Asia, China
Cameron Wilkie
Challenges to Chinese blue-water operations

China has the world’s largest navy, but there are important questions about its ability to contest the United States on a global scale. To do so, China would need more overseas bases than the two it currently has in Djibouti and Cambodia. Similarly, its aircraft carriers cannot sustain high-tempo aviation operations beyond the First Island Chain for an extended period. Developing super-quiet attack submarines would markedly improve China’s ability to conduct blue-water operations. However, to date, China has not fielded submarines that match the technological capabilities of U.S. boats. A careful examination of China’s naval strength shows that while it is well-positioned to wage a war close to its shores, the PLAN is not a global peer of the U.S. Navy.

Challenges to Chinese blue-water operations
NATO, Europe, Grand strategy, Burden shifting, Ukraine
Defense Priorities
Year three: Limiting U.S. ambitions in Ukraine

Despite Russia’s recent capture of Avdiivka, the war in Ukraine is entering its third year at a relative stalemate. Major changes to the 600-mile long frontline are few and far between, with Ukraine and Russia finding offensive warfare costly and resource-intensive. At the same time, neither side is willing to compromise on its maximalist aims, making talks on a ceasefire or end-of-war settlement remote. Yet with additional U.S. military aid to Ukraine stalled in Congress, questions arise as to how long the U.S. can maintain the status quo—and whether it even should. This brief argues that U.S. policy toward Ukraine and Europe overall is in need of significant reform. A combination of defensive security aid to the Ukrainian military, real burden-sharing in Europe and avoiding firm U.S. defense commitments to Ukraine has a better chance of accomplishing the limited U.S. interests at stake with less risk and at reasonable cost.

Year three: Limiting U.S. ambitions in Ukraine
Grand strategy, Middle East
Defense Priorities
Israel-Saudi normalization agreement: What is ...

The Israel-Saudi normalization deal is still alive and still could be a bad deal for the United States. The war in Gaza has pushed the sweeping U.S.-backed diplomatic normalization deal between Saudi Arabia and Israel to the back burner, but both governments are likely to try to revive it at some point. This brief examines the drivers of the normalization deal, analyzes the case for and against it from the perspective of U.S. interests, and concludes that it is not worth much to Americans—nothing like the reported concessions the United States was prepared to make. Security guarantees for Saudi Arabia in particular should be avoided.

Israel-Saudi normalization agreement: What is in it for the U.S.?
Burden sharing, Basing, Grand strategy, Iran, Middle East
Defense Priorities
Understanding the Israel-Hamas war

The Israel-Hamas conflict shows little signs of slowing down, and the risk of a wider war remains credible. This brief examines and addresses the complex dynamics at play that could cause the crisis to expand, and it clearly defines parameters for how the U.S. should navigate the conflict. Washington should avoid direct U.S. military involvement, work with all parties to prevent escalation, and redeploy troops out of Syria—and eventually Iraq—which denies Iran leverage for broadening the war.

Understanding the Israel-Hamas war
Asia, China, Burden sharing
Defense Priorities
Moving to an offshore balancing strategy for ...

The balance of power in East Asia has shifted in China's favor, but it does not follow that China constitutes a major threat to the territorial integrity or political independence of all neighboring states. As DEFP Non-Resident Fellow Peter Harris argues in a new explainer, upholding peace and stability in East Asia does not require U.S. military primacy. U.S. efforts to dominate the region could backfire by intensifying the U.S.-China rivalry and plunging East Asia into a new cold war. A more sensible approach would be to move toward an offshore balancing posture that incentivizes capable regional states to provide for their own defense and deter Chinese aggression.

Moving to an offshore balancing strategy for East Asia

Nuclear weapons

,

The restraining effect of nuclear deterrence

,
The restraining effect of nuclear deterrence

Is nuclear deterrence eroding? Recent developments in international affairs and military technology lead some analysts to conclude the nuclear revolution, which purportedly prevents war between nuclear powers, no longer has much effect. They say the world is getting safer for nuclear war or conventional war beneath the nuclear umbrella, which makes it likely that states, starting with China, will test U.S. commitments to fight for their allies. This paper argues these conclusions are wrong. Using recent cases that some claim are evidence of deterrence failure—Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the 2017 “fire and fury” crisis between the United States and North Korea—it demonstrates that nuclear deterrence remains robust.

, , ,

Iran deal negotiations and U.S. options if talks collapse

, , ,
Iran deal negotiations and U.S. options if talks collapse

U.S.-Iran nuclear diplomacy is on the brink of collapse. A year after President Trump withdrew from the JCPOA, Iran restarted and advanced its nuclear program. Despite re-engaging with Tehran diplomatically, the Biden administration has so far failed to revive the JCPOA in large part because the administration continues its predecessor’s approach of maximum pressure. If the administration doesn’t shift course, it will likely destroy the JCPOA, and Iran will move toward a bomb. This predictable failure, however, would not justify preventive military strikes that could result in U.S.-Iran war.

, , ,

Raising the minimum: Explaining China’s nuclear buildup

, , ,
Raising the minimum: Explaining China’s nuclear buildup

China’s recent nuclear expansion, consisting of new ICBMs, submarine-launched weapons, and a new generation of strategic bombers, suggests a significant recalibration of Beijing’s traditional “minimum deterrence” strategy. Washington should avoid overreacting to this shift in Chinese strategy, prioritize preserving a strong nuclear deterrent that focuses on survivability, and accompany any modernization efforts with attempts at dialogue, arms control, and the development of crisis management mechanisms.

, , ,

"Maximum pressure" harms diplomacy and increases risks of war with Iran

, , ,
"Maximum pressure" harms diplomacy and increases risks of war with Iran

Supporters of the U.S. “maximum pressure” strategy on Iran said sanctions would compel Tehran to accede to U.S. demands, but the strategy failed. Iran resumed enriching uranium at higher levels and increased its aggression in the Middle East. The U.S. can offer some relief from specific sanctions now, unwinding the failed strategy and helping to return both sides to compliance with the JCPOA. No matter what happens in current nuclear talks, however, U.S.-Iran diplomacy should continue, and the U.S. should avoid unnecessary war with Iran.

,

Considering the utility of an Iranian nuclear bomb

,
Considering the utility of an Iranian nuclear bomb

There are practical constraints on the military and strategic value of Iran building a nuclear arsenal. At least initially, the arsenal would be significantly limited in the number of warheads and weapon yield. The process itself would likely necessitate other provocative and detectable steps, such as Iran restarting its heavy water reactor at Arak or conducting nuclear testing. And even with a weapon, Iran’s ability to reliably deliver it by missile—against Israel, for example—is not certain.

, , ,

The imperative of prudent U.S.-Russia policy

, , ,
The imperative of prudent U.S.-Russia policy

The U.S. must find a way to co-exist with Russia to advance U.S. interests and avoid a nuclear conflict. Endless cycles of sanctions, diplomatic expulsions, antipathy, and saber-rattling obscure an important reality. Inflating the threat Russia poses to the U.S., or confusing its violations of liberal values with hard security interests, risks conflict that could go nuclear. The good news for the U.S. is that Russia is not the Soviet Union, and while Russia still fields a formidable military, its overall power is limited and best held in check by European powers, not by the U.S. military.

, ,

Why a Taiwan conflict could go nuclear

, ,
Why a Taiwan conflict could go nuclear

As discussion intensifies over U.S. policy toward Taiwan, including debates over the future of strategic ambiguity, nuclear concerns should be at the forefront. In the event of setbacks in a conflict over Taiwan, China could find itself willing to use nuclear weapons, even if it had not intended to do so before the start of hostilities. The U.S., too, could be forced to contemplate nuclear use in certain scenarios. The potential for miscalculation by each side is higher than commonly acknowledged.

, , , , ,

The case for withdrawing from the Middle East

, , , , ,
The case for withdrawing from the Middle East

Nothing about the Middle East warrants an enduring U.S. military presence there. Of the few important interests there—preventing major terrorist attacks, stopping the emergence of a market-making oil hegemon, curbing nuclear proliferation, and ensuring no regional actor destroys Israel—not one requires a permanent garrison of American troops. The roughly 60,000 U.S. military personnel in the region should come home.

,

Reconsidering U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe

,
Reconsidering U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe

NATO’s tactical nuclear weapons—particularly the estimated 150 U.S. B61 nuclear bombs in Europe—are dangerous relics. Whereas during the Cold War tactical nuclear weapons were believed to help bolster deterrence, today, they serve no functional purpose other than to unnecessarily escalate a local crisis, such as in the Baltic states, into a potential strategic calamity. Moreover, the removal of the nuclear warheads could serve as a gesture to restart a constructive dialogue with Russia on reducing risks, including nuclear threats, in Europe.

, ,

Deter and normalize relations with North Korea

, ,
Deter and normalize relations with North Korea

The U.S. is strong, and the DPRK is weak and vulnerable, which is why it acquired nuclear weapons. The DPRK’s nuclear deterrent makes U.S. military intervention unthinkable. The DPRK is therefore unlikely to ever give up its arsenal, but a diplomatic solution could see freezes or rollbacks of the DPRK’s nuclear program in exchange for economic relief. Should the DPRK prove uncooperative, U.S. conventional and nuclear superiority can deter DPRK aggression indefinitely, maintaining an acceptable status quo. Given its strong position, the only way the U.S. loses is by going to war.