Biden describes the “increasing competition with China” as “the competition of the 21st century.”

A feature of the Biden presidency so far has been restraint in matters of war. He drove the United States out of Afghanistan. He has been vocal in supporting U.S. allies in need, particularly Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan, but has not committed U.S. forces to direct engagement against any nation-state.

download

Biden has deployed two US aircraft carrier battle groups off the Israeli coast, implicitly deterring Iran from any thoughts of launching a direct attack on Israel. But he was keen to avoid direct American conflict with any country.

Why?

This was partly because the war was no longer popular in America. Since George W. Bush's disastrous and dishonest invasion of Iraq – aided and abetted by Tony Blair and John Howard – war has been a dirty word in the United States. Barack Obama liked to boast, “I'm the president who ends wars,” and Donald Trump didn't start any.

This is partly because no aggressor nation has given Biden a sufficient reason. Neither the United States nor its treaty allies have been subjected to a kinetic attack by a nation-state during the Biden presidency. There was cyberattack, economic attack, and “gray zone” scrambling aplenty, but no kinetic attack.

This is partly because Biden is keenly aware that the greatest danger lies in the future – a reactionary People's Republic of China. Biden describes the “increasing competition with China” as “the competition of the 21st century.”

China, according to the US National Security Strategy document, “is the only competitor capable of combining its economic, diplomatic, military, and technological strength to pose a sustained challenge to a stable and open international order.”

The United States is hedging against China's expansionist ambitions – making the best of it while preparing for the worst.

It was British Defense Secretary Grant Shapps who this month publicly announced the nightmare scenario that Western defense planners are secretly contemplating. He said that the post-war world had ended, and the pre-war world had arrived. “In five years, we could be looking at multiple arenas including Russia, China, Iran and North Korea,” he said.

Each of these authoritarian regimes has been escalating military pressure on its neighbors recently: Russia is invading Ukraine; Iran ignites 'ring of fire' of its forces surrounding Israel; Nuclear-armed North Korea is tearing up its core policy of “reunification” with South Korea and replacing it with a policy of “invasion” when it unleashes a sporadic series of ballistic missiles around its neighbor; China is gradually increasing regional and political pressures against a wide range of countries.

British analyst James Crabtree worries that the demand for American power may become overwhelming. “Washington’s alliance network – which has more than 50 such formal relationships – is a tremendous asset in its struggle with China,” writes the former president of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in Asia. “It has a number of quasi-allies as well, such as Taiwan, as well as close partners such as India, Singapore, Vietnam – all come with commitments, whether explicit or implicit.

However, Washington's credibility in fulfilling these commitments is under increasing pressure in the eyes of adversaries and allies alike. It would likely have to demonstrate its capabilities more often – making its guarantees less ambiguous – which would put further pressure on the already overstretched US military.

Crabtree argues in the magazine Foreign Policy Trust in the United States is indispensable for global stability: “The United States is clearly unable to fulfill its obligations to fifty allies at once, just as a bank cannot return all of its deposits at once. Its ability to do so depends critically on Ensuring sufficient confidence to avoid the geopolitical equivalent of a bank run.

download

While Crabtree says the odds of that happening are now remote, he raises the prospect of a second Trump presidency as a potential shock to confidence in the United States. The other option would be reckless action by the United States, such as waging war against Iran unnecessarily.

Biden has, so far, been intent on avoiding avoidable entanglements, managing US resources, and preparing for the biggest of these potential crises – war against China. It would be a radical departure for him to now make the first direct strike and launch a major war against a powerful enemy. Beijing, Moscow and Pyongyang will be thrilled.

Moreover, the professional US military thinks this is a bad idea: “We do not want to go down a path of greater escalation that leads to a much broader conflict within the region,” said Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Charles Brown. in the weekend.

The temptation to escalate is a trap. Australia, like all US allies except Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, hopes and trusts that Biden will not fall into it.

Peter Hartcher is international editor.