By Thomas Wright
Wednesday, April 08, 2026
The E-3 Sentry, with its distinctive rotating radar dome,
is a flying command center that allows American forces to see and coordinate
the battlefield. In recent weeks, Iran destroyed
one on a runway in Saudi Arabia and reportedly
damaged another. The United States has only a handful of E-3s deployed to the
Middle East and a limited global fleet, making the aircraft one of the
country’s most strategically valuable assets.
Iran probably did not act alone. A Chinese satellite
firm, MizarVision, published
imagery of U.S. military movements that could have aided targeting. The
Daily Telegraph also reported
that China provided Iran with sodium perchlorate, a precursor used for solid
missile propellant. And China isn’t the only power that assisted Iran. U.S.
intelligence assessments indicate
that Russia supplied Iran with intelligence to target U.S. forces and advanced
drone capabilities.
The Trump administration has not commented on China’s
support for Iran. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told
Fox News that Russian assistance “does not really matter,” and on another
occasion said that it “is not making a difference” to U.S. military operations.
Meanwhile, in a press conference on Monday—a day before
Donald Trump announced a two-week cease-fire with Iran—he hammered
U.S. allies, saying that NATO hasn’t “helped at all.” “It’s not just NATO,” he
went on. “You know who else didn’t help us? South Korea didn’t help us. You
know who else didn’t help us? Australia didn’t help us. You know who else
didn’t help us? Japan.”
The war has exposed the contradictions of the Trump
administration’s geopolitical worldview. Under this president, the United
States has rewarded Russia, ignored China, punished Europe, and abandoned its
Asian allies and partners to an economic crisis that it helped set in motion.
During the Cold War, one superpower frequently offered
indirect help to the enemies of the other. The Soviet Union supported North
Vietnam and North Korea, while the United States backed Afghanistan’s
resistance to the Soviet invasion. This dynamic was largely absent from
America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which occurred at a time when
great-power competition was far more muted than it is now.
But today, conditions have again changed. In Iran, Russia
would likely take the opportunity to inflict costs on U.S. forces if the
cease-fire breaks down and the U.S. deploys ground troops. China is more risk
averse and probably wouldn’t directly help Iran fight the United States, but it
seems comfortable with providing dual-use goods, such as missile fuel, which
also has civilian applications, and commercial-satellite imagery.
Russia’s and China’s assistance to Iran is part of a
broader alignment of U.S. adversaries. Since the start of the Ukraine war,
Moscow has deepened its ties with China, North Korea, and Iran. China has
helped Russia rebuild its military capacity far more quickly than would
otherwise have been possible, supplying machine tools, microelectronics, and
other crucial technologies while cooperating on drone production. North Korea
has provided millions of rounds of artillery ammunition, rockets, missiles, and
even troops. Iran has supplied ballistic missiles as well as drones and
assistance in manufacturing them.
Russia has not received this help for free. In return, it
has transferred valuable military technology to each of these countries, including
for fighter jets, air defenses, satellites and missiles, and submarines. Moscow
and Pyongyang have signed a mutual-defense treaty, and North Korea has
benefited significantly from Russian military and economic assistance. Russia
and China don’t have a formal alliance treaty, but Vladimir Putin and Xi
Jinping have met more than 50 times and deepened their military, economic, and
technological cooperation.
The Trump administration has still somehow failed to
recognize the significance of this shift. In 2025, the U.S. intelligence
community warned
about the risks of adversary cooperation; then, in 2026, without new evidence,
it dismissed
those concerns as overstated. The National Security Strategy did not address
the issue, and no senior Trump-administration official has spoken publicly
about North Korea’s role in the Ukraine war.
Rather, Trump seems to believe that there are no fixed
blocs, and that he can work pragmatically with almost all countries, regardless
of their geopolitical orientation. After the Iran war broke out, Trump lifted
oil sanctions on Russia, compounding the massive financial boom it enjoyed from
the increase in oil prices. The administration continues to pursue a major
trade deal with China, at the expense of competing with China strategically.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration has focused its ire
on Europe for withholding support for the war in Iran. Trump called
NATO a “paper tiger” and said that he is seriously considering pulling out of
it. In practice, most European allies have facilitated U.S. operations with
bases, airspace, and logistics. Only one, Spain, has imposed a blanket ban on
assistance, but that decision has had little practical impact on the war.
Before the cease-fire, Trump had repeatedly said that
Europe should act to open the Strait of Hormuz because it gets much of its oil
from there, whereas the U.S. gets almost none. (Yesterday, Iran said it has
agreed to allow ships safe passage through the waterway if they coordinate with
its military. The details of the agreement, however, remain unclear.) But according
to the International Energy Agency, only about 4 percent of the crude oil that
transits the strait goes to Europe. Trump had also claimed that the strait was
safe to patrol, which was clearly not true, because the U.S. Navy was unwilling
to escort oil tankers through it.
Trump has rejected help that would have made a real
difference. Ukrainian forces have spent years developing techniques for
intercepting Iranian drones at scale, precisely the threat the Gulf States have
faced. President Volodymyr Zelensky offered to assist. Trump could have
embedded Ukrainian advisers in Riyadh or Abu Dhabi, turning hard-won
battlefield knowledge into a force multiplier at minimal cost. Instead, he
waved it away, saying,
“We don’t need their help in drone defense. We know more about drones than
anybody.”
The consequences of the energy crisis are particularly
visible in Asia. Asian economies receive
roughly 80 percent of the crude oil and almost 90 percent of the liquefied
natural gas that transit the Strait of Hormuz, making them acutely vulnerable
to disruption. The region also relies heavily on the Gulf States for refined
products, including fertilizer, chemicals, and industrial fuel. Evan Feigenbaum
of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace paints
a “grim picture” for Asia weeks into the war—including school closures,
rationing, work-from-home directives, and water shortages—owing to fuel price
increases or shortages caused by the conflict. The two-week cease-fire is
unlikely to immediately resolve these issues; shipping through the strait may
still be reduced compared to prewar levels.
The United States is nowhere to be found as Asian allies
cope with the worst energy crisis in 50 years. There has been no G-20 emergency
meeting. No visit by the Treasury secretary to the region. No acknowledgment of
the problem. Just a lambasting of U.S. treaty allies for not joining in.
The Iran war came on the back of a year in which the U.S.
has levied tariffs on its allies and partners without much forethought or
strategy. In the absence of U.S. leadership, Asian nations were seeking to cut
deals with Tehran, more out of desperation to avert economic disaster than from
any geopolitical preference. If the strait does not fully open under the
cease-fire, that pattern could continue.
The Iran war has laid bare a new geopolitical reality.
America’s adversaries are becoming more coordinated, sharing resources and
capabilities in ways that amplify their power, while America’s global
alliances, long its greatest asset, are neglected and fragmenting. The United
States is, in effect, moving toward a world in which it faces more connected
opponents with a less cohesive coalition of its own. This is a major shift with
profound implications for U.S. national security—and it’s one that the Trump administration
shows no sign of recognizing, let alone reversing.
No comments:
Post a Comment