… “a new and dangerous world, led by the Chinese Communist Party.”
Really?
After centuries of colonialism, militarism, genocide, imperialism, and world wars by the Western powers, I believe most of would welcome a Chinese-led world order.
China transformed itself from an impoverished nation of middling strength to the world’s largest economy (PPP) with arguably the most powerful military over a span of 40 years without a single war.
This is unprecedented in Western history. In fact, it would never occur to Western powers to even try, so deeply are they steeped in the geopolitical traditions that require acts of war and zero sum calculations in order to increase national wealth and power.
Time to replace our warmongering Western empires with a global leader that actually understands the value of peace and stability.
China’s rise has been economically impressive, but it hasn’t occurred in a vacuum or purely through “peace and stability.” It’s been enabled in large part by integration into a Western-led global system, access to global markets, and security guarantees that kept major conflict at bay.
Avoiding large-scale conventional war doesn’t mean an absence of coercion, pressure, or strategic competition. It just means those tools are being applied differently.
I am not claiming China to be a saintly utopia, but the term ‘peaceful’ is fairly clear in its definition.
We can quibble about water cannons spraying Filipino boats and islands in the South China Sea, but I’ll take that over genocide and an endless procession of wars that are the hallmarks of the fading US-led global order.
“Peaceful” depends a lot on where you’re sitting. China’s rise happened inside a relatively stable global system that limited great-power war and was also lead by the US. history suggests that states that obtain great power status tend to use it in non "peaceful" ways.
I hear your point, but I think its clear that China is likely to wield it's strength in ways that may not yield ideal results for it's regional partners.
I find it interesting that almost all of the commentary on Iran completely ignores the current hyper inflation and the breakdown in food distribution. The phrase “only nine meals” from social collapse seems appropriate. The US may not need to invade.
I think this is under-discussed, but also easy to overstate. Inflation and distribution stress create internal pressure, but regimes under pressure don’t always collapse, they often externalize risk and double down.
I just saw John Mearsheimer speak today and his point of view is that pulling systems from east Asia would be amongst the greatest blunders of Trump 2.0. Fighting in the Persian Gulf is likely to get us back to status quo, best case scenario.
You lack basic understanding of the mainland China-Taiwan situation. As a self-help measure, I recommend you stop using the word Taiwan and refer to the government in Taipei by its official name. That might help you avoid mistakes like saying China is trying to “retake Taiwan”.
Seriously, your analysis is made less useful by your failure to comprehend China.
With many differing conjectures, I always wonder if a totally different outcome ensues, or unfolds, bit by bit. My Iranian friend insists it's a cultural trait to have a trick. up one's sleeve.
Americans underestimate because they don't grok other cultures, and thiink they react predictably.
The article correctly highlights the classic disconnect between tactical dominance and strategic failure. Despite thousands of strikes degrading Iranian capabilities, Tehran’s asymmetric leverage—especially through the Strait of Hormuz—continues to impose disproportionate global economic costs.
This reinforces a hard lesson: in modern conflict, control of escalation and chokepoints often outweighs battlefield attrition. The West may be winning engagements, but Iran is shaping the strategic environment.
That is the result we׳d expect from a war that had no goals, no plans and no need.
… “a new and dangerous world, led by the Chinese Communist Party.”
Really?
After centuries of colonialism, militarism, genocide, imperialism, and world wars by the Western powers, I believe most of would welcome a Chinese-led world order.
China transformed itself from an impoverished nation of middling strength to the world’s largest economy (PPP) with arguably the most powerful military over a span of 40 years without a single war.
This is unprecedented in Western history. In fact, it would never occur to Western powers to even try, so deeply are they steeped in the geopolitical traditions that require acts of war and zero sum calculations in order to increase national wealth and power.
Time to replace our warmongering Western empires with a global leader that actually understands the value of peace and stability.
Peaceful rise is a relative term.
China’s rise has been economically impressive, but it hasn’t occurred in a vacuum or purely through “peace and stability.” It’s been enabled in large part by integration into a Western-led global system, access to global markets, and security guarantees that kept major conflict at bay.
Avoiding large-scale conventional war doesn’t mean an absence of coercion, pressure, or strategic competition. It just means those tools are being applied differently.
I am not claiming China to be a saintly utopia, but the term ‘peaceful’ is fairly clear in its definition.
We can quibble about water cannons spraying Filipino boats and islands in the South China Sea, but I’ll take that over genocide and an endless procession of wars that are the hallmarks of the fading US-led global order.
“Peaceful” depends a lot on where you’re sitting. China’s rise happened inside a relatively stable global system that limited great-power war and was also lead by the US. history suggests that states that obtain great power status tend to use it in non "peaceful" ways.
I hear your point, but I think its clear that China is likely to wield it's strength in ways that may not yield ideal results for it's regional partners.
I find it interesting that almost all of the commentary on Iran completely ignores the current hyper inflation and the breakdown in food distribution. The phrase “only nine meals” from social collapse seems appropriate. The US may not need to invade.
I think this is under-discussed, but also easy to overstate. Inflation and distribution stress create internal pressure, but regimes under pressure don’t always collapse, they often externalize risk and double down.
Yes, it does not work all the time. But, as Gandhi pointed out a government cannot rule without the cooperation of the citizens.
The U.S. is in an extraordinarily difficult position.
I just saw John Mearsheimer speak today and his point of view is that pulling systems from east Asia would be amongst the greatest blunders of Trump 2.0. Fighting in the Persian Gulf is likely to get us back to status quo, best case scenario.
In other words it's suicidal.
detrimental to success, not quite as suicidal yet.
You lack basic understanding of the mainland China-Taiwan situation. As a self-help measure, I recommend you stop using the word Taiwan and refer to the government in Taipei by its official name. That might help you avoid mistakes like saying China is trying to “retake Taiwan”.
Seriously, your analysis is made less useful by your failure to comprehend China.
With many differing conjectures, I always wonder if a totally different outcome ensues, or unfolds, bit by bit. My Iranian friend insists it's a cultural trait to have a trick. up one's sleeve.
Americans underestimate because they don't grok other cultures, and thiink they react predictably.
There is a third option
US and Israel can do a genocide.
Yeah, they’re well versed in that option, should not be a problem.
The article correctly highlights the classic disconnect between tactical dominance and strategic failure. Despite thousands of strikes degrading Iranian capabilities, Tehran’s asymmetric leverage—especially through the Strait of Hormuz—continues to impose disproportionate global economic costs.
This reinforces a hard lesson: in modern conflict, control of escalation and chokepoints often outweighs battlefield attrition. The West may be winning engagements, but Iran is shaping the strategic environment.