Are Trump’s Iran strikes a ‘wake-up call’ for China on US unpredictability?

As US air strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities call into question the anti-war stance of US President Donald Trump, they may also reinforce Beijing’s assumptions about the unpredictability of the US administration, according to diplomatic observers. The attacks could bolster belief in Beijing that Washington might intervene in regional conflicts, prompting stronger strategic preparations in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait, they added. Their assessment came after an unprecedented US air strike on Iran with its most powerful non-nuclear weapons, followed by an Iranian retaliatory strike on the largest US airbase in the region. During his election campaign, Trump repeatedly pitched himself as an anti-war president and a peace broker, promising to put “America first” by ending US involvement in risky and expensive overseas conflicts. Trump has yet to meet his campaign promises to swiftly end wars in Ukraine and Gaza, and with the bombing of Iran, he appears to have shifted from his anti-war position, despite a subsequent ceasefire announcement on social media on Tuesday. “Israel & Iran came to me, almost simultaneously, and said, “PEACE!” I knew the time was NOW. The World, and the Middle East, are the real WINNERS! Both Nations will see tremendous LOVE, PEACE, AND PROSPERITY in their futures,” he wrote online. Israel and Iran announced on Tuesday that a ceasefire had begun, but not long after Israel’s defence minister ordered “intense strikes” on Tehran, citing Iran’s violation of the ceasefire. Tehran denied the accusation. Trump later accused both nations of breaking the ceasefire. Isaac Kardon, a senior fellow for China studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said the US escalation in Iran sent a “strong and clear” signal to Chinese analysts who might have been wondering about the potential for US intervention in regional conflicts. “Massive use of force actually is ‘on the table’ and may be employed very quickly and even impulsively by a leader who is showing himself to be less gun-shy and more risk-acceptant than his first term,” he said. “Beijing will assess that the US can be drawn further into another Mideast quagmire and do everything within its power to keep US naval and air forces tied up in Western Asia instead of in the Western Pacific where China’s strategic attention is concentrated,” he said. Josef Gregory Mahoney, a professor of politics and international relations at East China Normal University in Shanghai, said that while US involvement was not surprising, it was a forewarning for Beijing. “I don’t think the Chinese leadership was caught off guard by Trump’s attacks on Iran, but they did serve as a wake-up call of sorts for those in Beijing and elsewhere who’ve pandered for years to this absurd position that Trump is the president of peace and other such nonsense.” James F. Downes, an assistant professor in international relations at Hong Kong Metropolitan University, said US air strikes against Iran validated China’s fears and could fuel China’s long-term efforts to boost military readiness, economic resilience and diplomatic efforts, with “a sharper focus” on deterring possible future US interventions in Taiwan and the South China Sea. “China’s earlier preparations for worst-case scenarios remain important, but the need for concrete deterrence – particularly regarding Taiwan and the South China Sea – will now become even more pressing issues,” he said. He said the US strikes would likely confirm Beijing’s view of Trump’s “unilateral and destabilising approach” and unpredictability – which Beijing has long prepared for, and it could further damage US credibility in the core Chinese leadership. Kardon, however, argued that the strikes would not change Beijing’s estimate of how likely the US was to intervene in the Western Pacific, where the strategic balance was very different. “In a far more challenging operational environment around China, Trump hasn’t shown any propensity to test the escalatory roulette wheel with China,” he said. Compared to Iran – which sought a peace deal immediately after “a nominal retaliation” – China, with the advantage on its home field in East Asia, had a much stronger military and industrial base that “poses far more credible and formidable threat to impose immense costs and protract any conflict with the US”, he said. Zhao Minghao, of Fudan University’s Centre for American Studies, said the bombing showed Trump was willing to apply intense military pressure when needed, as seen in his 2017 Syria strikes. However, a full-scale Middle East conflict would contradict Trump’s “America first” approach, which had sought to force Iranian concessions through pressure rather than prolonged war, Zhao said. “The US wants to shift its strategic resources to the Asia-Pacific region, but in reality it still cannot get out of the mess in the Middle East.” He also suggested that the strikes could influence China’s assessment of Trump’s decision-making and willingness to use force – a key factor in managing tensions over Taiwan and the South China Sea. Chong Ja Ian, an associate professor of political science at the National University of Singapore, agreed that the US strikes could reinforce ideas about the unpredictability of the US president on major issues and call into question the credibility of the Trump administration’s statements. Beijing could be more cautious about how it handled the Trump administration after the strikes. “Trump and his senior officials seem to have reacted to the strike differently after all. Beijing will have to factor in this possibility at least in the short run, although I do not think Beijing believes the Trump administration seeks confrontation with [China],” he said. “However, should there be escalation in the Middle East, Washington may have to divert more attention and resources to that region that could, in turn, relieve some pressure on [China].”

Are Trump’s Iran strikes a ‘wake-up call’ for China on US unpredictability?

Bombings send ‘strong and clear’ signal about possible US intervention in potential Taiwan or South China Sea conflicts, experts say