The China-Russia partnership is a highly consequential geopolitical alignment driven by a shared goal of countering U.S. hegemony and reshaping the international order into a multipolar system. While not a formal alliance, this relationship is strengthened by Russia's increasing economic reliance on China following Western sanctions, which allows Beijing to leverage its influence. Policymakers should note that while the partnership projects deep solidarity (as seen in high-level summits), it remains complex and limited by mutual mistrust and competing strategic interests. This enduring alignment poses a significant challenge to U.S. interests and requires continued diplomatic vigilance.
Why are Middle Eastern governments lobbying against a US attack on Iran?
English Summary
Chatham House argues that many Middle Eastern governments now oppose a US strike on Iran because their threat perception has shifted from fear of Iranian regional dominance to concern about Israeli escalation and the consequences of an Iranian state collapse. It points to the weakening of Iran’s “Axis of Resistance” after 7 October 2023, Israeli military pressure across the region, Assad’s fall, and heightened Gulf alarm after Israel’s September 2025 strike on Doha as evidence of this shift. The analysis says regime-change war and broad containment are viewed by Arab states as dangerous and historically ineffective, with high risks of fragmentation, migration, militancy, and regional spillover. The policy implication is to favor de-escalation and targeted, policy-based pressure on Iran’s nuclear, missile, and proxy activities through diplomacy rather than large-scale military action.
中文摘要
查塔姆研究所指出，許多中東政府如今反對美國對伊朗發動打擊，原因在於其威脅認知已從擔憂伊朗在區域內的主導地位，轉向憂慮以色列升級行動及伊朗國家崩潰的後果。該文以2023年10月7日後伊朗「抵抗軸心」的削弱、以色列在區域各地的軍事施壓、阿薩德政權垮台，以及以色列於2025年9月襲擊杜哈後波灣國家的警戒升高，作為此一轉變的證據。分析認為，阿拉伯國家將政權更替戰爭與廣泛遏制視為危險且在歷史上成效不彰，並伴隨高度的碎片化、移民、激進武裝與區域外溢風險。其政策意涵是，應透過外交手段，對伊朗核計畫、飛彈與代理人活動施加有針對性、以政策為基礎的壓力，優先採取降級而非大規模軍事行動。
Related Entries
-
1.
-
2.
The Chatham House analysis concludes that the UK's Defence Investment Plan (DIP) will be viewed by NATO allies as a mixed bag, primarily due to its failure to commit to higher GDP spending targets. However, the plan signals critical strategic improvements by emphasizing novel technologies—such as autonomous systems and digital infrastructure—and enhancing readiness. Crucially, the DIP adopts an international focus through major collaborative programs (e.g., AUKUS, GCAP) and establishes a new National Armaments Director Group (NADG). This structural shift toward flexible, portfolio-based collaboration is strategically valuable for NATO allies seeking reliable partners as US conventional forces reduce their European presence.
-
3.
The article argues that the U.S., through recent policy signals—such as questioning NATO's value or sympathizing with great-power territorial claims—is inadvertently adopting the core tenets of non-alignment, prioritizing transactional national interests over binding alliances. Historically, while non-alignment allowed developing nations to gain benefits without commitment, the analysis notes that this approach lacks the deep trust and shared obligations necessary for robust security structures. The implication is critical: by undermining established alliances, the U.S. risks losing its greatest strategic asset—the network of mutual commitments—as allies actively seek alternative bilateral or regional defense pacts.
-
4.
The article argues that while Ukraine's deep strikes and Russia's mounting economic instability create a window for peace talks, President Putin remains committed to maximalist demands and may escalate conflict through increased air assaults. Key evidence supporting this tension includes the strain on Russian energy infrastructure versus Moscow's refusal to negotiate in good faith, preferring instead to expand its claims. Consequently, the immediate strategic implication is that Washington must lead intensive diplomacy—a 'shuttle diplomacy'—to establish a framework agreement centered on a ceasefire along current lines and defining long-term European security arrangements.
-
5.
Russia utilizes long-range missile and drone strikes as a sophisticated coercive strategy, concentrating attacks on critical geographical nodes—including energy grids, ports, industrial centers, and major urban areas—to impose cumulative costs. This campaign aims to degrade Ukraine's logistics, strain its infrastructure, and apply sustained psychological pressure rather than achieving rapid military victory. The analysis suggests that modern coercion leverages civilian vulnerability and systemic damage as primary tools of geopolitical leverage, weakening the adversary’s ability to govern or sustain resistance. Policymakers must recognize this shift toward using economic and infrastructural attrition to achieve strategic political outcomes.