Is China the main target?

By Abdul Quayyum Khan Kundi

When President Obama rolled out his “Pivot to Asia” in 2011, two big questions immediately hung in the air.

First: What happens to Europe’s security?

Since 1945, the United States has carried Europe’s security on its back through NATO. America has been the largest contributor in troops, weapons, and money. Under that security umbrella, Europe focused on rebuilding and growing its economy. The arrangement worked — but it also made Europe comfortable and dependent.

Second: What about Israel?

For decades, U.S. policy in the Middle East has revolved around protecting Israel’s qualitative military edge while maintaining influence over Arab states — particularly those rich in oil. Israel has functioned not just as an ally, but as a strategic anchor in a volatile region where control of energy resources and inducement to buy expensive American arms mattered.

Before shifting focus to Asia, Washington had to stabilize these two theaters.

Europe: Wake-Up Call

The U.S. began pressuring European countries, starting in Obama administration, to spend more on their own defense and take greater responsibility inside NATO. Progress was slow. Many European governments were reluctant to dramatically increase military budgets without a clear, immediate threat.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine woke up Europe from deep slumber. Americans decided to exploit it to the fullest.

For nearly two decades, Russia had objected to NATO expansion toward its borders. Diplomatic efforts came and went, but tensions kept rising as more former Soviet states moved closer to NATO. Eventually, Moscow chose a military path — a decision that reshaped European security overnight.

The war forced Europe to rearm, increase defense spending, and re-prioritize security. From Washington’s perspective, Europe was finally moving.

At the same time, the U.S. has little interest in seeing Europe become so strategically independent that it rivals American influence. A stronger Europe is useful. A competing Europe is not. Russian threat has to stay alive for America to pivot to Asia. Inclusion of Finland and Sweden in NATO was a historic shift with that objective in mind.

Israel and the Middle East

The second issue was eliminating or weakening states and actors perceived as threats to Israel.

One of the serious threats to Israel was Hamas. The October 7 Hamas attack on Israel triggered a devastating war in Gaza. It provided her an opportunity to eliminate Palestinians from Gaza Strip and annex it to become part of Israel. The scale of destruction and genocide has drawn global outrage and renewed debate about long-term strategy in the region. A core unanswered question remains: what was Hamas’ endgame, and how were civilians meant to be protected in the inevitable Israeli response? In the absence of a clear answer there will always be conspiracy theories about their intentions because in the end it served the purpose of Israel.

Over the past two decades, several regional powers that challenged hegemony of Israel — Iraq, Libya, Syria — have been systematically destabilized or significantly weakened. Iran remains the last major adversary in this axis, and tensions there continue. American/Israeli attack on Iran is last ditch effort to achieve that objective.

Parallel to this, the U.S. pushed normalization agreements between Israel and several Arab states — the Abraham Accords — aiming to integrate Israel more fully into the regional security architecture. The Gaza war slowed that momentum, but the broader strategic goal has not disappeared.

With Europe militarizing and the Middle East recalibrated, the Pivot to Asia can move to center stage.

The Real Target: China?

Let’s be honest — the pivot is about one country: China.

Containing China appears to involve several layers.

1. A NATO-like security structure in Asia.

The idea is to build a coalition of regional powers — Japan, South Korea, Australia, Indonesia, perhaps others — to counterbalance China’s military growth. India was courted heavily, but New Delhi has shown it prefers strategic autonomy rather than formal alignment. India has decided to be a factory floor rather than a strategic ally.

China relies heavily on Iranian oil, providing Tehran with a crucial economic lifeline. But the world’s largest energy importer depends more broadly on Persian Gulf supplies, with both crude and LNG cargoes passing through Hormuz.

Bejing is already pressing Iran to avoid disrupting shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, particularly energy exports from Qatar, as conflict in the region threatens global supplies, Bloomberg reported.

According to senior executives at Chinese state-owned gas firms briefed by government officials, Beijing had urged Iranian counterparts not to target oil and liquefied natural gas tankers transiting the narrow waterway and to refrain from striking key export hubs such as Qatar.

2. Resource control.

While the U.S. was entangled in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, China was securing long-term access to oil, rare earth minerals, infrastructure, and technology supply chains across Africa, Latin America, and Asia.

Now Washington is working to counter that — reshoring supply chains, limiting advanced chip exports, building alternative mineral partnerships, and tightening sanctions where needed.

Oil markets remain a strategic lever. Control of Venezuelan and Middle Eastern oil provides a viable geo strategic card. Critical minerals — lithium, cobalt, rare earths — are the next battlefield.

3. Strategic pressure.

Expect rising tensions around Taiwan, the South China Sea, and regional flashpoints. The goal isn’t necessarily war — it’s containment through pressure.

The United Kingdom, with its long history of balancing powers, often plays a supporting role in this broader strategy.

Will It Work?

I’m skeptical.

First, America’s long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan didn’t come cheap — they drove up the national debt by trillions. Right now the U.S. owes about $38 trillion, and estimates project that could soar toward $58 trillion over the next decade.

Second, long wars with ambiguous outcomes have weakened the aura of military invincibility. Smaller actors have shown they can offset advanced weapons with asymmetric tactics.

Third, America’s strength has always come from attracting global talent. Restrictive immigration rhetoric risks undermining that advantage.

Fourth, institutions matter. Rule of law, constitutional norms, political stability — these were America’s greatest strategic assets. Political polarization has strained them.

Fifth, America has started pulling apart the very global order it once built and led. In doing so, it has damaged its own credibility and strained the alliances that were once its greatest strength.

 Does That Mean China Wins?

Not necessarily.

China has enormous strengths: economic scale, industrial capacity, technological advancement. But global dominance requires more than GDP.

Historically, China has focused inward, prioritizing domestic stability over global ideological leadership. It lacks experience building and sustaining a global order.

Demographics are a serious challenge. An aging population and shrinking workforce will weigh heavily on long-term growth.

Militarily, China has modernized rapidly — but it lacks large-scale combat experience. Advanced systems are impressive, but untested in major conflict.

And politically, leadership succession has often been a fragile moment in Chinese history. By extending his tenure beyond the traditional two-term norm, Xi Jinping has centralized power — but also concentrated risk.

A Changing World Order

As the old powers — the United States, Russia, and China — wrestle with internal strains, something bigger may be happening.

Africa’s population is booming. Southeast Asia is rising. Latin America holds vast resources. The next chapter of global power may not belong to a single hegemon at all.

The real story of the 21st century may not be who dominates — but how power diffuses.

The Pivot to Asia isn’t just a policy shift. It’s part of a much larger transformation. And the outcome is far from decided.

- The writer Abdul Quayyum Khan Kundi is a Pakistani businessman and a political activist.