This analysis of how Russia and China’s competing priorities left Iran essentially abandoned is really valuable context that’s been missing from most coverage. The economic interdependencies you lay out (especially China’s reliance on the Strait of Hormuz and Russia’s investments in Iran versus their diaspora in Israel) explain so much more than the usual “axis of evil” framing we get. Thank you, Elise!
But I keep coming back to this assumption that Trump is going to strategically exploit Putin’s weakness in some coherent way. Everything we’ve seen lately suggests his decision-making is way more reactive and personal than strategic. Just look at the immigration flip-flop when his business friends complained about raids affecting their sectors (and then flip-flopping again based on no new information), or how his position on the Iran strikes shifted completely once he saw Fox praising Netanyahu’s “strength” and wanted that same praise for himself.
The real wild card isn’t whether Trump recognizes these geopolitical opportunities you’ve identified, it’s whether his response will be based on actual strategic thinking or just whoever gets to him last with the right flattery. Putin’s constraints are real and create openings, but Trump’s constraints might be even weirder: he’s operating on ego and personal relationships rather than national interests.
And here’s what really gets me: by backing Israel’s strikes, Trump just threw a huge chunk of his base under the bus. The same people who voted for him as the “no new wars” candidate are now talking impeachment because he’s cheerleading military action that couldn’t align less with what they thought they were getting. If he’s willing to betray that vocal part of his coalition just to satisfy what seems like a few days of Israeli military FOMO, what does that tell us about his capacity for the kind of long-term strategic thinking your analysis assumes? So while this framework for understanding the power dynamics is spot on, predicting what Trump does with it feels impossible when his positions change based on his mood and who’s whispering in his ear that week.
Also, we haven’t had a chance to talk about the “big beautiful” aka “disgusting abomination” bill for a while — distraction seems like a more Trumpian strategy than nuanced analysis of competing global incentives.
This. And it looks like they'll be voting on it Wednesday, and Republicans are falling in line for it. I think that influencers and anyone covering the news should have been continuing a push to fight the bill - whatever that looks like - knowing full well that the overload of bullshit was meant to distract from this.
Trump's whole brand of attacking people personally and being highly emotional and reactive has led to the occasional win, but as a result, it makes any win he might achieve seem like luck. He tends to fall apart like a cheap suit and call it a strategy. He doesn't have a moral compass, so he goes wherever the wind blows him, policy-wise. (as seen with the flip-flopping on immigration, to name but one) It will be interesting to see if this takes the bloom off the rose for the portion of his base that's angry at him, or if it's just another gutless call out for those members of his party, and they will fall back in line immediately.
Well this is a great article that has me thinking. It seems the move with Iran could have favorable geopolitical consequences to the US regarding Russia and China. I am uncomfortable acknowledging it because I don’t have confidence that the decision to attack was any kind of 4D chess move like that. But yet if it somehow was, it just makes it seem like Middle Eastern countries continue to be pawns for larger world powers to use for other purposes, which doesn’t feel great either. Yet again, the Preamble reminds us all that everything has nuance to consider.
Thanks Elise. I learned some new information from your article.
I would like highlight a couple of items that should prove to be long-term lessons for our own geopolitical future. The behavior that we're currently seeing from the Kremlin and Beijing is indicative of years of their governments' isolationist policies. While they have not literally isolated themselves from the rest of the world...their engagement with other countries is predicated on the use of force rather than diplomacy. "Friends" simply don't exist. And, "allies" can only be trusted if they are willing to serve as sacrificial lambs in the face of the dominant government's conflicts. So, the term "isolationism" is precipitated not by policies that promote non-involvement, or "we are alone"...rather "we, alone" will be revered and served. Does this sound eerily familiar...as in DJT? Project 2025?
We must be reminded that Trump refused/refuses to help Ukraine on the grounds of supporting Ukraine for Ukraine's sake; Helping a friend--an ally. No. He's transactional and opportunistic to the point of imperialism--demanding mineral rights and other assets. He also treats NATO as an American burden. Also, let's not forget Trump's desire to bring Canada, Denmark, and Panama under U.S. control.
I bring this up to point out that the failures of Russia and China today--as isolationist imperialists--will prove the future demise of the U.S. if we continue with a President Trump, or the like. Think of historical empires: Roman; Ottoman; British; Soviet. These were not "alliances." Alliances survive with strength and commitment. Empires dissolve by the nature of dissent.
Trump's "America First", and Project 2025 are emulations of those failed empires.
I realize that my post here is a tangent that is somewhat unrelated to Elise's article. However, I feel strongly that much of what Trump is currently doing is nothing more than continuing his strategy of attention diversion. We cannot allow this to happen. Let's use the lesson(s) of China's and Russia's current 'dilemma' to see our own future in-the-making under Trump.
I love how you broke this down. Trump takes credit for all of it but all the players were doing things that benefited them. I believe the Trump administration won’t tell the truth regarding what the strikes accomplished. They didn’t destroy all the facilities and now Iran has no reason to negotiate a deal. How long will a ceasefire actually last?. Israel has broken every ceasefire deal they have agreed to. I think this was another Trump distraction from the horrible bill they are trying to shove down the throats of Americans that overwhelmingly don’t like it. Don’t let this be a distraction. Call your Representatives today and tell them why you don’t like the Bill.
The Iran affair illustrates quite clearly where the three super powers are at. Russia is a failing, but dangerous regime with a criminal leader hanging on by internal terrorism. China is the most powerful in the world economically and militarily. They are calmly sitting back and biding there time as chaos consumes their competition. Meanwhile, the US is flailing around as its president uses military distractions to move attention from his failings at home. The country is again the laughingstock of the world and is being exposed as unstable and dangerous. China has to be smiling as they watch things unfold just as they hoped they would.
If Russia’s American GOP allies have their way, Russia’s resource constraints will be eased, their priority of subjugating Ukraine more easily achieved, and more resources will be available to rebuild Iran.
This analysis of how Russia and China’s competing priorities left Iran essentially abandoned is really valuable context that’s been missing from most coverage. The economic interdependencies you lay out (especially China’s reliance on the Strait of Hormuz and Russia’s investments in Iran versus their diaspora in Israel) explain so much more than the usual “axis of evil” framing we get. Thank you, Elise!
But I keep coming back to this assumption that Trump is going to strategically exploit Putin’s weakness in some coherent way. Everything we’ve seen lately suggests his decision-making is way more reactive and personal than strategic. Just look at the immigration flip-flop when his business friends complained about raids affecting their sectors (and then flip-flopping again based on no new information), or how his position on the Iran strikes shifted completely once he saw Fox praising Netanyahu’s “strength” and wanted that same praise for himself.
The real wild card isn’t whether Trump recognizes these geopolitical opportunities you’ve identified, it’s whether his response will be based on actual strategic thinking or just whoever gets to him last with the right flattery. Putin’s constraints are real and create openings, but Trump’s constraints might be even weirder: he’s operating on ego and personal relationships rather than national interests.
And here’s what really gets me: by backing Israel’s strikes, Trump just threw a huge chunk of his base under the bus. The same people who voted for him as the “no new wars” candidate are now talking impeachment because he’s cheerleading military action that couldn’t align less with what they thought they were getting. If he’s willing to betray that vocal part of his coalition just to satisfy what seems like a few days of Israeli military FOMO, what does that tell us about his capacity for the kind of long-term strategic thinking your analysis assumes? So while this framework for understanding the power dynamics is spot on, predicting what Trump does with it feels impossible when his positions change based on his mood and who’s whispering in his ear that week.
Also, we haven’t had a chance to talk about the “big beautiful” aka “disgusting abomination” bill for a while — distraction seems like a more Trumpian strategy than nuanced analysis of competing global incentives.
This. And it looks like they'll be voting on it Wednesday, and Republicans are falling in line for it. I think that influencers and anyone covering the news should have been continuing a push to fight the bill - whatever that looks like - knowing full well that the overload of bullshit was meant to distract from this.
The Senate Parliamentarian has been delivering more wins this past week than the actual Senate has all year.
Trump's whole brand of attacking people personally and being highly emotional and reactive has led to the occasional win, but as a result, it makes any win he might achieve seem like luck. He tends to fall apart like a cheap suit and call it a strategy. He doesn't have a moral compass, so he goes wherever the wind blows him, policy-wise. (as seen with the flip-flopping on immigration, to name but one) It will be interesting to see if this takes the bloom off the rose for the portion of his base that's angry at him, or if it's just another gutless call out for those members of his party, and they will fall back in line immediately.
Well this is a great article that has me thinking. It seems the move with Iran could have favorable geopolitical consequences to the US regarding Russia and China. I am uncomfortable acknowledging it because I don’t have confidence that the decision to attack was any kind of 4D chess move like that. But yet if it somehow was, it just makes it seem like Middle Eastern countries continue to be pawns for larger world powers to use for other purposes, which doesn’t feel great either. Yet again, the Preamble reminds us all that everything has nuance to consider.
Thanks Elise. I learned some new information from your article.
I would like highlight a couple of items that should prove to be long-term lessons for our own geopolitical future. The behavior that we're currently seeing from the Kremlin and Beijing is indicative of years of their governments' isolationist policies. While they have not literally isolated themselves from the rest of the world...their engagement with other countries is predicated on the use of force rather than diplomacy. "Friends" simply don't exist. And, "allies" can only be trusted if they are willing to serve as sacrificial lambs in the face of the dominant government's conflicts. So, the term "isolationism" is precipitated not by policies that promote non-involvement, or "we are alone"...rather "we, alone" will be revered and served. Does this sound eerily familiar...as in DJT? Project 2025?
We must be reminded that Trump refused/refuses to help Ukraine on the grounds of supporting Ukraine for Ukraine's sake; Helping a friend--an ally. No. He's transactional and opportunistic to the point of imperialism--demanding mineral rights and other assets. He also treats NATO as an American burden. Also, let's not forget Trump's desire to bring Canada, Denmark, and Panama under U.S. control.
I bring this up to point out that the failures of Russia and China today--as isolationist imperialists--will prove the future demise of the U.S. if we continue with a President Trump, or the like. Think of historical empires: Roman; Ottoman; British; Soviet. These were not "alliances." Alliances survive with strength and commitment. Empires dissolve by the nature of dissent.
Trump's "America First", and Project 2025 are emulations of those failed empires.
I realize that my post here is a tangent that is somewhat unrelated to Elise's article. However, I feel strongly that much of what Trump is currently doing is nothing more than continuing his strategy of attention diversion. We cannot allow this to happen. Let's use the lesson(s) of China's and Russia's current 'dilemma' to see our own future in-the-making under Trump.
I love how you broke this down. Trump takes credit for all of it but all the players were doing things that benefited them. I believe the Trump administration won’t tell the truth regarding what the strikes accomplished. They didn’t destroy all the facilities and now Iran has no reason to negotiate a deal. How long will a ceasefire actually last?. Israel has broken every ceasefire deal they have agreed to. I think this was another Trump distraction from the horrible bill they are trying to shove down the throats of Americans that overwhelmingly don’t like it. Don’t let this be a distraction. Call your Representatives today and tell them why you don’t like the Bill.
The Iran affair illustrates quite clearly where the three super powers are at. Russia is a failing, but dangerous regime with a criminal leader hanging on by internal terrorism. China is the most powerful in the world economically and militarily. They are calmly sitting back and biding there time as chaos consumes their competition. Meanwhile, the US is flailing around as its president uses military distractions to move attention from his failings at home. The country is again the laughingstock of the world and is being exposed as unstable and dangerous. China has to be smiling as they watch things unfold just as they hoped they would.
Thank you for answering the Russia/China response questions. It adds another piece to the puzzle.
If Russia’s American GOP allies have their way, Russia’s resource constraints will be eased, their priority of subjugating Ukraine more easily achieved, and more resources will be available to rebuild Iran.
Support Ukraine!
This whole situation is giving "Wait, what???" vibes. Not due to a lack of understanding, but rather due to intense incredulity.