believe that any attack by its forces must now exceed its 13 April 2024 attack, which included over 300 cruise missiles, drones, and ballistic missiles.  Finally, Israeli leaders must also be concerned about growing tensions in the West Bank and whether additional missile/drone strikes could come from Yemen, as the Houthis could respond to domestic pressures by seeking to demonstrate their solidarity.  

There are also reports that Tehran has already given its “fully blessing” to Iranian backed militias to resume targeting US forces as well as Israel, and it appears the Islamic Resistance in Iraq have begun to do so.  Consequently, American military forces throughout the region – including naval forces operating in the Persian Gulf, Arabian Sea, Red Sea and Mediterranean – must be placed on a higher level of alert and may be increased.  

In the assassinations’ aftermath, Prime Minister Netanyahu was elated and said Israel had “delivered crushing blows to Iran’s proxies”.  He did not, however, take credit for the killing of Haniyeh, but promised Iran would “exact a heavy price for any aggression against us.”  Netanyahu has reason to be happy.  He likely believes his trip to the United States prior to this attack solidified American support, and the Arab world will widely believe he obtained a “green light” from President Biden, Vice President Harris, and former President Trump for this attack. Furthermore, on 28 July the Israeli Knesset ended its summer session and began a three-month recess.  Consequently, it may be politically difficult to challenge him domestically until they return in late October.    

The Biden Administration denied Netanyahu had provided Washington any advanced notice of the attack but has clearly accepted that the geopolitical landscape has been struck by an “earthquake”.  President Biden had wanted to spend his remaining time in office bringing an end to the war and achieving a much sought after transformation of the Middle East.  This included an agreement normalizing relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia that would have been transformational for the region.  A ceasefire in the short term as a precursor to a longer-term realignment now appear increasingly remote for an administration, which must now accept its “lame duck” status. It seems clear that Prime Minister Netanyahu now feels unencumbered by American influence since Biden announced his departure from the presidential race.   

Israel and its enemies are at a “fork in the road” or inflection point.  One path leads to an ever-increasing spiral of escalation – greater death, destruction, and uncertainty.  The other moves in the direction of reduced violence, greater stability, and a possible end to hostilities. This may also be the last opportunity to reach a ceasefire and freedom for at least some of the remaining hostages.   

Iran and the “Axis of Resistance” have the next move in this deadly chess game, and there are enormous pressures on their leaders to escalate for domestic as well as international reasons.  Prime Minister Netanyahu, however, may now have greater tactical flexibility.  He could argue Israel has achieved its goal of destroying Hamas’s ability to govern or launch attacks from Gaza and push for a ceasefire. Neither side wants a major regional war, but events are moving the region inextricably in that direction.   

Year of Elections Continues

More than 70 elections, representing some 4.2 billion people, are being held this year – and June may have been the most consequential month. There have been elections in India, Mexico, South Africa as well as European Parliamentary elections. In the Indian election alone, more than 642 million voters (65% of the country’s nearly 1 billion eligible voters) cast their ballots in an election that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s party suffered a surprising defeat.

Elections were also announced and campaigns held in multiple countries key to US interests. The death of Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi in a helicopter crash on 19 May means that Tehran will hold a presidential election on 28 June. British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced that new elections will be held in the United Kingdom on 4 July, and current polls show the opposing Labor Party could win as many as 450 of the 650 seats in the British Parliament. French President Emmanuel Macron announced “snap elections” in France beginning on 30 June after his party suffered a devastating defeat to the far-right in the European Parliament elections.

June has proved to be consequential in a year defined by the number of elections held and ballots cast. With that in mind, let’s review the outcomes and what they ultimately could mean.

India

The Indian election was expected to be a perfunctory exercise for Prime Minister Modi. His Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) went into overdrive to get out the vote and undermine the opposition. There were allegations of manipulation of voter rolls and voting machines. Opposition parties alleged Modi’s government had frozen their campaign funds, jailed leaders and even taken legal action against them. The Indian prime minister, who had enjoyed electoral success in the previous two elections, had also focused on the country’s ethnic and religious fault lines during the campaign. Modi challenged the country’s secular democracy while promoting Hindu nationalism and even proclaimed that he was selected by God to lead India.

But the results proved to be an electoral earthquake. He and his party had hoped  to secure 400 seats in the Lok Sabha, or Indian parliament, as it would allow them to make changes to the nation’s constitution. But they won only 240 seats, and 20 of Modi’s cabinet members were not reelected. The Indian National Congress that harkens to the nation’s founding has recovered to challenge Modi under Rahul Gandhi’s leadership. The party won 100 seats, but it boasts 232 seats through the alliance it forged with 27 other opposition parties committed to challenging the BJP. They named their bloc Indian National Democratic Inclusive Alliance – or INDIA.

The election forced Modi to form a coalition government, which returns India to political conditions  before he came to power.  For decades no single party has been able to achieve an absolute majority. The voters’ decision will return some balance to the world’s largest democracy, which has seen its democratic institutions tested under Modi’s leadership.

The BJP’s loss reflects growing popular dissatisfaction with Modi and his party. The Indian strongman came to power with the promise of ushering in a new era of economic growth, which he delivered on – in a way. India is the world’s fastest-growing economy and fifth largest. But his challenge to India’s democratic secularism, the rise of Hindu nationalism and growing economic inequality has led to dissent.  

India’s massive economic growth has not addressed its jobless rate. It is particularly high among the country’s youth, who currently account for more than 80% of the nations unemployed. That economic issue among voters has been buoyed further by an uneven recovery since the pandemic. While India’s very wealthy have enjoyed extreme financial gains, workers – particularly those in agriculture and manufacturing – have been left behind. 

It remains to be seen what Modi will do. While confidence in the BJP has declined, analysts do not believe that Modi’s new coalition will derail India’s economic growth and development. It is also unclear whether he will dampen his efforts to transform India into a Hindu nationalist state.  

The new government has not outlined its key priorities, but it is expected to continue the country’s infrastructure development with nearly $134 billion dedicated toward capital expenditures largely focused on constructing railways and airports in fiscal year 2025. Modi will likely continue an aggressive push for India to overtake China as Asia’s largest manufacturing powerhouse, which was buoyed by major companies announcing investments in the Indian semi-conductor industry. The prime minister will need to capitalize on that further, and increase foreign investment to aid estimated market capital growth of $40 trillion over the next 25 years.

Mexico
America’s closest neighbor to the south held its election on 2 June. Mexico elected Claudia Sheinbaum as its president, making her the first woman and Jewish person to assume national leadership. The former mayor of Mexico City, Sheinbaum is a climate scientist and a close ally of the outgoing president - Andrés Manuel López Obrador. She earned 58% of the vote in a landmark election that saw two women compete for the nation’s highest office. It is a remarkable achievement in a male-dominated Catholic country where women have often faced violence.

Mexico’s president-elect won the election by promising to cement López Obrador and the Morena party’s legacy. She has bristled, however, at any claim that she is his pawn – despite his status as her mentor and her being largely supportive of his ideas. But the president-elect faces severe challenges. The country must confront  its largest budget deficit since the 1980s, the state-owned oil company has unsustainable debt, migration through the country has risen to historic highs, and widespread drug cartel violence torments the country. Sheinbaum alleges she will fight the social drivers of violence – not the criminal groups – ensure lawbreakers are punished and work to build up the national guard.

What could prove most worrisome to markets is that the Morena party has won a two-thirds majority in Mexico’s Congress. This “super majority” will allow it to change the constitution, which could result in significant judicial reforms and unfunded government benefit programs proposed by López Obrador. The outgoing president has already pledged to promote 20 constitutional changes. This includes undoing the country’s individual retirement account system and the elimination of most independent government oversight and regulatory agencies. His proposed judicial reforms would make all judges, who are currently appointed or approved by legislators, to be elected. Some have argued he remains upset that the judiciary blocked his reforms in past, but he maintains that “these are justices who are employees of the big corporations.”

Sheinbaum’s decisions will prove important to Washington. Americans often underestimate Mexico’s importance to the US economy at their own financial peril. The country is America’s largest trading partner at roughly $800 billion in goods and services annually. Still, Sheinbaum’s electoral triumph ironically occurred as President Biden announced stiff executive actions to slow migration from our southern neighbor.

South Africa

The African National Congress (ANC) lost a clear majority of parliament for the first time since the end of apartheid in 1984. Previously, it had regularly earned 60 to 70% of the vote. Now, the country had to form a national unity government nearly 30 years after a similar deal helped it transition to a full democracy from an era of apartheid.

The deal allows Cyril Ramaposa, the head of ANC, a second term as president, but only through a coalition government. His party had to make an unlikely agreement with the Democratic Alliance (DA), a white-led group that opposed apartheid but advocates for free-market economics – which is at odds with the ANC’s left-wing priorities.

But “gravitating to the center” was the best way to respond to the voters’ decision, according to ANC Secretary General Fikilie Mbalula. He said the election shows South Africans want political parties to work together to bring stability to the country, which is beset by  corruption, unemployment, power shortages, and violence. And the announcement of a coalition government calmed investors and those in the private sector, who welcomed a period of balanced politics and stability.

Still, policy disagreements between the coalitions two main parties are stark. The DA opposes the ANC’s national healthcare proposal  as well as its black economic empowerment program. The minority party believes affirmative action policies are inefficient, do not reward merit, and only enrich ANC leaders.

There is also concern that the ANC will continue to pursue its radical left-wing policies that are also supported by smaller parties that have proved to be its natural allies – specifically the nationalization of land and property with an aim toward a redistribution of wealth. For now, the coalition with the DA, should keep that effort in check.

European Parliament

Across Europe more than 360 million people from all 27 member countries of the European Union (EU) voted to elect 720 members to the EU parliament. These elections are not considered as consequential as those held to elect each nation’s leaders, but they often act as a bellwether for the direction of politics within Europe. And this round proved to be troubling, as it showed the momentum of the right-wing parties, particularly for Germany’s Alternative for Deutschland (AfD) and the National Rally in France.

Results show that centrists parties that include a center-left and center-right groupings – won just over 400 seats in the latest round of voting. Centrists lost about 16 seats from their total in the 2019 election, but it is above the 361 needed for a majority.

Still, it was hard for moderate parties to declare success, as the right-wing and center-right parties celebrated a clear momentum shift. The National Rally took 33% of the vote in France, far exceeding President Macron Renaissance Party’s 16%. In Germany, the extreme right-wing AfD won 15 seats in the EU parliament, beating out the party of Chancellor Olaf Scholz and its 14 seats. His party’s coalition partner – the Green Party – lost nine of its seats, while the center right CDU/CSU party appears poised to win the next German national election in September 2025 after garnering 30% of the vote. Center-right parties also did well in Greece, Poland and Spain – and they made significant advances in Hungary.

Immigration and the economy were major issues for voters.  Around 5.1 million immigrants entered EU countries in 2022, which was double the number in the previous year. In Germany and France, more than 80% of people polled said that the massive flow of immigrants had caused their lives to become more dangerous.

As previously mentioned, Macron called for snap elections for a new French parliament in the aftermath. The election will be held in two rounds: on 30 June and then on 7 July. This is only a few weeks prior to France hosting the summer Olympics in Paris, which means the results will be a regular topic of discussion over the summer – particularly if Macron’s party loses.

At this moment, he and his party are struggling. With just over a week before the first vote, Macron’s approval rating fell six points to match a historic low. Meanwhile, the National Rally party, led by Marine Le Pen, saw its polling numbers rise to 38%. Her party is followed by the left-wing New Popular Front at 29%, with Macron’s Renaissance-led coalition sitting in third at 22%. But even if President Macron’s party should lose these elections, it will not affect his position as President of France.

It could result in a new prime minister, however. That will likely be Jordan Bardella. He is a 28-year-old protégé of Le Pen, and he has helped with the popularization of the far-right among young people. Young voters who backed the right-wing party said their main issues included: getting rid of technocrats, returning Europe to a continent of nations, addressing immigration and weakening parties they perceive as corrupt and ineffective.

Undoubtedly, all these elections will have a significant effect on government policies as well as global affairs. Across the board, voters appear concerned about similar issues – immigration, economics, inflation and potential social unrest. While right-wing populism enjoyed a boost during this election, democracy self-regulates and succeeded in India and South Africa.

More elections are to come, most notably the US election in November. But the world has now witnessed an incredible democratic exercise that will continue throughout the year with votes in Iran, the United Kingdom, France, Moldova, Georgia, Iraq, Venezuela and at least 15 other countries. These elections will surely bring change as well, but the question is whether they will also ensure stability – or bring about conflict, chaos and discord. Only time will tell.

Thucydides or Kennan?

The past few weeks have seen a flurry of events that are all related to the most vexing problem facing American policymakers. Should the United States pursue a policy of confrontation or managed competition with the People’s Republic of China (PRC)? This is a central foreign policy, national security, and economic issue in the upcoming November election. It may also be the most difficult national security decision since American diplomat George Kennan formulated a policy of “containment” to deal with the Soviet Union at the onset of the Cold War.

After President Biden’s meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping in November, both China and the US appeared to acknowledge the importance of their relationship and sought at least a plateau to avoid further tensions. But finding that new “plateau” and maintaining it has been a challenge. American attitudes towards the PRC have plummeted since 2019 when roughly 50% of Americans had a favorable attitude of China. Today, that favorability rating sits at about 20%.

On 26 April, Secretary of State Blinken made his second trip to China in the past year. He met not only with his counterpart, Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi but also with President Xi. Many interpreted Xi’s willingness to host the Secretary of State as further indication that the Chinese desired a return to “normal” relations. Blinken used the opportunity with Xi to warn the Chinese against providing military assistance to Russia in support of the war in Ukraine, and he urged Beijing to halt its aggressive policies toward Taiwan and the South China Sea. Blinken also sought to convince them to reduce China’s export of cheap electric cars that undermined America’s increased production of similar vehicles. In response, President Xi reportedly told the secretary that the United States must avoid “zero-sum games” and “while each side can have its friends and partners, it should not target, oppose, or harm the other.” Xi’s statement was not overly aggressive, but it did demonstrate that little progress has been made on these contentious issues.

Blinken’s trip did result in further discussions on Artificial Intelligence (AI) and joint efforts to curb the export of chemical precursors for the production of fentanyl. And it seems to have been another step the Chinese have taken in recent months to re-examine their approach towards relations with the United States, but finding a “plateau” remains elusive. The Chinese were obviously aware that the United States Congress passed a military aid bill only a few days prior to Blinken’s arrival, which included $8 billion to counter Chinese efforts in the Indo Pacific region. Within that package was also a law that bans the App TikTok in the United States if its Chinese owner fails to divest the popular app over the next nine months. Shortly after Blinken’s departure from China President Biden also announced the US would quadruple tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles – pushing it from 25% to 100% – in a move designed to boost American manufacturing and jobs. “I’m determined that the future of electric vehicles be made in America by union workers. Period,” Biden said after the long-telegraphed move was made official.

Xi then traveled to Europe for his first visit in five years. The purpose of his trip was to improve China’s diplomatic and economic relations with the EU, and it was also aimed at promoting divisions between Europe and the United States. It was not an accident that Xi’s trip included a visit to Serbia on the 25th anniversary of a misdirected American airstrike during the Kosovo war that struck the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. Xi was welcomed warmly, but there is little immediate evidence that his mission was successful.

At the same time, President Putin was inaugurated for his fifth six-year term followed by Victory Day in Russia. Xi returned to China to host Putin on 15 May. Putin’s visit – the first trip after his inauguration – was full of pageantry. The two leaders stressed the "no-limits" relationship between the two countries, but it also underscored Moscow’s increasing dependency on the Chinese. There is little to no doubt that China as well as Russia and Iran are either pursuing a strategy of “managed chaos” or – at a minimum – looking for opportunities to exploit geopolitical advantages as they arise. They are also challenging the international order established at the end of World War II, which ushered in US global leadership – though they would describe the current environment as American hegemony that must be countered and undermined.

Putin clearly articulated that in his remarks during his recent inauguration (7 May) and Russia’s Victory Day (9 May). Xi did so as well during his recent trip to France, Serbia, and Hungary. The war in Gaza, meanwhile, has served as an opportunity for both countries to describe the United States as hypocritical in its opposition to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and “neocolonial” in its support for Israel. Furthermore, they have used every opportunity to exploit this in their dealings with the so-called BRIC countries and the global south.

The collapse in American attitudes towards China occurred in the aftermath of three events. First, the onset of the coronavirus that originated in Wuhan, China in late 2019, which some believe was part of a failed Chinese biological warfare effort. Second, the visit by then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan in August 2022. And, finally, the downing of a suspected Chinese surveillance balloon that travelled over the United States in February 2023.

In their aftermath, American opposition to China has at times approached hysteria. Some have even argued that the ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza are part of a concerted strategy by the Chinese against the United States with both Russia and Iran as willing clients. But it is highly unlikely Moscow and Tehran would accept a role as Chinese puppets, and improved relations between these three countries over the past few years are ultimately transactional.

China might support Russian aggression in Ukraine privately but has publicly tried to portray itself as a supporter of global peace. Beijing will buy oil and natural gas from Russia but only at discounted prices. At the same time, it has steadfastly avoided becoming totally dependent on Russian energy. Furthermore, the Chinese have a long memory. They remember that Russia only declared war on Japan two days after the bombing of Hiroshima at the end of World War II and immediately occupied a large territory known as Manchukuo that Japan had seized from China in 1932. This territory remains part of the Russian Federation. In a similar fashion, Iranians have not forgotten that the USSR occupied northern Iran in 1946 and is experiencing internal turmoil based on the death of its president.

Finally, the Chinese are wary of a war in the Middle East between the US and Iran. A major conflict would likely sever the oil and natural gas that flows through the Persian Gulf to China and remains critical to its economy. Iranian exports of crude oil grew by 50% last year to over 1.2 million barrels per day and the vast majority went to China. Beijing is also increasingly concerned by Houthi efforts to attack commercial shipping in the Red Sea, which functions as a critical trade route for goods travelling to Europe from China. But even if China is not a “puppet master” that is orchestrating a highly coordinated strategy to destroy the United States, Beijing clearly seeks to undermine American global leadership over time and is supported in this endeavor by both Moscow and Tehran. Consequently, the question for American policymakers remains – is it better to pursue direct confrontation with China or attempt to cooperate with Beijing?

Those who support “managed competition” point out the many global issues (climate change, North Korea, etc.) demand American and Chinese cooperation. Consequently, both sides seem to be trying to limit hostilities to address these problems. Over the past few months military dialogue between Beijing and Washington has resumed, and Secretary of Defense Austin recently spoke with his Chinese counterpart for the first time since November 2022. This is a matter of necessity as China continues the expansion of its strategic nuclear forces and is not a concession by one party to the other. Both sides clearly have an overriding interest in avoiding war by accident.

Others have argued that the United States should pursue a modified strategy of “containment” and describe the current relationship between Beijing and Washington as a “second Cold War.” But this is an imperfect comparison. There was never any real economic competition between the US and the USSR, as the Soviet economy was roughly the size of Belgium’s. China, meanwhile, is the largest foreign holder of American treasury bills, buys US debt to support the value of the dollar and remains a huge trading partner.

Trade between the two countries has contracted in the last few years, but in 2023 China still exported over $400 billion in goods to the US – and the United States exported nearly $150 billion to China. Washington may be able to “de-risk” the American economy from China, but it will be unable to “decouple” it. Similarly, Beijing realizes that its economic relations with the US and Europe are of critical importance and far larger than its economic ties with Russia. Some policymakers believe that conflict between the US and PRC is inevitable, and Washington should prepare accordingly. In similar fashion, there were those that recommended an American preemptive strike against the Soviet Union because they believed war was unavoidable. Fortunately, those recommendations were never acted upon.

A policy of direct confrontation could bring us to the so-called “Thucydides Trap” (named after the Greek author of the history of the Peloponnesian War). It argues that there is a natural discombobulation that occurs when a rising power (China) threatens to displace a ruling power (United States), and the resulting structural stress makes a violent clash or war inevitable. Thus, policymakers have a choice: either manage the rivalry or accept the inevitable.

China has enormous domestic challenges that will only become more difficult – demography, slow growth, climate, social conditions, etc. The threat posed by China is real, but it is important that American policymakers do not elevate the threat to something larger than it may be. For example, in the 1980’s some strategic analysts argued that war between the US and Japan was inevitable due to the dramatic rise in the Japanese economy – obviously that never occurred. Consequently, the US must confront China when necessary and pursue cooperation when it can. The United States must always remain cleareyed about our relations with Beijing, and aspects of the deterrent strategy articulated by George Kenan at the onset of the Cold War may be helpful. He argued that the US should avoid hysteria and seek to contain the Soviet Union until it collapsed due to its internal contradictions. And that is what turned out to have happened.