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.