China is the big winner from Biden’s foreign policy, say Michael Waltz and Matthew Kroenig

With daysAUKUS to go until America’s presidential election, voters are weighing which candidate would better protect American security. argues that President Joe Biden’s administration has restored alliances, but the biggest beneficiary of recent American foreign policy has not been America’s friends, but its greatest rival: China.The next president should act urgently to bring the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East to a swift conclusion, and finally focus strategic attention where it should be: countering the greater threat from the Chinese Communist Party.China has benefited from a confusing American policy towards it. President Biden said he would defend Taiwan, only to have his own staff walk him back four times on the issue. America is not building armed forces to deny a Chinese attack on . It has cut defence spending in real terms, allowing the balance of power to shift in China’s favour.More importantly and less noticed, has been the biggest beneficiary of American deterrence failures and ongoing conflicts in Europe and the Middle East. The Biden administration had initially promised to put relations with Russia on a “stable and predictable footing” and to pacify the Middle East by re-entering the Iran nuclear deal, in order to focus on China.This approach has led to the opposite outcome. Washington is bogged down in wars in Europe and the Middle East that distract from the China challenge. The administration was not simply unfortunate to have conflicts erupt on its watch. Its policies led directly to deterrence failures.American generals testify that the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan contributed to Vladimir Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine. When Russia massed forces on Ukraine’s borders in 2022, President Biden could have deterred the Russian leader by threatening catastrophic consequences. Instead, he reassured him, ruling out a military response and suggesting acceptance of a “minor incursion”. Mr Putin then launched the biggest conflict in Europe since the second world war.Now, American munitions and defence production are aiding Ukraine instead of deterring Chinese aggression in the Indo-Pacific. The attention of American and allied leaders is focused on Europe instead of China. Lloyd Austin, the secretary of defence, has led two dozen international meetings of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group.On top of that, poorly designed sanctions on Russia prevent Western countries from buying Russian oil and gas, but permit China to snap up energy resources at a discounted rate. The sanctions have transferred billions of dollars of wealth from Russia to China.It had been hoped that adopting a conciliatory approach would persuade China’s president, Xi Jinping, to help rein in Mr Putin and prevent a nuclear attack against Ukraine. This week, America’s national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, directed the government to “engage” China to stop North Korea’s troop deployments to Russia.Similar mistakes were repeated in the Middle East, leading to another region-wide conflagration. Naive attempts to engage Iran and prematurely ease sanctions provided Iran with resources to bankroll terror throughout the region and reduced the chance of a nuclear deal. Instead of renewing economic pressure and fully backing Israel’s military response to Iran and its terror proxies after the October 7th attacks, the White House restrained Israel and the Pentagon due to overwrought fears of “escalation”. Undue passivity only invited more aggression. In a historic first, Iran launched massive drone and missile barrages directly against Israel in April and October, and the United States had to spend billions of dollars in scarce air- and missile-defence assets to shoot down the attacks.Naval assets that should be deterring China were redirected to the Middle East, including a two-carrier presence in the region this summer. Mr Biden and Ms Harris have taken some positive steps on China, such as strengthening export controls and establishing , a trilateral security partnership with Britain and Australia, but these have been more than outweighed by the distraction caused by failed policies in Europe and the Middle East. Most concerning is that, with Washington preoccupied in a two-front war, China is opening a third front, engaging in almost daily stand-offs with American allies and partners, such as Taiwan and the Philippines. The world is in danger of a third major deterrence failure, and a Eurasian-wide war against multiple nuclear-armed adversaries at the same time.The next president must change course. Supporting Ukraine for “as long as it takes” in a war of attrition against a larger power is a recipe for failure. The next administration should aim, as Donald Trump has argued, to “end the war and stop the killing”. America can use economic leverage, including lifting the pause on exports of liquefied natural gas and cracking down on Russia’s illicit oil sales, to bring Mr Putin to the table. If he refuses to talk, Washington can, as Mr Trump argued, provide more weapons to Ukraine with fewer restrictions on their use. Faced with this pressure, Mr Putin will probably take the opportunity to wind the conflict down.His objective at the start of the war was to conduct a lightning strike to subdue Ukraine on his way toward reconstituting the Russian empire. Fighting a costly war for three years to get to an outcome in which Ukraine remains independent and more firmly anchored in the West would be a strategic defeat for the Russian leader and seen as such in Beijing. Moreover, this plan is superior to the current White House approach, which lacks a stated goal but will end in a stalemate with Russia occupying some Ukrainian territory. The current path will just take more time, blood, and treasure to get there.In the Middle East, Mr Biden and Ms Harris are calling for a ceasefire that would, in effect, leave Hamas terrorists in power in Gaza, while they prayed that Tehran did not build a nuclear weapon before the election. The next administration should, as Mr Trump argued, “let Israel finish the job” and “get it over with fast” against Hamas. They should put a credible military option on the table to make clear to the Iranians that America would stop them building nuclear weapons, and reinstate a diplomatic and economic pressure campaign to stop them and to constrain their support for terror proxies. Washington should maintain a military presence in the region, but with the war in Gaza and Lebanon concluded, it can transfer critical capabilities back to the Indo-Pacific.With stability restored in Europe and the Middle East, America would finally be able to prioritise China. A new administration should increase defence spending and revitalise the defence-industrial base to make sure its armed forces are clearly capable of denying a Chinese attack on Taiwan. Mr Trump proudly contrasts the peace of his first term with the wars of the Biden-Harris years. By following the plan described above, the next president can end ongoing conflicts and restore deterrence, global stability and peace.