Iran might have little incentive to concede to US demands until after the March 31 summit between Presidents Donald Trump and Xi Jinping. Then, it could evaluate the outcomes and seek China’s support. It’s a risky gamble, but it might be a better option than the alternative. After the summit, will China believe America is stronger or weaker? Many factors could influence China’s assessment of Iran in one way or another.
By then, markets might become jittery, oil prices could spike, the Russians might step in, Gulf states could get cold feet and Israel or the US might feel on shaky ground.
If everything unfolds like this, within a month, regardless of the summit’s outcome, Iranian hardliners could regain the upper hand and say, “We’d better resist even longer.” Then Trump might lose his nerve and make mistakes. Things could worsen.
For these reasons, the US should end the war within a week or two, declare victory, let the Iranian situation unfold, hold a summit with a smaller Iranian elephant in the room and then reassess options in a month.
After all, Iran already faces a significant power vacuum. Its defenses and nuclear capabilities could be vastly reduced or eliminated in one or two weeks. If the US pauses, things can take a very different turn. There is room to contemplate this scenario.
Will the US stop the war in a week or two? In theory, everything could stay under control for a month or 90 days. But the overall situation is extremely volatile. Iran isn’t Gaza or Ukraine, and the longer the war lasts, the more uncertainties build up.
Here’s a general scenario if the war in Iran doesn’t end soon enough. The scenario becomes mostly irrelevant if the conflict stops soon. Still, if the US also hadn’t rethought its overall approach to international affairs, some consequences would still occur.
Temptations
The idea of Iran’s complete surrender happening soon may be tempting, but how long would it really take, and at what cost, considering the Russian and Chinese wild cards in play?
Furthermore, a victory gained solely through force, without politics, might lead the US to think that raw power is the only solution to its problems. The same could happen to others, reinforcing the idea that only a nuclear arsenal can truly shield a nation from America’s unpredictable anger.
North Korea, with its massive nuclear stockpile, exemplifies this reality. Many might be eager to follow its example, sparking the first multipolar nuclear arms race. North Korean paranoid realpolitik could become the hallmark of international diplomacy.
Instead of Pyongyang adopting liberal global standards, the world might see standards shaped by Pyongyang. North Korean leader Kim Jong-un’s hereditary dictatorship could become the envy of world leaders, and billions of people would face endless misery.
Multipolarity’s dire consequences
Many desired a multipolar world where the US would be no longer the “world policeman” overseeing global order. They got it: Each country, including the US, now focuses only on its own interests, often ignoring the global commons and order.
Trump, consciously or unconsciously, has taken a selfish approach to geopolitics: I eliminate, I destroy those hostile to me, regardless of the overall order I leave behind.
The main goal is that the threat is gone. This is what America did in Afghanistan or Iraq when it took troops out. It didn’t bring democracy, order, or development as it had hoped. It just accepted that the short- to medium-term threat had been eliminated.
Today, with Iran, it might be similar. Either Iran makes peace with America and changes its regime or it will be eliminated as a threat to America. This solution may also appeal to some in Turkey and Saudi Arabia, who might prefer a weakened or destabilized Iran over a pro-Western Iran that could alter regional dynamics and compel them to reassess their positions.
However, if the war were to continue indefinitely, Iran might become a failed state. This could create a large geopolitical void spanning Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan, destabilizing Central Asia, Pakistan, Turkey, the Caucasus, and the Gulf region directly. Countries such as Turkey, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan and Pakistan could be next to face adverse effects.
The overall approach disrupts all the international rules established at the end of Word War II, 80 years ago. It creates a significant gap in the global order: No one is managing it, certainly not America anymore.
It could easily lead to increasing chaos in which only power politics matters and the world is set ablaze, as Cardinal Pietro Parolin said. “The law of force has replaced the force of law,” quipped Parolin.
Then, without rules, everything becomes more difficult, even for the greatest power. All should beware. Chaos affects everyone, even the strongest. The migrants plight, American and European, also comes from destabilization and chaos.
A Chinese twist
The Chinese, then, may believe the US could get bogged down in the Middle East again.
China, unlike Russia, Gaza or Venezuela, has so far been cautious, and this new approach could lead to long-term rewards. Yes, Xi has progressively less political space — his allies are disappearing one by one. Internationally, he is far less powerful than the USSR was. But the overall strategy is different.
Unlike the USSR, which expanded everywhere but eventually lost its core, China’s strategy appears to be that of the hedgehog: it extends quills that stay tightly connected to the body. However, if the quills’ connections become problematic, they are cut.
This was challenging for the USSR because its main goal was to spread communism worldwide. China doesn’t have a universal ideological belief to promote. Its primary focus is on maintaining the system’s survival. In this respect, China is prepared.
China possesses unmatched industrial strength. It nearly dominates the production of rare earths and processed minerals and maintains a cost-effective edge in manufacturing consumer and capital goods. Its technology is advancing quickly. Therefore, it may be that, over the medium to long term, it can somehow surpass America. One strategy could be to make peace with America and play the long game.
However, some in Beijing may realize that these plans could backfire because America is working to reduce and eventually eliminate its industrial reliance on China and to widen the gap between its technology and China’s.
As a result, time might be working against Beijing rather than for it. Moreover, China might be misjudging the situation. Even if the US is bogged down in Iran, Japan is preparing to resist China by lining up allies that could be effective with or even without limited US support. Therefore, paradoxically, China’s situation in Asia could become more complicated, not less, with a weaker America.
If chaos spreads, the US could abandon its international projection and turn itself into a hedgehog. If so, as still the biggest dog around, it will face mounting opposition that can only be contained through escalating force. Others might follow, eventually transforming the world into a field of hedgehogs where the US might soon fall.
