Tag Archives: Trump foreign policy

War with China.

Posted on by
Reply

            At the end of the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the defeated Nationalists withdrew from Chinese mainland territories.  Some entered the remote border areas of Laos and Thailand.  Most of them crossed the Formosa Straits to the island of Taiwan.  Here they created their own country. 

The Peoples’ Republic of China (PRC) has never recognized Taiwan as independent.  In similar fashion, it refused to recognize any of the territorial losses during the age of European imperialism.  Where it could do so, it made good its claims: Shanghai and Tibet.  Other places had to wait for their “liberation.”  Recently, China has retaken Hong Kong and Macao.  Now, attention has shifted to Taiwan. 

            As part of President Richard Nixon’s “opening to China,” American policy toward Taiwan became more ambiguous.  In 1979, the United States ended diplomatic relations with Taiwan while re-establishing them with the PRC.  In 1982, the Reagan administration said that it would not pursue “a policy of ‘two Chinas’ or [of] ‘one China, one Taiwan’.”  All subsequent administrations have made clear American opposition of a declaration of independence by Taiwan.  They have believed that such a declaration would trigger an invasion by the PRC.  If that happened, then the United States might be drawn into a wart with China.  This would upset many apple-carts.[1]  So, American policy effectively has been to trust in the eventual evolution of the PRC toward the kind of society which Taiwan would willingly join.[2] 

            For the United States, the situation is more complicated than before.  For one thing, some serious observers of military affairs doubt that the United States now could win a conventional war with China in the Western Pacific.  Rearmament and rebuilding the defense industrial base could take some time.  What id China pounces before then?  For another thing, there is a suspicion that China’s aims extend well beyond merely regaining “lost” territory.  Taiwan forms the center of what strategists call the “first island chain” cutting off China from easy access to the Pacific.  Japan and the Philippines are the two other links in the chain, but it is anchored at either end by South Korea and Vietnam.  What if the Chinese determination to “restore” Taiwan forms merely an entering wedge for a larger plan of aggression?  For yet another thing, Taiwan has become a major industrial economy.  In particular, it is home to the Taiwan Semi-conductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC if you want to go check the contents of your IRA).  Chinese rule would both mark a further shift in the balance of power and harm America’s economy. 

            In 2023, the CIA assessed that Xi Jinping had instructed military leaders to “be ready [to invade Taiwan] by 2027.”[3]  In mid-December 2025, the navy of the PRC carried out maneuvers in the waters around Taiwan.  The 90-ship group was, in the view of the Taiwanese military, practicing a “blockade exercise.”[4]  Blockade would be one way of bringing Taiwan to its knees.  Bombing would be another.  Invasion—amphibious and airborne–would be yet another. 

            All this is worth public discussion.  Now and not later.  We don’t have much “later.” 

[1] See David Sacks in While Pledging to Defend Taiwan from China, Biden Shifted on Taiwan Independence. Here’s Why That Matters. | Council on Foreign Relations 

[2] See: Wilkins Micawber.  Sounds like goofy American optimism, until you consider the alternative. 

[3] “The World at a Glance,” The Week, 14 February 2025, p. 9. 

[4] “The World at a Glance,” The Week, 20 December 2024, p. 9. 

Prologue to a Diary of the Second Addams Administration 15.

Posted on by
Reply

            The Agenda: Iran.[1] 

            The Iranian Revolution that overthrew the Shah (1979) spread chaos in the country.  Saddam Hussein, the dictator of neighboring Iraq, sought to exploit the situation by attacking Iran.  The subsequent war[2] (1980-1988) caused all sorts of troubles.  In its aftermath, during the 1990s, the Iranian Republic launched a program to develop nuclear weapons.  The program’s physical component—as opposed to intellectual and technological components–began with the construction of a uranium enrichment plant at Natanz and a heavy-water plant at Arak. 

            In 2002, Iranian dissidents obtained and published secret documents on the nuclear program for all the world to see.  In 2003, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei published a “fatwa” banning the possession or use of nuclear weapons.  No one believed him.[3]  Eventually, in 2006, the United Nations plastered Iran with economic sanctions.  In 2015, the Obama administration, busy with other quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan, led the negotiation of a deal with Iran.  Iran would limit uranium enrichment to 3.67 percent and send 97 percent of its already-enriched uranium to Russia for safe-keeping.[4]  The agreement would run for 15 years.  It hardly made it out the gate. 

            In 2018, President Donald Trump abandoned the agreement so far as the United States was concerned.  In Trump’s view, the agreement did nothing to address Iran’s non-nuclear aggressive behavior in the region.  Specifically, Iran was arming-up and coordinating allied forces in the region.[5]  Trump seems to have hoped that renewed economic sanctions would force the Iranian regime to cut a new and better deal.  To emphasize his point, in 2020 Trump ordered the killing of General Qassem Soleimani, a leading figure in the Revolutionary Guards. 

Next, in 2021, President Joe Biden[6] tried to revive the agreement, but the Iranians had moved on.  At about the same time that Biden entered the White House, Iran began enriching uranium to 20 percent, and then to 60 percent.  Enrichment to 90 percent creates “weapons grade material.”  All the while, economic sanctions and mismanagement have battered Iran’s domestic economy.[7]  

The last year or so has altered the situation.  First, Israel has inflicted immense damage on Iran’s clients through its wars in Gaza and Lebanon.  Turkey sponsored a rebel offensive in Syria that overthrew Iran’ ally Assad.  When Israel killed a Hamas leader in Tehran, Iran responded with a missile barrage; and, in October 2024; Israel answered with air strikes that wrecked key elements of Iran’s air defense system, among other things.  This leaves Iran open to follow-on strikes against nuclear facilities (and the Iranian leadership cadres) if Tehran doesn’t change its tune. 

Second, Donald Trump’s return to the White House has seemed possible (if not certain) since the beginning of 2024.  Tehran has been intensifying its drive to enrich uranium to 60 percent.  That is, apparently, a hop, skip, and a jump from 90 percent or weapons-grade uranium.[8]  I don’t know how much time that hop, skip, and jump would take.  Expert opinion holds that a basic sort of bomb could be manufactured six months after a sufficient quantity of weapons-grade uranium has been accumulated.  Another year after that and they could have a warhead for a ballistic missile.  One that could easily hit Israel. 

NOTHING in the history of Israel’s military and national security policy suggests that Israel will let Iran get anywhere near that point.  They will not allow Iran to get even one nuclear weapon.  Never mind the ballistic missiles.  “Just put it on a freighter bound for Haifa.”  The time-line for preventive action by Israel (and/or the United States) is very short.  Maybe a year at the outside?  There will be heavy pressure on the prime minister of Israel[9] to act soon. 

The time-line for Iran to decide what course it will choose is very short.  Will the rulers of Iran try to rush ahead and break-out to possession of nuclear weapons?[10]  If they do achieve a nuclear weapon, will they feel compelled to “use it or lose it”?   

Or will the leaders of Iran repent their disdain for Biden’s offer to revive the 2015 agreement?  The country’s alliance network is in shambles and its own defense vulnerabilities have been exposed.  Russia could divert no forces from the Ukraine war to save Assad, so it isn’t likely to do much for Iran.  Would the Iranian leaders—belatedly—seek to engage with the United States?  If so, how stiff-necked would they be about concessions? 

The stakes are high.  In theory, Israel would need the assistance of the United States to attack the key Iranian facilities.  A prime target would be an enrichment facility near the city of Qom.  It is tunneled into a mountain.  So is another site near Isfahan.  The American “Massive Ordnance Penetrator,” dropped by a B-2 bomber would be the only conventional weapon that could destroy the targets.[11]  In reality, Israel has its own nuclear weapons that might do the job.  That’s an awful thing to ponder.[12] 

Finally, there is a loose alliance between Iran, Russia, and China.  How would the Russians and the Chinese respond to either an Israel-America joint attack on Iran or to an Israel-alone attack (albeit with American blessing)? 

Can of worms.  Or, as the French say, “a basket of crabs.” 

[1] “Briefing: A looming nuclear crisis,” The Week, 17 January 2025, p. 11. 

[2] See: Iran–Iraq War – Wikipedia  If you want to explore in depth, see: Williamson Murray and Kevin M. Woods The Iran–Iraq War. A Military and Strategic History (2014).  Murray is deeply knowledgeable and hard-headed.   

[3] Iran is predominantly Shi’ite Muslim.  As a long-persecuted minority within Islam, Shi’ite theologians determined that Shi’ites could dissemble about their real religious beliefs.  Over the centuries, other people have come to believe that Iranian culture has generalized this originally purely religious easement on veracity. 

[4] So, as part of their recent mutual sliming-up to each other, has Russia secretly returned the enriched uranium to Iran?  I haven’t noticed reporting on this question.  My bad.  What does Mossad say? 

[5] Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and the Assad regime in Syria. 

[6] More recent developments cause me to wonder if it wasn’t the policy of President-for-Foreign-Policy Antony Blinken.  Who would have been President-for-Domestic-Policy?  Can’t have been Janet Yellen.  We wouldn’t have had the inflation mess.  I understand that this is a nasty remark.  But see “Biden: How to hide a president’s decline” The Week, 17 January 2025, p. 16.  Reports on a WSJ story on “how Biden’s aides and family hid his apparent cognitive decline from almost day one of his presidency.”  On which side of “day one” did the hiding begin? 

[7] Pakistan’s prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto once said that “Even if we have to eat grass, we will make a nuclear bomb.”  You couldn’t force that in a democracy, but neither Pakistan nor Iran are real democracies. 

[8] Obviously, I haven’t tried it myself.  Nor would I try.  Don’t want to get hauled into a black Escalade while I’m walking my dog. 

[9] Probably Benjamin Netanyahu, but it doesn’t matter.  The leaders of the IDF and Mossad seem likely to be on the same page. 

[10] The ever-shrewd Eliot A. Cohen raised this possibility in the Atlantic in December 2024.  For a sample of Cohen’s Atlantic pieces, see: Eliot A. Cohen, The Atlantic 

[11] It has been reported that the Pentagon has briefed President Biden on plans for American attacks on Iranian nuclear resources.  “Briefing: A looming nuclear crisis,” The Week, 17 January 2025, p. 11. 

[12] Many people outside of Israel already are appalled by pictures from Gaza. 

Prologue to a Diary of the Second Addams Administration 12.

Posted on by
Reply

The Agenda: The Middle East. 

Syria’s fifty-year-long government-by-massacre suddenly collapsed under a surprise assault by Turkish-sponsored Arabs.[1]  Bashar al-Assad fled (with his millions) to Russia. 

The lead group among the victorious rebels, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), began establishing a government.  While people are more or less glad to be shed of Assad, HTS could be problematic.  On the one hand, the group is an off-shoot of al Qaeda; they’re Islamists; and they’ve be labeled as terrorists by Western governments.  On the other hand, HTS and the “Syrian National Army” are Turkish puppets.[2] 

Other countries began adapting to the new situation.  The Russians began cutting their losses by pulling out their men and material.  Israel has every reason to suspect Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, of harboring anti-Israel sentiments.  He may want to create an Islamist-governed “ally” on Israel’s door-step.  Of late, there has been much celebration of the whole series of blows dealt to Iran’s allies and proxies (Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Assad in Syria).  Erdogan won’t have missed the lesson.  He may use his proxies to exert pressure on Israel.  Israel exploited the opportunity by bombing Syrian bases and arms stockpiles to reduce the weaponry available to the HTS that had toppled Assad (just in case). 

Both Syria and the members of the European Union (EU) began nudging Syrian refugees to go home.  About 3 million Syrian refugees remain in Syria.  Erdogan would like them to go home.  About 1.5 million Syrians fled the civil war that began in 2011 for Europe.  Their arrival contributed greatly to an anti-foreign, anti-liberal reaction in many European countries.  European politics shifted right in an alarming fashion.  Many Europeans are saying “Go.” 

The United States and its European allies began talking to the people who are the de facto rulers of Syria.  They would like the rebels-turned-government to say the right things.  It’s a sticky situation.  It seemed brilliant to overthrow Libya’s Ghaddafi, but the follow-on effects—civil war, gangs, a migrant surge toward Europe—continues to trouble the region.  What if this turns out to be the same basic story? 

            Most immediately, there is the “problem” of the Kurds.  “Kurdistan” sprawls over Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria.  The Kurds have been a dangerous thorn in the side of Turkey for decades.  They form the largest minority population within Turkey and they have long harbored nationalist ambitions.  The successive American wars against Iraq made that problem much worse by creating, then enlarging, a Kurdish proto-state in northern Iraq.  Moreover, the Kurds have been a loyal—and better yet, effective–ally of the United States in the fight against ISIS.  Indeed, the chief check on ISIS has been the Kurds.  In north-eastern Syria, Kurds braced for a likely attack from Turkey or its Syrian proxies.  If Turkey or its minions do attack the Kurds, that isn’t likely to be Turkey’s last move. 

President-elect Donald Trump has said “Syria is not America’s problem.”  He may mean it, more than did predecessors who hoped to “pivot to Asia.”  Is Israel also “not an American problem”?  What about Turkey, nominally a NATO member, but bound on its own course?  Whether he can sustain that resolve to disengage will be an early test. 

[1] “Turkey prepares attack on U.S. allies in Syria,” The Week, 27 December 2024-3 January 2025, p. 5. 

[2] “Syria: From Iranian client to Turkish puppet?” The Week, 27 December 2024-3 January 2025, p. 16. 

ChiMerica 5.

Posted on by
Reply

            For decades after the death of Mao Zedong, China’s national policies were set by Deng Xiaoping and his like-minded successors.  China opened itself to the world, carried out major reforms, and pursued rapid economic growth.  An enhanced international power would surely come as a result of these policies.  Yet, it seemed to many foreign observers, that China would progressively integrate itself into a larger world system.  These hopes have been abridged.

How should we understand Xi Jinping, leader-for-life of contemporary China?  A recent book on Xi’s political thought as revealed in his speeches and writings cast some light on the issue.[1]  Xi possesses—or is possessed by—vast ambition for China.  He aims at the “rejuvenation” of his country by a Leninist dictatorship.  He wants to return China to its one-time status as the greatest nation in the world.  On the one hand, Xi’s aims mean asserting the power of the Communist Party as the guide of the nation in all political and economic matters.  He found the Chinese Communist Party demoralized by a loss of purpose.  He found it riddled with corruption.  Xi’s anti-corruption campaigns began by purging many of his enemies or rivals, but they seem not to have stopped there.  Xi’s reassertion of party primacy gives him a powerful lever to guide and to mobilize the Chinese people.   

On the other hand, Xi’s aims require displacing the United States from its long role as guardian of what might be called “American Asia”: Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, and Vietnam.  As one of the means to this end, China has carried out a massive military build-up.  China has been asserting its claim to the South China Sea as a kind of Chinese lake, rather than an open international waterway. 

            Xi’s ambition is bad for the United States and bad for the states of “American Asia.”  Among these states, Japan serves as the linch-pin of the American position and it is a natural bete-noire for Xi.  Japan’s brutal behavior in Asia during the Second World War gives Xi’s propaganda a lot to work with in mobilizing Chinese opinion.  China’s battering of the fishing fleets and coast guards of the peripheral states around the South China Sea aims at controlling one of Japan’s main lines of trade. 

            Xi has been at this for a dozen years.  He has set his target date for the completion of China’s rejuvenation as 2050.  The end date is well after Xi will have shuffled off the scene.  He has been working hard to instill “Xi Jinping Thought” as the guiding ideology for his country. 

            The United States has been struggling to respond to the new China.  The presidential transition from the Democrat Joe Biden to the Republican Donald Trump requires a review of the essential questions.  How widely understood is the seriousness of China’s challenge?  Can anyone craft a plan for a successful response to China’s challenge?  Is it possible for the United States to mobilize the military and diplomatic resources needed to meet the challenge?   

            Countries close to China seem to profess the most confidence in the American alliance.  Perhaps they have no choice but to believe it.  Countries farther away in Southeast Asia are more skeptical.  One theory is that the evident inadequate level of American military power gives them pause.  So, is America bluffing when it claims that it will support its allies?  If so, then Asian countries will spot that like a leopard spots a limp. 

[1] Steve Tsang and Olivia Cheung, The Political Thought of Xi Jinping (2025), brought to my attention by Walter Russell Mead, “Does Biden Take China’s Threat Seriously?” WSJ, 9 April 2024. 

Memoirs of the Addams Administration 21.

Posted on by
Reply

There are drafts, then sketches, and then doodles.  President Donald Trump issued a doodle of a proposed budget for fiscal 2018.  The $4.1 trillion plan calls for $54 billion increase in defense spending; an $800 billion reduction in Medicaid spending spread over ten years, a $192 reduction in food stamps, and a $72 billion cut in disability payments.  The plan also called for substantial tax cuts.  Projecting economic growth of 3 percent, the plan projects a balanced budget in ten years.   Neither Social Security nor Medicare, the real engines pulling the budget train at high speed toward a washed-out bridge, received any attention in the budget plan or from Democratic critics of the plan.[1]

Meanwhile, the president made a densely-packed foreign trip.[2]  His first stop came in Saudi Arabia.  Here he played up the minor chord in his campaign rhetoric on Islam, while muting the major chord.  He said positive things about Islam-in-general (“one of the world’s great faiths”), but called on Middle Eastern countries to turn away from radical-Islamists-in-particular.  He promised another vain effort to settle the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.  He also made clear his concern (to put it mildly) about Iran.  Then he sold Saudi Arabia $110 billion in weapons and flew to Israel.  Here he met with both Benjamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas.  Trump told Netanyahu that radical Islam and Iran were the common dangers to Israel and the Sunni Arab states, so maybe they could work something out?

Lost in the commentary was any sense of reality.  The Muslim world is torn by a Sunni-Shi’ite civil war.  President Obama could not afford to choose sides because an attack on nuclearizing Iran would have expanded America’s war in the Middle East at a moment when few Americans had any stomach for big wars.  The Iran agreement slowed down Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons while still leaving them bound by sanctions for other issues.[3]  However, Obama’s refusal to choose allowed the Russians to choose the Shi’ite side.  Now President Trump is taking the logical next step.[4]  As for peace between Palestine and Israel, it isn’t likely to happen.  Israel cannot afford to have a Palestinian state created on the West Bank.  It would just be taken over by Hamas, as happened in Gaza.  The West Bank is a lot closer to Israel’s population centers than is Gaza.  It’s well within flying range of the Hamas rockets.

At home, the appointment of one-time FBI director Robert Mueller as special counsel to investigate the whole Russian mess either made things worse for the president or made them better.[5]  It depends on whether actual “collusion” took place between the Trump campaign and the Russian “organs of state security.”  It is not much remarked that the names of the dominant figures in the Trump campaign, Steve Bannon and Kelly Ann Conway, never appear in rumors of collusion.  So far, it has been minor, peripheral figures—and Michael Flynn.  Even with Flynn, the abundant leaking of information about his communications with Russians never mentions the hacking.  The leaks do suggest that he has other grounds for taking the Fifth.[6]  All of them involve things he did not tell the White House.

[1] “Trump’s budget proposal raises bipartisan concerns,” The Week, 2 June 2017, p. 7.

[2] “Trump’s Middle East reset,” The Week, 2 June 2017, p. 6.

[3] In short, he earned the Nobel Peace Prize he had been awarded early in his first term by Europeans intervening in an American election after the fact.

[4] That’s certainly how it looked to Iran.  “How they see us: Uniting the Middle East against Iran,” The Week, 2 June 2017, p. 17.

[5] “Mueller: Trump’s worst nightmare?” The Week, 2 June 2017, p. 19.

[6] “Flynn: The center of multiple scandals,” The Week, 2 June 2017, p. 19.