Trump's supporters have tried to argue that the war with Iran will "boost deterrence" against Russia and China by showing that a direct confrontation with the United States would be "extraordinarily damaging." Robert Kagan does not buy it.
Writing in The Atlantic, the Brookings Institution senior fellow has taken apart the deterrence case piece by piece, "Hvylya" reports.
Given that the United States remains the world's strongest nuclear-armed power, the idea that bombing Iran reveals something new to Moscow and Beijing is, in Kagan's view, wishful thinking. "Nothing about Trump's willingness to bomb Iran suggests that he's any more prone than before to seek a 'direct confrontation' with Russia," Kagan wrote. Trump has consistently sought to appease Putin by cutting off weaponry to Ukraine, pressuring Kyiv to accept territorial demands, and lifting sanctions on Russian oil.
Some analysts have suggested that Russia and China have failed to come to Iran's defense and that this somehow constitutes a defeat for them. Kagan dismissed the argument. According to his analysis, Russia is actively providing Iran with satellite imagery and advanced drone capabilities. China has not suffered a loss insofar as Iran has granted safe passage to Chinese oil shipments.
In the hierarchy of Russian and Chinese interests, Kagan explained, defending Iran ranks as distinctly secondary. Putin's big prize is Ukraine. Beijing's primary goal is to push the United States out of the Western Pacific. Anything that degrades America's ability to project force in the region is a benefit to both.
"Neither Moscow nor Beijing can be unhappy to see the war drive deep and perhaps permanent wedges between the United States and its allies in Europe and Asia," Kagan concluded.
Read more: why Iran's deterrence collapse makes nuclear weapons more attractive to aspiring states.