Follow us on social

2022-08-03t044527z_1677618704_rc2sov9wndgm_rtrmadp_3_asia-pelosi

House passes pro-Taiwan measures that are sure to look anti-China to Beijing

Though it carries some positive elements, TERA still contains harmful items leftover from the controversial Taiwan Policy Act.

Analysis | Asia-Pacific

The House today passed the Taiwan Enhanced Resiliency Act (TERA, formerly the Taiwan Policy Act) as part of the mammoth (4,408 pages) National Defense Authorization Act. 

TERA has some positive elements, including much needed efforts to get Taiwan to significantly increase its defense capabilities. Some of the most  negative measures in the original bill were also left out, including a set of highly provocative “findings” that defined Taiwan as a critical strategic asset for the United States.

Unfortunately, however, TERA as passed still contains elements that reinforce the existing one-sided and almost purely militaristic approach to the Taiwan problem. There is no recognition of the highly negative, interactive U.S.-China dynamic over Taiwan (and relations in general) that is moving us steadily toward conflict.

For example, to read TERA, you would never know that many of China’s most troubling actions are at least in part motivated by Washington’s steady erosion of the credibility of its One China policy. 

Instead, there are provisions that move the U.S. closer to establishing an official relationship with Taiwan. There is no longer a clear line in only supporting Taiwan’s entrance into international organizations that do not require statehood, for example. The legislation also endorses recent U.S. efforts to discourage nations from switching their diplomatic recognition from Taiwan to China. This is an absurd policy given the fact that the United States has itself made such a switch. The U.S. steered well clear of all such behavior in the past, but apparently no longer.

In addition, despite legislators having removed the unnecessarily provocative “findings” from the act, co-Author Sen. Bob Mendendez (D-N.J.), in his introduction to the legislation, describes Taiwan as the “beating heart” to the U.S. Indo-Pacific strategy. This reinforces the highly dangerous notion that keeping Taiwan separate from China under any conditions is a strategic necessity for the United States. 

Such a stance, if clearly reflected in Washington policy, would put us more, not less, firmly on the path to conflict with China over Taiwan. This is because no amount of U.S. military deterrence and close relations with Taiwan will deter today’s much stronger China from resorting to war if it concludes that America is actively seeking to permanently separate Taiwan from China. 

A policy of opposition to even peaceful unification is diametrically opposed to the One China policy (which accepts such the possibility of peaceful unification, and would thus give Beijing the incentive to entirely abandon its long-standing preference for peaceful unification).

In short, while likely serving to significantly augment Taiwan’s defense capabilities and pushing back against Chinese pressure and influence, the TERA reinforces much of the dangerous political elements of U.S Taiwan policy. In doing so, it will not appreciably reduce the possibility of a war with China over Taiwan. 


U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi attends a meeting with Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen at the presidential office in Taipei, Taiwan August 3, 2022. Taiwan Presidential Office/Handout via REUTERS ATTENTION EDITORS - THIS IMAGE WAS PROVIDED BY A THIRD PARTY. NO RESALES. NO ARCHIVES.
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
Ratcliffe Gabbard
Top image credit: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA director John Ratcliffe join a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump and his intelligence team in the Situation Room at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S. June 21, 2025. The White House/Handout via REUTERS

Trump's use and misuse of Iran intel

Middle East

President Donald Trump has twice, within the space of a week, been at odds with U.S. intelligence agencies on issues involving Iran’s nuclear program. In each instance, Trump was pushing his preferred narrative, but the substantive differences in the two cases were in opposite directions.

Before the United States joined Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump dismissed earlier testimony by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, in which she presented the intelligence community’s judgment that “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamanei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.” Questioned about this testimony, Trump said, “she’s wrong.”

keep readingShow less
Mohammad Bin Salman Trump Ayatollah Khomenei
Top photo credit: Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman (President of the Russian Federation/Wikimedia Commons); U.S. President Donald Trump (Gage Skidmore/Flickr) and Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei (Wikimedia Commons)

Let's make a deal: Enrichment path that both Iran, US can agree on

Middle East

The recent conflict, a direct confrontation that pitted Iran against Israel and drew in U.S. B-2 bombers, has likely rendered the previous diplomatic playbook for Tehran's nuclear program obsolete.

The zero-sum debates concerning uranium enrichment that once defined that framework now represent an increasingly unworkable approach.

Although a regional nuclear consortium had been previously advanced as a theoretical alternative, the collapse of talks as a result of military action against Iran now positions it as the most compelling path forward for all parties.

Before the war, Iran was already suggesting a joint uranium enrichment facility with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on Iranian soil. For Iran, this framework could achieve its primary goal: the preservation of a domestic nuclear program and, crucially, its demand to maintain some enrichment on its own territory. The added benefit is that it embeds Iran within a regional security architecture that provides a buffer against unilateral attack.

For Gulf actors, it offers unprecedented transparency and a degree of control over their rival-turned-friend’s nuclear activities, a far better outcome than a possible covert Iranian breakout. For a Trump administration focused on deals, it offers a tangible, multilateral framework that can be sold as a blueprint for regional stability.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: White House April 7, 2025

Polls: Americans don't support Trump's war on Iran

Military Industrial Complex

While there are serious doubts about the accuracy of President Donald Trump’s claims about the effectiveness of his attacks on Iranian nuclear sites, the U.S./Israeli war on Iran has provided fresh and abundant evidence of widespread opposition to war in the United States.

With a tenuous ceasefire currently holding, several nationwide surveys suggest Trump’s attack, which plunged the country into yet another offensive war in the Middle East, has been broadly unpopular across the country.

keep readingShow less

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.