In 2010, during a visit to Taiwan’s National Defence University, I asked a question to a senior Taiwanese academician:
How confident was Taiwan that the United States would come to its rescue in the event of a Chinese attack?
He paused briefly and replied, “We have to pretend that the United States will come to our rescue… but we must prepare to defend ourselves.”
At that moment, the response appeared paradoxical. Alliances are meant to reassure. They are built on trust and the expectation of support in times of crisis. Yet here was a scholar articulating a doctrine rooted in realism as well as scepticism.
Today, that insight has moved far beyond Taiwan. As U.S. allies in the Gulf come under sustained missile and drone attacks from Iran, despite a strong American military presence. The inadequacy of the promised US security umbrella have become visible. Critical infrastructure, energy facilities, and even U.S.-linked bases have been targeted, raising questions about the effectiveness of deterrence and protection.
It is in this widening gap between expectation and reality that a new strategic pattern is emerging. ‘Is distraction for the US in Gulf an advantage for China?’
The Gulf: Where Assurance Was First Tested
The ongoing U.S.–Iran conflict has brought this question of assurance into sharp focus. For decades, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states relied on the United States as the cornerstone of their security architecture. American bases, advanced air defence systems, and naval deployments created an image of near-total protection. Recent developments disrupted that perception. Protection, once assumed to be absolute, is now clearly partial.
For GCC states, this introduces uncertainty. American power remains formidable, but its application is no longer automatic. As a result, countries like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates may not abandon Washington yet, but they may resort to hedging. They may expand economic engagement with China and diversifying their strategic options. The logic is simple. Dependence without alternatives is risky.
From Gulf Experience to Asian Anxiety
Credibility travels. Developments in West Asia are being closely observed in East Asia. Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are questioning American willingness and prioritisation. They are trying to find answers to the following critical questions:
- If the United States is engaged in a prolonged conflict in the Middle East, can it simultaneously sustain deterrence against China?
- Does escalation risk shape U.S. responses in the Gulf? Will similar caution apply in East Asia?
- Can U.S. commitments in Asia remain credible if economic and military resources are diverted in Gulf?
- Will ‘political will’ match military capability in a high-end conflict with China?
Answers to these questions will influence future policies of allies. Japan is accelerating military modernisation. South Korea is debating strategic autonomy, including nuclear options. Taiwan is investing in asymmetric defence capabilities.
These developments do not indicate alliance breakdown but do demonstrate recalibration of expectations.
China’s Quiet Strategic Gain
In this evolving landscape, China seems to be winning without fighting. Every diversion of U.S. military resources to the Middle East reduces focus in the Indo-Pacific, and reinforce perceptions of the US inadequacy or constraint.
There is a clear historical echo. During the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, China used the strategic space to expand economically and militarily. The present moment raises a familiar question. Is history repeating itself, where distraction for one creates opportunity for another?
China’s presents itself as consistent and present, while the United States appears reactive and overstretched. Countries may not abruptly shift alignment, but they would like to diversify partnerships and expand economic engagement with China. Over time, these incremental adjustments will alter the strategic balance.
Multipolar Drift and Expanding Chinese Influence
The U.S.–Iran conflict is also accelerating a larger shift toward a multipolar world. Many countries are reassessing their relationships. The United States is increasingly being perceived as unpredictable. In contrast, China is presenting itself as an economic partner focused on trade, infrastructure, and market access.
For countries seeking growth, this model is attractive. With China there is no ideological alignment, only economic pragmatism. As trade, investment, and supply chains deepen, these countries become increasingly tied to China. Over time, this interdependence translates into strategic leverage, enhancing China’s influence without the need for confrontation.
Taiwan: The Sharpest Test of Credibility
At the centre of this transformation lies Taiwan. It remains the most exposed and consequential flashpoint. China’s pressure continues through military manoeuvres and grey zone operations, while U.S. commitments remain strategically ambiguous. This creates a dual reality. Taiwan needs to maintain public confidence of the US help, while military preparations must assume uncertainty of the same.
The U.S. unilateral military action against Iran also creates a dangerous precedent. Sovereignty and territorial integrity of a state has been violated. It gives China a potential justification to act similarly in Taiwan, a territory it already claims as its own province.
Strategic Lessons for India
For India, the message is clear. American commitments are shaped by shifting priorities, not enduring guarantees. U.S. continued engagement with Pakistan underline a consistent pattern we should be mindful of.
As U.S. focus diffuses in Asia, China is likely to move decisively to fill emerging gaps. In East Asia, it will deepen economic and political influence. In South Asia, it will expand through infrastructure and strategic access. In the Indian Ocean and Indo-Pacific, it will strengthen its maritime presence and dual-use footprint.
This creates both pressure and opportunity for India. A more assertive China will test India’s immediate neighbourhood, but the same uncertainty will push regional actors to seek stable alternatives. India can occupy that space, provided it has the capability to do so.
Strategic autonomy, backed by credible economic and military strength, remains India’s most reliable course.
Conclusion: From Assurance to Strategic Realism
The U.S.–Iran conflict has revealed a deeper transformation in global geopolitics. Assurances to allies are no longer unconditional. They are shaped by context, capability, and choice.
China is quietly gaining from it, not through confrontation, but through perception and positioning.
The insight from a decade and half of my conversation in Taipei now echoes across regions. Nations will continue to align with the United States, but they will increasingly prepare for a future in which they may have to stand alone.
