Follow us on social

google cta
2021-04-29t005134z_1711589909_mt1sipa000w8aade_rtrmadp_3_sipa-usa-scaled-e1619726858186

Biden doesn't need a cold war to justify good policy

The president invoked inflated fears of China to make the case for his ambitious domestic goals.

Asia-Pacific
google cta
google cta

In last night’s address to a joint session of Congress — the first of his presidency — Joe Biden made the case for massive investments in the American economy, infrastructure, and society. To do so, he summoned fears of a rising China, declaring that the United States is “in competition with China and others to win the 21st century.”

It is commendable that President Biden did not employ the extreme ideological rhetoric of the Trump administration in characterizing China and the bilateral relationship. Such language crowds out any rational discussion of what China’s rise means for the U.S. and the West and simply provokes a similar hardline response from many ordinary Chinese, making the effort to craft an effective policy toward Beijing even more difficult. 

But it is unfortunate that Biden nonetheless felt the need to justify his domestic proposals — positive and necessary steps towards ensuring prosperity for all Americans, and for reviving our flagging democracy — by placing them in the context of a global struggle against autocracy, and specifically with China.

The U.S. (along with other democratic nations) certainly has differences with China over various political norms and human rights values, and China’s rise presents a challenge to America in a number of arenas. But China is hardly an existential threat, nor the preeminent threat facing the United States today. Rather, the greater threats — many of which the president highlighted in his speech — are internal and global.

Domestic extremism, racism, and violence, political deadlock, and transnational perils like climate change and pandemics all present dire threats to the stability of the United States and the well-being of Americans. To present our challenges as the usual struggle between great powers is a distortion of reality; we will not be able to solve our problems through an all-consuming struggle with any other nation.

Biden stressed that he welcomes competition with China, but does not want conflict. The United States, he says, will “correct abuses” by China, and maintain its military strength in Asia and the Indo-Pacific. 

On this, the devil is in the details: how the administration defines the goals of U.S. policy in Asia, and the tone and means with which it pursues them. The U.S. can no longer treat Asia as if it remains the sole provider of hard security, or the primary economic partner, for that region and others.

It should no longer police the world and try to assert its military primacy at all costs. Instead, the United States must try to effectively work with all major nations to reduce conflict and pursue cooperative solutions to global problems. This will require deterrence towards rival powers like China — but it also requires credible reassurance on key interests. We will not stabilize Asia by pursuing the kind of bipartisan, hostile, zero-sum strategy exemplified by some of the Biden administration’s rhetoric or the China-focused legislation now making its way through Congress.

President Biden said many good things last night, but his remarks regarding China continued to reflect the absence of an overall strategy reflecting the complex reality of our relationship with China, and with other nations.


WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 28: President Joe Biden addresses a joint session of Congress, with Vice President Kamala Harris and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on the dais behind him, on Wednesday, April 28, 2021. Biden spoke to a nation seeking to emerge from twin crises of pandemic and economic slide in his first speech to a joint session of Congress. (Photo by Melina Mara/Pool/Sipa USA/POOL)No Use Germany.
google cta
Asia-Pacific
Why Tehran may have time on its side
Top image credit: Iranian army military personnel stand at attention under a banner featuring an image of an Iranian-made unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) during a military parade commemorating the anniversary of Army Day outside the Shrine of Iran's late leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in the south of Tehran, Iran, on April 18, 2025. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto)

Why Tehran may have time on its side

QiOSK

A provocative calculus by Anusar Farrouqui (“policytensor”) has been circulating on X and in more exhaustive form on the author’s Substack. It purports to demonstrate a sobering reality: in a high-intensity U.S.-Iran conflict, the United States may be unable to suppress Iranian drone production quickly enough to prevent a strategically consequential period of regional devastation.

The argument is framed through a quantitative lens, carrying the seductive appeal of mathematical precision. It arranges variables—such as U.S. sortie rates and degradation efficiency against Iranian repair cycles and rebuild speeds—to suggest a "sustainable firing rate." The implication is that Iran could maintain a persistent strike capability long enough to exhaust American political patience, forcing Washington toward a premature declaration of success or an unfavorable ceasefire.

keep readingShow less
Will Democrats pop Trump's $50 billion trial balloon for war?
Top image credit: Sens. Andy Kim (D-N.J.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) and Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) sit look on during a congressional hearing in January, 2025. (Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Sipa USA)

Will Democrats pop Trump's $50 billion trial balloon for war?

Washington Politics

On Wednesday, Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) told CNN that he would support new funding for the U.S. war with Iran — but only if Israel and Arab Gulf states help pay for it.

“We’re using our taxpayer money to protect those countries,” Gallego said. “We’re using our men to protect these countries. They need to throw in and have skin in the game too.”

keep readingShow less
Polymarket Iran War
Top photo credit: Polymarket logo (Shutterstock/PJ McDonald) and Scene following an airstrike on an Iranian police centre damaging residential buildings around it in Niloofar square in central Tehran on march 1, 2026. (Hamid Vakili/Parspix/ABACAPRESS.COM)

Prediction markets are a national security threat

Latest

Hours before an Israeli attack in Tehran killed Ayatollah Khamenei, an account on the prediction market Polymarket made over half a million dollars wagering that Iran’s Supreme Leader would vacate office before 3/31. That account, named “Magamyman,” was not the only one to cash in on the attacks.

Half a dozen Polymarket accounts made over $1.2M betting that the U.S. “strikes Iran by February 28, 2026.” Those accounts were allegedly paid for through cryptocurrency wallets that had previously not been funded prior to Feb. 27. Overall, prediction market users bet over $255M on markets related to the attacks in Iran on the prediction markets Kalshi and Polymarket alone.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.