DUBAIPresident Donald Trump ran on a platform of avoiding US involvement in foreign conflicts, but it didn’t take long to persuade him to directly support Israel, using Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from a submarine and bunker-buster bombs dropped by B-2 stealth bombers to strike Iranian nuclear targets.
Experts say Trump’s choice to use force against another nation will undoubtedly have an influence in the Asia-Pacific, Washington’s primary region, in addition to the attack’s immediate impact on helping to end the 12-day battle.
According to Duyeon Kim, a senior analyst at the Center for a New American Security in Seoul, South Korea, Trump’s attacks on Iran demonstrate his willingness to employ military force, which would send a strong message about his manner to North Korea, as well as to China and Russia.
Beijing and Pyongyang may have believed Trump is risk averse prior to the strikes, especially given his actions during his first term in office despite some severe rhetoric,” Kim added.
Russia, North Korea, and China all denounce the US strike.
Trump took the dangerous choice to intervene ten days into the conflict between Israel and Iran, using American firepower on June 22 to strike three nuclear sites in an attempt to destroy the nation’s nuclear program while Washington and Tehran were still negotiating.
Iran and Israel agreed to a truce on June 24 after the strikes sparked a pro forma Iranian retaliation strike on a U.S. base in neighboring Qatar the next day, which resulted in no casualties.
The American attack was swiftly denounced by North Korea, China, and Russia. Russian President Vladimir Putin called it unprovoked aggression, China’s Foreign Ministry said it violated international law and increased Middle East tensions, and North Korea’s Foreign Ministry insisted it trampled down a sovereign state’s territorial integrity and security interests.
Although the strikes were a definite tactical success, it remains unclear if they will support Washington’s Middle East objectives more broadly or persuade Iran that it must put in more effort than ever to develop a nuclear deterrent, potentially dragging the United States back into a longer-term conflict.
The attack could be interpreted by US partners as a show of deterrence.
According to Euan Graham, a senior defense analyst with the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, if the attack is a one-off, U.S. allies in the Asia-Pacific area will probably view Trump’s administration’s choice to get involved as a sign of strength.
According to him, Pacific allies will see the U.S. strike on Iran favorably if it is perceived to strengthen red lines, restore deterrence, and be short-lived in order to avoid diverting the administration from its declared Indo-Pacific priorities. Trump’s willingness to employ force, at least opportunistically, will be noted by China.
According to Zhao Minghao, a professor of international affairs at China’s Fudan University in Shanghai, many Chinese who had viewed Trump as having a no-war attitude would reconsider that in the wake of the assaults, which were partly intended to pressure Iran into nuclear program negotiations.
China should take note of how the United States employed power in its airstrikes on Iran, he said. How China and the United States will engage in the future is affected by Trump’s use of power to compel talks.
However, he asserted that Washington shouldn’t believe it can use the same tactic with Beijing.
It might be challenging for the United States to leave as quickly as possible, let alone leave unharmed, he warned, if a battle erupts between China and the United States.
North Korea and China pose distinct difficulties.
Indeed, the problems posed by North Korea and China differ greatly from those posed by Iran.
First and foremost, both are already armed with nuclear weapons, which significantly increases the likelihood of retaliation should an assault occur.
Israel, whose unrelenting attacks on Iran’s missile defenses in the early days of the war allowed the B-2 bombers to fly in and out without being shot at, is similarly without an Asian counterpart.
However, there is a very real chance that the United States would get engaged in a conflict with either China or North Korea, and Beijing and Pyongyang will almost likely try to gauge what the infamously unpredictable Trump would do.
According to Joseph Dempsey, a defense specialist at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, North Korea will probably be quite concerned about what Israel has accomplished over Iran with a comparatively small but excellent army.
However, it will probably be seen internally as support for its own nuclear weapons development.
Would this have happened if Iran had nuclear weapons that could be deployed? “Dempsey said.” Most likely not.
According to Hong Min, a senior expert at South Korea’s Institute for National Unification, the United States’ choice to launch a strike while still in negotiations with Iran will not be ignored.
According to him, North Korea might come to the conclusion that if conversation is conducted recklessly, it could backfire by providing the US with a justification for potential aggression.
North Korea is more likely to adopt an even more passive approach to talks with Washington, concentrating on fortifying its domestic military building and seeking closer connections with Russia, rather than provocating the Trump administration, he said, thereby reducing the likelihood of further discussions.
Taiwan and China will learn from each other.
China’s self-governing democratic island off its coast, Taiwan, which it claims as its own territory and which President Xi Jinping has not ruled out annexing by force, will be used as a lens through which to view the attacks.
Although Washington’s stated position regarding whether it would support Taiwan in the event of a confrontation with China is known as “strategic ambiguity,” which means it is not committing to how it would respond, the United States is one of Taiwan’s most significant friends and provides Taiwan with weapons.
According to Drew Thompson, senior fellow at the Singapore-based think tank RSIS Rajaratnam School of International Studies, the strike on Iran raises the question of whether the United States might respond with less restraint than China has anticipated and strike targets on the Chinese mainland in the event of an invasion of Taiwan.
He added that it will undoubtedly highlight to Beijing how hard it is to forecast Trump’s moves.
“The U.S. airstrike on Iran s nuclear facilities caught many by surprise,” Thompson stated. “I believe it showed a potentially unexpected level of risk acceptance and tolerance in the Trump administration.
According to Lyle Goldstein, director of the Asia Program at the Washington-based foreign policy think tank Defense Priorities, it also raises concerns that Taiwan’s president, Lai Ching-te, who has recently stepped up his warnings about China’s threat, may become even more confident in his rhetoric.
China has already accused Lai of seeking Taiwanese independence, which Beijing considers unacceptable, as a result of his remarks. In order to strengthen its deterrent position against the mainland, Goldstein expressed concern that Taiwan would attempt to use the United States’ use of force against Iran.
Goldstein, who is also the head of the China Initiative at Brown University’s Watson Institute, said that President Lai’s recent comments seem nearly intended to instigate a fresh cross-strait crisis, possibly in an effort to get more support in Washington and other parts of the Pacific.
To put it plainly, I believe that to be a very dangerous gambit,” he remarked.
___
Contributions to this article came from Didi Tang and Albee Zhang in Washington, and Tong-hyung Kim in Seoul, South Korea.
