After making it clear that Russia is the enemy and China is the main adversary, Biden quickly adjusted his strategy and shifted his focus from the Middle East to Asia. "Foreign Policy" revealed that Biden plans to announce the Pentagon's budget of $175 billion, highlighting the strengthening of military deterrence by the US military in the Indo-Pacific region. To this end, the United States has focused on developing its navy, expanding its fleet, and is committed to developing sixth-generation fighters.
In the face of China, Biden is determined to strengthen his nuclear strike capability and send a signal to China in the form of nuclear deterrence. However, he is under pressure from progressive wings of the Democratic Party to cut defense spending, while the U.S. economy is sluggish and inflation remains unresolved, making it difficult to increase defense spending.
Against this backdrop, Biden needs to weigh the pros and cons between the Middle East and Asia. Although the United States has not been able to fully withdraw from the Middle East, Biden may abandon the Middle East and focus on Asia. Previous attempts to build an anti-Iran coalition have also been disrupted by actions by Israel and Iran, putting Biden under pressure to replan.
In the face of the Iranian nuclear issue, Biden may choose to adopt a more flexible strategy, let Israel suppress Iran, and realize Israel's strategic position in the Middle East. While verbally supporting a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, in reality it has been approved to give Israel a ** worth 7$3.5 billion**, causing Turkey and other countries**.
Israel, with the support of the United States, has become even stronger. Germany taking the lead in expressing support for Israel may be just the beginning, and more allies are likely to follow. This has emboldened Israel to take more aggressive actions in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, even firing artillery into Lebanon.
Judging from the current situation, the direction of Israel's offensive is clear, and its real opponent is always Iran. The acquiescence and support of the United States have made Israel even more "red-eyed" and launched a powerful attack on Iran. Whether facing Hamas or Allah in Lebanon, Israel has acted in line with the strategic will of the United States. This may be part of Biden's trade-offs in the Middle East, focusing more on the Indo-Pacific, competing with China and advancing the U.S. strategy in Asia.
Biden quickly adjusted the U.S. national defense strategy, shifting the focus from the Middle East to Asia, focusing on strengthening military deterrence in the Indo-Pacific region. This strategic realignment was confirmed in the Foreign Policy report, which foreshadowed the future Pentagon's $175 billion budget proposal. The core idea behind this decision is to respond to China's rise and make the United States more competitive and influential.
First, Biden has a clearer understanding of China's military threat. The article points out that in the face of China, the traditional army force is obviously unable to play an important role, so the United States chooses to strengthen its naval strength and ensure military superiority in the Indo-Pacific region by expanding the size of the naval force. This shows that the United States is increasingly concerned about maritime strategy and is committed to developing the next generation of military technology, such as sixth-generation fighters, to maintain its technological leadership.
Secondly, nuclear deterrence is emphasized as one of the means of countering China. The nuclear deterrence strategy launched during the Trump era has been continued by Biden**, emphasizing that the United States has the most advanced nuclear ** and is secretly developing new types of nuclear **. This shows that the United States is wary of China's rise in the nuclear domain and is trying to maintain a strategic balance through nuclear deterrence.
However, the internal contradictions that Biden faces in implementing this strategy are also obvious. Domestically, progressives within the Democratic Party are demanding cuts in defense spending, while the sluggish U.S. economy and inflation make it extremely difficult to increase the defense budget. This has created a certain constraint on the foreign strategy of the United States, which needs to make trade-offs between Asia and the Middle East.
Of particular concern is the reassessment of Middle East policy. The article points out that Biden may "give up" on the Middle East and concentrate on developing an Asian strategy. Such a decision could address the long-standing U.S. military involvement in the Middle East and allow it to respond more flexibly to challenges in the region.
On the issue of Iran, the article mentions that Biden may adopt a new strategy, that is, to allow Israel to take action against Iran and treat Israel as the actual leader in the Middle East. Although this approach may run counter to the concept of maintaining regional peace on the surface, in practice, Israel has become the executor of the US strategy in the Middle East, and it also reflects a more flexible and pragmatic diplomatic approach.
Finally, the support of U.S. allies in the Middle East has also become the focus of discussions. Israel has the staunch support of the United States, and Germany and other countries have expressed solidarity with Israel, which makes Israel more confident in regional conflicts. The support of the United States allies will have a direct impact on the regional situation, so Biden needs to skillfully balance domestic contradictions and ensure that he maintains leadership in international affairs.
On the whole, Biden**'s national defense strategy adjustment appears rational and pragmatic in the context of responding to China's rise. However, various contradictions at home and abroad will also pose challenges to the implementation of its strategy, and it is necessary to carefully manage the complex relationship between domestic politics and economics while maintaining military strength.
Disclaimer: The above content information is ** on the Internet, and the author of this article does not intend to target or insinuate any real country, political system, organization, race, or individual. The above content does not mean that the author of this article agrees with the laws, rules, opinions, behaviors in the article and is responsible for the authenticity of the relevant information. The author of this article is not responsible for any issues arising from the above or related issues, and does not assume any direct or indirect legal liability.
If the content of the article involves the content of the work, copyright**, infringement, rumors or other issues, please contact us to delete it. Finally, if you have any different thoughts about this event, please leave a message in the comment area to discuss!