"Trump's best foreign policy? Not starting wars. JD Vance The Wall Street Journal (March 2, 2023)
A week of war has passed. US President Donald Trump continues his imperialistic actions, threatening to ignite the entire Middle East region without any strategy for the future. Trump has brought Iran to the brink of civil war with no end in sight to the Ayatollahs' regime, and Netanyahu has seized Gaza and the West Bank and is now fulfilling his dream of a Greater Israel in Lebanon, built upon the ruins of its neighbors. Not a single tear is worthy of being shed for the Iranian dictator, Ayatollah Khamenei, or his fanatics. But American democracy is experiencing its lowest point since the Iraq War, and perhaps since Vietnam if this mistake is compounded by sending troops when the emperor in Washington realizes that it is harder to end a war than to start one.
Civilization only has the architecture of international law to establish basic rules for shared functioning. Undermining international law is the most serious act committed by the US administration, which acts unilaterally and feels no obligation to provide explanations to its citizens. These explanations are erratic and based on the vague arguments of halting the Iranian nuclear program and weakening the regime.
However, although the nuclear program was the primary justification for the war, many of the targets attacked have been armed forces, military installations, and political leaders, rather than key nuclear infrastructure. This raises doubts about whether the military campaign can truly prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. In fact, the previous bombings in 2025 had already damaged the Iranian nuclear program but had not eliminated it. Several US estimates indicate that Iran could still rebuild its nuclear capability in a relatively short period. With the death of Ali Khamenei, a new leadership might reconsider the historic decision to limit the development of nuclear weapons, especially if it perceives that the only way to guarantee the regime's survival is to possess a nuclear deterrent capability. Before the conflict, the possibility of a military attack could slow Iranian nuclear development; Now that the country is under attack, some sectors of the regime might consider building a nuclear bomb the only way to prevent further aggression. The US has two options: negotiate a nuclear agreement with Iranian authorities to eliminate or control existing nuclear material, or continue the war until the regime collapses, which doesn't guarantee nuclear control. With international law and diplomatic language moribund, Trump has demanded Iran's "total surrender" and threatens it with "total destruction." Most disturbing is that the US military and its commander-in-chief think—or at best, pretend—that this war needs neither strategy nor explanations to the public about its short- and medium-term objectives.
The good news of the week has come from China. Although Beijing is Tehran's largest international partner, its response so far has been limited to cautious diplomatic statements. The relationship between China and Iran has been based primarily on energy and economic interests. A significant portion of the oil Beijing imports comes from the Middle East, including a substantial share from Iran, and much of this flow passes through the Strait of Hormuz. This dependence gives Beijing an interest in the region's stability, but not necessarily in the survival of the Iranian regime. In recent years, Chinese strategists have begun to lose confidence in Iran as a regional power. They believe the country has exaggerated its military strength and that its response to various attacks by its adversaries has been weak. This disappointment has led China to become increasingly pragmatic regarding Iran's political future. For Beijing, the important thing is that the country remains a functional economic partner and that energy flows are maintained. Therefore, China does not consider regime change the worst-case scenario and appears willing to work with any government that emerges after the conflict. The factor that could truly alter this attitude is energy security or a protracted war that disrupts oil shipments to Asia and poses a direct threat to the Chinese economy. In this case, Beijing could reconsider its neutrality and offer some kind of indirect support to Tehran. Trump has led the US into a war from which it will not emerge unscathed, a war that stirs up a very dangerous hornet's nest: the entire Middle East. The severity of the consequences will depend on the duration of the war and how much global economic confidence is damaged.
