Can US military adventurism outcompete China's ‘long peace' strategy?
The United States'
strike on Iran's nuclear facilities on June 22 – followed abruptly by US President Donald Trump's announcement of a fragile
'complete and total ceasefire' between Israel and Iran – exposes a critical nuance in America's changing strategic posture. Where Washington pursues global primacy through continuous military intervention, gambling that overwhelming force can prompt capitulation, China charts a different course.
Beijing follows a 'long peace' path, having leveraged economic statecraft and diplomacy while avoiding major military entanglements since its
1979 border war with Vietnam . This difference reflects profoundly contrasting visions of national power and international order, with profound implications for the next phase of great power competition.
Trump's gambit – contingent on Iran accepting de-escalation after its
retaliatory strikes on a US base in Qatar – signals a tactical shift towards limited force as a bargaining chip. This manoeuvre may diverge from past 'forever wars' but hinges on Tehran's restraint and Israel's acceptance.
If Iran continues working on its internationally contested
nuclear programme and
support of regional insurgencies , Washington could either lose credibility or face renewed escalation. This would reaffirm the 'long war' paradigm's persistent volatility.
Afghanistan ,
Iraq ,
Libya ,
The US attack on Iran fits its decades-long pattern of military interventions. Since the Cold War ended, the US has engaged in near-continuous operations, intervening in
the Balkans
Syria and
Yemen
This state of constant war sustains American dominance but demands colossal resources. US military spending in 20204 amounted to US$997 billion, more than the spending of the next nine militaries combined. Trump's hybrid tactic of simultaneous escalation and ceasefire proclamations reveals strategic schizophrenia: attempting to balance military deterrence with selective disengagement, yet still risking entanglement in the very quagmire it seeks to avoid.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South China Morning Post
3 hours ago
- South China Morning Post
Did US strikes wipe out Iran's nuclear facilities? Chinese military experts sceptical
Chinese defence experts expressed scepticism about US President Donald Trump's claim that air strikes had 'obliterated' Iran's biggest nuclear facilities , following reports that core components of Tehran's nuclear assets remained intact. CNN reported on Tuesday that an assessment by the Defence Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon's intelligence arm, was at odds with Trump's claim that Iran's enrichment sites – Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan – were 'completely and totally obliterated'. While the full extent of the damage and its implications for Iran's nuclear ambitions are still unclear, Chinese analysts agreed that the strikes were limited in effectiveness. They cited factors including the gap between the depth of Iran's underground facilities and the penetration capabilities of the bombs used, and reports that Tehran might have removed enriched uranium ahead of the attacks. Chinese military aviation expert Fu Qianshao noted that the US said its 'bunker buster' bomb was capable of penetrating 60 metres (197 feet) underground, but if the Iranian facilities were made of specially reinforced concrete, the effective depth would be far less. 'The Fordow facility is buried about 80 to 90 metres underground, so there was a gap there,' he added. 'In the end, the US likely didn't achieve the intended operational goal.'
South China Morning Post
3 hours ago
- South China Morning Post
3 spectres haunting global finance must be seen before it's too late
Fledgling artificial intelligence (AI) models , the opacity of shadow banking and the euphoria over cryptocurrency are new fault lines in global finance, emerging as dangers that are more dispersed and harder to contain than those of the last crisis. Without coordinated action, we risk stumbling into another systemic breakdown, one that no financial institution or government can resolve alone. Yet, world leaders, overwhelmed by tariff flare-ups and escalating wars , are unlikely to champion needed changes, especially while investors are complacent and the economy stays resilient. They face a dilemma: crying wolf too often erodes credibility; crying too late invites catastrophe. AI, purporting to optimise efficiencies and mitigate risks, could usher in the next Lehman moment . The problems originate from how algorithms collect and analyse data before executing solutions, argues London School of Economics professor Jon Danielsson. Large-language models generally rely on similar data, signals and optimisation logic. There's a collusion effect. Feedback loops heighten the risks of synchronised and repetitive errors at frenzied speeds. Another concern is position bias, a phenomenon whereby AI overemphasises information at the beginning and end of a text, which Massachusetts Institute of Technology researchers recently uncovered. Data can be invariably conflicting, error-ridden, imprecise, cluttered and ambiguous. Even if gaps are filled, applicability is limited since each event's causes and complexities are unique. 'AI's ability to respond swiftly and decisively – combined with its opaque decision-making process, collusion with other engines, and the propensity for hallucination – is at the core of the stability risks arising from it,' Danielsson writes. He warns that 'AI crises will be fast and vicious'.
The Standard
3 hours ago
- The Standard
US exchanges, SEC in talks to ease public company regulations
The Nasdaq logo is displayed at the Nasdaq Market, in New York City, New York, U.S., February 13, 2025. REUTERS
