Speculative and counterfactual political writing are easily dismissed as fantasy, yet they perform an essential intellectual function: they loosen the grip of the present. By imagining worlds where wars unfold differently, alliances dissipate, or empires decline earlier than expected, speculative thinking exposes hidden assumptions embedded within contemporary analysis and open minds to alternative paths.

The value lies not in prediction, but in forcing us to see that the current order is neither natural nor permanent — and that futures start with the decisions made today.

One argument often expressed in libertarian foreign policy is the idea that had US sought to wind up rather than expand NATO when the Warsaw Pact fell, then the Ukraine War would’ve never happened. If we apply this same logic to 1990s East Asia, we can ask what would’ve happened if the United States wound down its Korea commitment when North Korea descended into famine?

The North Korean famine of the 1990s, commonly referred to as the “Arduous March,” emerged from a convergence of systemic collapse, natural disaster, and geopolitical shock. The disintegration of the Soviet Union deprived Pyongyang of subsidized fuel, fertilizer, and food imports that had sustained its centrally planned economy throughout the Cold War. Floods and droughts devastated agricultural production, while rigid state controls and chronic economic mismanagement prevented adaptation.

By the mid-to-late 1990s, large parts of the country faced severe food shortages, infrastructure breakdown, and social dislocation. Estimates of the death toll vary widely, ranging from several hundred thousand to over two million people. Reports from defectors and humanitarian organizations described widespread starvation, the collapse of the public distribution system, mass internal migration, and the emergence of informal black markets as ordinary citizens struggled to survive.

South Korea gradually emerged as one of Pyongyang’s most significant external sources of assistance. Initial aid was cautious and politically contentious, particularly under conservative governments wary of strengthening the North.

However, following the election of Kim Dae-jung in 1997 and the introduction of the “Sunshine Policy,” Seoul dramatically expanded humanitarian and economic engagement. South Korea provided large quantities of rice, fertilizer, medical supplies, and financial assistance, both directly and through international organizations such as the World Food Programme.

The aid was framed as humanitarian rather than political, though it also served a strategic purpose: stabilizing the peninsula and preventing state collapse, mass refugee flows, or military instability on South Korea’s border. This period also saw the beginnings of inter-Korean economic cooperation projects, including tourism initiatives and the foundations for the later Kaesong Industrial Complex.

So what would’ve happened if the U.S. had all but withdrawn its military from South Korea during this period? What would’ve happened had USFK left? Four scenarios suggest themselves.

In the first, American withdrawal reduces North Korea’s insecurity. Without U.S. forces stationed in the South, Pyongyang no longer faces the same immediate threat of American forces on its doorstep. With South Korean political priorities focused on inter-Korean stabilization and a relatively weakened and less threatening North Korea, there is no surge in South Korea’s conventional military power. In this version, North Korea remains poor, politically coercive, and militarized, but it does not conclude that nuclear weapons are essential to survival. The peninsula remains divided but less tense, reconciliation and cooperation talks continue, and the nuclear crisis either never emerges or remains far more limited.

In the second scenario, American withdrawal from Korea changes less than expected. Even without U.S. troops south of the DMZ, Pyongyang still watches the broader global order and draws dark conclusions. The 2003 invasion of Iraq becomes the decisive lesson: weak states without nuclear weapons can be destroyed; hostile regimes that lack a deterrent can be overthrown. South Korea’s conventional forces remain integrated in a wider U.S. framework with bases still in nearby Japan. South Korea’s participation in the Iraq conflict and its reconstruction demonstrates increasing capacity.

In this world, North Korea’s nuclear program still advances, not because of the local balance on the peninsula alone, but because of the wider logic of U.S. power. The lesson is no longer “American troops threaten us from South Korea,” but “American power threatens regimes like ours wherever they are.” Nuclear weapons remain the ultimate insurance policy.

The third scenario is the most transformative. With the U.S. military presence reduced, the Sunshine Policy becomes not merely a gesture of engagement, but the central organizing framework for the peninsula. Seoul has greater room to maneuver, Pyongyang has fewer reasons to treat every South Korean initiative as an extension of American strategy.

Inter-Korean cooperation expands far beyond food aid, tourism, and industrial projects. Humanitarian assistance becomes infrastructure assistance; infrastructure assistance becomes economic integration; economic integration opens space for political dialogue. This does not mean reunification arrives quickly, or that North Korea liberalizes overnight. But it does suggest a peninsula where cooperation becomes more plausible because the sense of perceived threat has been lowered. In this version, the 1990s famine becomes not only a humanitarian catastrophe, but also the opening for a very different Korean order.

Lastly, the darkest scenario. Pyongyang interprets American withdrawal not as an opportunity for coexistence, but as a fleeting strategic opening. Facing economic collapse, famine, institutional decay, and the possible erosion of regime control, the North Korean leadership concludes that time is no longer on its side. Rather than slowly weakening while South Korea grows richer and more technologically advanced, it launches a massive ground invasion as a desperate final gamble for reunification on its own terms.

The logic is brutal but historically recognizable: collapsing states sometimes become more aggressive, not less. The leadership may calculate that South Korea, deprived of direct American military backing and psychologically shocked by U.S. retrenchment, would lack the confidence or cohesion to withstand a rapid assault. In this scenario, the late 1990s become not the era of the Sunshine Policy, but the moment the Korean Peninsula plunges back into catastrophic war — not because North Korea was strong, but because it feared irreversible decline.

Now the first is a pretty nice feelgood scenario, and the last, if we add a hapless Casio watch salesman who invents a time machine, a pretty dark alt-history movie hopeful. What would really have happened? See that’s not the point. The point is to open our minds to the idea that futures start with the decisions made today. With every small decision we make today, alternative futures open up.

It should be a meme of South Korea’s foreign policy conferences. An overweight bald but dandruff-laden be-suited American strategist tells a Korean audience how to deal with China. If you can continue listening through the gargling and croaking strategic affairs baritone, two lines will inevitably dribble out.

The first is an introductory statement “I have many Korean friends.” Now this could be because of a genuine misunderstanding of human relationships but more likely has to do with the reciprocal think-tank annual free airfare and hotel junkets that underpin the relationship. The second is the gravitas draped “it is better to have a distant ally than a nearby one,” followed by a momentary pause to emphasize the depth they assign to it.

Let that settle in for a second. A speaker from a country with not far over a hundred years in the region lecturing an audience from a country that has maintained its independence vis-a-vis a neighboring giant for thousands of years - and it’s all based on the misreading of a now cliched strategic studies maxim.

It appears ancient, almost self-evident. In contemporary debates, it’s used to explain why states like South Korea align with the United States rather than China. You hear its echoed everywhere like it’s part of realist canon.

In a realist world of competing sovereign states, proximity breeds threat, distance reduces it, and rational actors balance accordingly. From that vantage point, Korea’s alignment with a distant United States against a nearby China looks not just sensible, but inevitable. Why even John Mearsheimer repeats it off the cuff when he turns to the region in his many interviews. How can it be wrong?

This understanding rests on a misreading. By using this phrase, strategists display an unwillingness to think beyond their own point of view. They often misunderstand the specific origins of the phrase, Korea and its history, and arguably even realism itself (I know, I’m saying that in relation to a phrase Mearsheimer uses often enough? Crazy!)

First, the phrase and the strategic logic behind it, is geographically and temporally bound. It derives from the strategic thought of Han Fei during the Warring States period, often summarized as “ally with distant states, attack nearby ones” (远交近攻).

It was never intended as a universal principle of international politics. It was a tactical prescription for a specific environment: a fragmented Chinese world of multiple competing states with relatively comparable capabilities and at least some capacity to engage across distance.

When Western analysts pick up this phrase, they tend to read it through their own historical experience, one shaped by city-states and great powers maneuvering within a plural system of formally equal sovereigns. This is the intellectual backdrop of realist theory. Multiple actors, fluid alliances, strategic choice, and the recurring logic of offshore balancing.

It is this world that informs Mearsheimer’s reading of contemporary alliances. Korea aligns with the United States because it is distant. China is threatening because it is near. The logic appears timeless, portable, and universal.

Second, Korea and its history require a nuanced understanding of the phrase. To say that Korea “allied” with China is to impose a European conceptual vocabulary onto a fundamentally different regional order. Under Joseon, Korea did not form alliances with China in the modern sense. It participated in a hierarchical system centered on imperial China, first under the Ming dynasty and later the Qing dynasty. This was not a balance-of-power system composed of interchangeable partners. It was a structured hierarchy in which status, ritual, and predictability mattered more than contractual alignment.

The so-called tributary system was not an alliance framework. It was a mechanism for managing relations within that hierarchy. Korea acknowledged Chinese primacy and, in return, gained access to trade, diplomatic recognition, and a degree of security within a stable order. When Japan invaded in 1592, Ming China intervened—not as an ally bound by treaty obligations, but as the defender of a regional system in which Korea was embedded. To call this an alliance is to misidentify the nature of the relationship. Alliances imply bargaining among equals. This system operated through graded status and relational obligation.

The structural conditions required for the “distant ally” principle simply did not exist. China was overwhelmingly powerful and immediately adjacent. Japan, the other nearby power, was not a distant counterweight but a proximate and often hostile force. There was no external great power capable of projecting sustained influence into Northeast Asia. No Britain offshore, no United States over the horizon. Korea did not face a set of strategic options among which it could choose. It faced a constraint.

In that environment, the choice was not between distant and nearby allies. It was between embedding within the dominant regional system or risking isolation and destruction. Korea chose integration—not out of deference, but as a rational strategy to reduce uncertainty and survive within a hierarchical order. The alternative was not a better alliance. It was exposure to overwhelming force.

But even this framing, which treats alignment as a response to structural pressure, still assumes that what is being chosen is an “alliance” in the strategic sense. Korea’s history demonstrates that “alliances” and “alignment” were as much about strategy as about domestic political contests.

Within Joseon, relations with China were inseparable from internal struggles over authority, legitimacy, and control. Alignment with the Ming dynasty and later the Qing dynasty was not simply about external security; it was a way of stabilizing rule at home. Recognition from the Chinese court could validate a monarch, discredit rivals, and anchor a contested political order. To be acknowledged externally was to be secured internally. What appears, in Western terms, as “alliance behavior” was often a mechanism for consolidating domestic authority.

This dynamic becomes even clearer in periods of internal instability. In the late nineteenth century, as the old regional order fractured, Korean factions did not suddenly discover the abstract logic of distant allies. They reached outward—to Qing China, to Meiji Japan, to Russia—not to optimize the long-term strategic position of the Korean state, but to win immediate political struggles within it. External alignment became an extension of internal contestation. Foreign powers were not simply partners; they were levers in domestic political competition.

From this perspective, the modern alliance with the United States follows a recognizable pattern. It is often described, particularly in realist analysis, as a strategic response to external threat—a rational balancing move against a nearby power. But this misses how deeply the alliance was embedded in domestic political projects from its inception. The alignment with the United States was about securing and maintaining a particular political order within South Korea and potentially across the entire Korean Peninsula. It underwrote regimes, structured economic development strategies, and defined the terms of political legitimacy.

The alliance, in other words, has consistently functioned as more than a strategic arrangement. It has been a domestic political resource—a means of locking in authority, shaping institutional outcomes, and resolving internal conflicts in favor of particular actors and visions of the state. Its endurance cannot be understood purely in terms of external threat or balance-of-power logic, because its utility was always internally focused.

What this reveals is not a failure of Korean strategy, but a limitation of Western conceptual frameworks. By treating alliances as primarily strategic tools chosen by coherent national actors, Western analysis overlooks how, in the Korean case, alignment has been driven by internal political imperatives. It sees balancing where there is political consolidation, external calculation where there is domestic contestation, and timeless strategic logic where there are historically contingent practices.

Lastly, those who deploy this phrase reveal a deeper misunderstanding—not just of Korea, but of realism itself when viewed from a middle power perspective. Realism posits that the primary aim of a state is survival. In the United States, this has often been recast as the maximization of power and constant balancing. For smaller states, this is not just misleading—it is frequently untenable.

Survival does not come from seeking leverage in a system you do not control, but from recognizing its structure and positioning oneself within it to minimize existential risk. Dealing with the reality of the system! Autonomy is always partial, choices are constrained, and overreach invites consequences that cannot be managed.

From this vantage point, the idea of simply choosing a distant ally to offset a nearby power borders on fantasy. It assumes a degree of agency middle powers rarely possess and misunderstands sovereignty itself.

Sovereignty is not preserved through defiance alone, but through adaptation—through calibrating alignment, accommodation, and restraint in response to shifting pressures. Alliances are tools, not guarantees; they can entangle as much as they protect. For a state like Korea, realism is not about balancing in the abstract, but about ensuring a viable fit within the system it inhabits.

Now think about the future of the alliance. If the Korea - US alliance is not based on strategic logic, but rather largely on domestic political contests, what happens when the alliance no longer provides domestic political legitimacy? What happens when the alliance is seen as an impediment in political contests?

Using Western conceptualizations of alliance to analyse Korea ultimately leads to systematic error. They assume a world of autonomous choice and strategic optimization, when Korea’s historical experience has been one of adaptation within externally structured orders.

Korea, like any historical middle power, does not transcend the system it inhabits—it fits into it. Its success has never depended on the abstract selection of allies, distant or otherwise, but on how effectively it positions itself within the prevailing and emerging regional order. Alliances, in this sense, are secondary. What matters is not who Korea aligns with, but how well it aligns itself with the structure of the system it cannot escape.

So the next time an overweight bald but dandruff-laden be-suited American strategist clears his throat and begins—“I have many Korean friends”—and with rehearsed solemnity starts the line about distant allies, it is worth pausing. What follows is not insight, it’s performance—a pretty shitty, useless one at that. So boo them off stage, dust the dandruff off the back of the couch, and bring on someone with a tad more sense!

Support, share, comment, and/or subscribe - Buy Me a Coffee!

Imagine a country, a middle power country, and how it struggles when it is not aligned with the regional hegemon. It is not weak enough to be ignored, nor strong enough to dictate terms. It sits in that uneasy space where autonomy is possible, but costly—where every attempt to assert independence is read not as normal state behavior, but as deviation.

In this story, the middle power begins with a modest ambition: control over its own resources, its own political direction, its own future.

Its leadership does not seek to overturn the international order. It seeks space within it. But the regional hegemon, backed by external great powers, interprets even this limited assertion as a threat. Independence, in such a system, is indistinguishable from defiance.

The response is not immediate war. It is something more precise. Political pressure, covert interference, economic manipulation. The government that does not conform is removed. In its place, one is installed that does. One that is repressive and can control the bubbling desire for change. The middle power is stabilized by the system that surrounds it. Order is restored—an order built on dependency and repression.

For a time, this arrangement holds. The middle power appears integrated, even successful, but beneath the surface, contradictions accumulate. When the system finally breaks—when the installed regime collapses—the middle power re-emerges, but in a different form. It is no longer willing to accept the constraints imposed upon it. It seeks not just autonomy, but insulation.

From that moment, the strategy of the hegemonic powers shifts. Control gives way to constraint.

Sanctions become a permanent feature, not as temporary punishment, but as structural pressure. Constant, crippling sanctions. Conflict with neighbors encouraged, amplified, prolonged, and intensified. Internal divisions are probed and widened. Assassinations remove key figures at critical moments. The language of reform and revolution is selectively deployed, not as principle but as instrument.

The middle power is contained and subdued with the lives of its citizens a daily struggle.

What makes its position particularly difficult is not simply the pressure from the hegemon, but the weakness or disinterest of its potential great power sponsors. There are moments of rhetorical support, occasional gestures of alignment, but little that fundamentally alters the balance. The middle power is left to absorb pressure largely on its own. It adapts—building resilience, developing asymmetric tools, learning to operate under constraint—but it does so at significant cost.

It is here that the limits of “middle power” status become clear. Without consistent backing from stronger partners, autonomy becomes a burden. Independence is paid for in isolation, economic strain, and perpetual insecurity.

Only when the broader structure begins to shift does the equation change.

As alternative great powers grow stronger—and more willing to engage—the middle power’s position improves. Sanctions become harder to enforce. Isolation becomes more difficult to sustain. Strategic partnerships, once symbolic, begin to carry weight. The middle power does not suddenly become dominant, but it becomes less vulnerable. It gains room to maneuver, not because it has changed, but because the system around it has.

Strength, in other words, arrives not only from within, but from alignment with power that is itself rising.

This is of course the story of Iran. But Iran’s story should give pause to other middle powers across the globe that at this very moment, seem to be fitting themselves into similar predicaments.

Soon, we will enter a more formal multipolar system. China will demand dominance within its region, in much the same way that the U.S. demands dominance in the Western Hemisphere, and Russia demands dominance (or at least clear influence) within Central Asia and its near neighbors.

It is natural that a regional hegemon will deal harshly with middle powers that don’t play by their rules. The U.K./U.S. did this with Iran.

In August 1953, the U.S. and U.K. orchestrated a coup to remove Mohammad Mosaddegh from power after he attempted to assert national control over Iran’s oil resources. They installed a repressive government, which led to the 1979 revolution, from which point in time the US and Israel led an inter-generational effort to contain and weaken Iran. A campaign which is of course still in process as this is written.

Does the same await states that don’t tow the line when China is dominant in East Asia?

A middle power backed by weak or disinterested great powers will struggle, no matter how determined it is. A middle power whose partners are strong, engaged, and rising will find its position correspondingly strengthened.

This is not a moral argument. It is a structural one.

And it leads to an uncomfortable question for countries like Australia and South Korea, as they look out over an Indo-Pacific increasingly defined by Chinese weight and uncertain American resolve.

Is it better to seek absolute sovereignty and have to wait for a distant partner to recover their strength and focus, or is it better to accept limited sovereignty and be on the dominant side? At the moment, only the people of Iran could answer this question.

Support, share, comment, and/or subscribe - Buy Me a Coffee!

In 1991, Jean Baudrillard published a series of essays that would later be collected under the deliberately provocative title The Gulf War Did Not Take Place. The trilogy appeared first as three separate pieces: “The Gulf War Will Not Take Place”, “The Gulf War Is Not Taking Place”, and “The Gulf War Did Not Take Place”. All three were originally published in the French newspaper Libération in early 1991, before being compiled into book form by Éditions Galilée (and later Indiana University Press).

Taken together, they formed a single argument: that what the world experienced as “war” in Iraq in 1991 was less a conventional conflict than a mediated event—structured, filtered, and ultimately transformed by representation. Baudrillard would not just be spinning in his grave at the Iran war—he would be vindicated, horrified, and perhaps, perversely, unsurprised.

If 1991 Iraq strained the boundary between reality and representation, then 2026 Iran has obliterated it entirely.

To begin with, it’s not a war. It’s a “military operation,” “major combat operations,” “hostilities in the Middle East,” or even “a nice little excursion.” I mean sure, America has used all the instruments of war, and the entire debacle is led by a dumb-ass that bizarrely called himself Secretary of War, but it’s not a war. This is precisely where Baudrillard would begin. Not with destruction, but with the instability of meaning.

In The Gulf War Did Not Take Place, Baudrillard argued that modern war had already shifted from a material event into something mediated, narrated, and ultimately controlled through representation. The Iran war pushes that logic further. It begins not with simulation, but with semantic evasion.

In 1991, Baudrillard’s provocation was that the Gulf War, as experienced by Western audiences, was not war in any meaningful sense. It was a radically asymmetrical operation—technological dominance rendered into a clean, televisual narrative. War appeared as something coherent: it had a beginning, a middle, and an end. Even if the representation distorted reality, it still imposed form on it.

The 2003 Iraq War stretched that form, but did not destroy it. It became a longer, messier narrative—still mediated, still structured, still presented as something that could be understood as “war,” even if poorly.

The Iran conflict goes a step further. Across the globe we wake in the morning look at our phones and wonder what hell debacle has unfolded and then scoff that it’s just a few clumsy presidential threats or dementia-fed missives on victory, depending which way the market is turning. We don’t know whether it’s on or off. And when it is on, save for a few of us with relations directly involved, we won’t experience it first hand. So the conflict exists materially, but not formally. It is fought, but not declared. It is acknowledged, but not defined.

Even reports of mass civilian death—such as the killing of over 160 school children, are attributed not to deliberate intent but to algorithmic error or AI-assisted targeting. There is no sustained moral or political rupture in Western media. Instead, they are reframed: as technical malfunction, as intelligence failure, as the regrettable by-product of otherwise precise systems. Responsibility is diffused into process. The event is not denied, but it is rendered weightless—circulated briefly, explained away, and then displaced by the next cycle of content.

In Baudrillard’s terms, the horror is neither fully confronted nor hidden; it is translated into a form that can be consumed without consequence.

Baudrillard argued that the Gulf War “did not take place” because it was experienced as simulation, but the Iran war presents a stranger inversion: it takes place continuously, and yet is withheld from existence through language. Not simulated into being, but linguistically denied.

This produces a different kind of distortion. In the Gulf War, representation replaced reality with a coherent image. In Iran, representation fails to stabilise reality at all. The administration insists it is not a war. Congress debates whether it is. Legal arguments recast it as an extension of prior authorizations rather than a new conflict. The terminology shifts depending on audience and necessity.

The result is not clarity, but fragmentation. There is no single narrative, not even a misleading one. There are multiple, competing descriptions that never converge. The conflict becomes difficult not just to interpret, but to categorise. And once categorisation breaks down, so too does accountability.

This is not a trivial issue of wording. The War Powers framework depends on classification. A war triggers timelines, reporting requirements, and limits. An “operation” does not. By refusing the term, the system avoids the obligations attached to it. Language becomes a mechanism of evasion.

Baudrillard feared that modern war would become spectacle—absorbed into media, stripped of consequence. That has happened, but it is no longer the most important feature. The Iran war is not simply aestheticised through footage, clips, and curated imagery. It is structurally undefined. The spectacle remains, but it floats on top of something more fundamental: the collapse of meaning.

There is no longer even an attempt to impose narrative coherence. Objectives shift. Justifications mutate. Victory conditions remain unclear or unstated. The conflict persists as an ongoing condition rather than a bounded event. It does not move toward resolution so much as continue to generate itself—politically, militarily, and rhetorically.

Baudrillard’s critics accused him of denying reality, of turning war into abstraction. But the Iran war reveals the sharper edge of his argument. He was not saying that war does not happen. He was saying that, for those who experience it through systems of representation, it no longer exists as war in any stable sense.

What we are seeing now is not simply hyperreality, but something closer to semantic collapse. A war that must be fought, but cannot be named. A reality that is materially undeniable, but politically indeterminate.

If the Gulf War “did not take place” because it was reduced to a spectacle, the Iran war does not take place because it is dissolved into language.

And that is worse. Because once a war cannot be named, it cannot be limited, ended, or even properly understood.

And this is where the question becomes unavoidable. If war no longer needs to be declared to be fought, if catastrophe can be reframed as malfunction, if escalation is absorbed into an endless stream of “operations,” “responses,” and “incidents,” then what exactly would it look like to enter a third world war? Not with a declaration, not with a rupture, but with a drift. Not as an event, but as an accumulation.

Baudrillard warned that representation could replace reality; what we are confronting now is more insidious—that reality advances while language lags behind, hollowed out and repurposed to manage rather than describe. Here lies the real threat.

The danger is not that we will not recognise the moment and fail to act. It is that there will be no moment at all. That we will slip into something far larger, far more consequential, without ever quite naming it—because the words required to do so no longer mean anything.

An attempt to neutralize Iran, rather than walk away and accept defeat, will crystallize a set of alliance realities that have, until now, remained partially obscured. The U.S. alliance system is no longer credible.

The first reality concerns the basic logic of security. For decades, alliances with the United States have been framed as protective arrangements. Hosting U.S. forces deterred attack, raised the costs of aggression, and embeded states within a wider system of stability. What the Iran conflict has begun to demonstrate, however, is that this logic has inverted. U.S. military presence no longer simply deters—it attracts. Bases, logistics hubs, and forward-deployed assets become immediate targets in any escalation. Geography dictates involvement. States do not choose to enter the conflict; they are entered into it by virtue of hosting American forces.

This is not an abstract theoretical point. Iran has already demonstrated an ability to project retaliation beyond its borders, through missiles, drones, and proxy networks. Even limited exchanges have shown that the footprint of U.S. power doubles as a map of potential targets. If the war resumes, this dynamic will intensify. The distinction between ally and battlefield will blur further. For governments, the political implications are severe. It becomes harder to argue that the alliance enhances security when the most visible effect of that alliance is to draw conflict onto national territory.

Eastern Europe’s NATO member states sit next to Russia, South Korea and Japan sit astride China, and Australia, while distant enough, holds onto an ever-present irrational fear that it’s about to be invaded by China. Geography creates targets.

The second issue is political trust. Alliances are not sustained by capability alone; they depend on the belief that decisions will be made with some regard for shared interests. What the Iran episode has revealed is a pattern of volatility that undermines this belief. The conflict itself emerged in the shadow of ongoing negotiations, collapsing the assumption that diplomacy and escalation are sequential or mutually constraining. Since then, the rhythm has been erratic: threats, strikes, pauses, renewed threats. Deadlines are issued and revised (maybe in line with dodgy stock and Polymarket trades - but that’s another story). Unpredictability and a stone-cold disinterest in diplomacy has become a feature of U.S. behavior.

For allied states, the deeper problem is not just exposure to risk, but the inability to know when or how they might be pulled into conflict. Escalation no longer follows a sequence that can be read or prepared for; it arrives abruptly, driven by opaque decisions made elsewhere. Washington’s public signals are as much about positioning trades—whether in energy markets or prediction platforms—as they are about preserving peace. Strategic planning for allies is now guesswork, and the alliance shifts from a source of stability to a conduit for volatility.

This erodes the political foundation of the alliance. Trust does not collapse overnight, but it degrades with each instance in which allies are exposed to decisions they did not shape and cannot control. A renewed war would accelerate this process, compressing what might otherwise be a gradual shift into a much sharper reassessment.

Eastern Europe’s NATO member states will complain, South Korea and Japan will be polite and suffer, and Australia, distant enough, will pretend all is going well. Geography creates targets, but doesn’t confer agency.

The third and most consequential issue concerns capability. The credibility of the U.S. alliance system has long rested on the assumption of overwhelming military superiority—the idea that, when necessary, the United States can impose outcomes decisively. The Iran conflict complicates this image. It has shown that even against a regional power, outcomes are not straightforward. Iran has retained the capacity to retaliate, to contest key domains, and to impose costs that cannot be easily dismissed. The Strait of Hormuz, rather than being secured, has become a space of contestation. Operations have encountered friction. Escalation carries visible risk.

More important still is the broader strategic context. Iran does not operate in isolation. It exists within a system in which China provides economic, diplomatic, and indirect strategic support. This does not translate into overt intervention, but it does shape the environment in which the United States operates. Constraints emerge—not as absolute barriers, but as accumulative limits that complicate decisive action.

For allies, the implications follow directly. If the United States cannot translate force into clear outcomes against a regional power operating under constraint, what confidence can be placed in its ability to manage conflicts involving more capable, better-positioned adversaries like a less constrained Russia or China?

An attempt to neutralize Iran, rather than walk away and accept defeat, will crystallize these realities.

You won’t be defended, instead you’ll be targeted; you won’t contribute to planning, instead we’ll make money of Polymarket trades; you won’t be defended against a regional power, let alone a major adversary.

This does not mean that alliances will suddenly dissolve, but they will change. Allies will hedge more actively, seek alternative partnerships, and place greater emphasis on autonomy. The alliance may persist in form, but its substance will thin.

An attempt to neutralize Iran, rather than walk away and accept defeat, will not destroy the alliance system in a single moment but it will close off its future.

What I wonder is who will jump first? NATO may not have to jump. It could well have its fate sealed with the U.S. storming out in a Trump toddler tantrum. South Korea is already planning and won’t let itself be caught unprepared, and Japan will do much the same. Australia, oh Australia... it’ll just keep moving itself closer to the frontlines in any future conflict with China. Open the Polymarket trades now on Australia’s first locations to be hit in the next U.S. war in Asia, and you’re onto a winner.

In a recent Andrew Napolitano interview with Colonel Douglas Macgregor, there’s a moment that slips by almost unnoticed. It is not long, not elaborated, not even central to the discussion. But it reveals more than the surrounding analysis of Iran, Israel, or American strategy ever could. Discussing the possession of nuclear weapons Napolitano states:

“What about North Korea? He’s a madman.”

And just like that, the frame shifts.

Judge Andrew Napolitano—and those he platforms—represent a certain strand of American dissent. They are critics of intervention, defenders of civil liberties, and often far more willing than mainstream commentators to question the legitimacy of U.S. foreign policy.

Disclaimer - I like the show. “The Judge,” as his guests call him. His show “Judging Freedom” is always entertaining and informative, and highly relevant. He interrogates his guests well and the end result is an informed alternative point of view—the kind you’d hope would spread across America.

The guests—the likes of Colonel Douglas Macgregor, Ambassador Chas Freeman, John Mearsheimer, Jeffrey Sachs, Lieutenant-Colonel Karen Kwiatowski, Phil Giraldi, Scott Ritter, Larry Johnson, and Ray McGovern are either the most thoughtful and intellectually honest commentators… or a psy-op so deep that I may just return to reading MAD Magazine comics instead of academia. They are ex-government, military, academics and every one of them on the show are passionate and energetic and support very old school American values. But, on North Korea—and the Korean Peninsula—those values seem to hardly apply.

In this particular interview, Iran is treated with a degree of seriousness and even empathy. It is a state reacting to pressure, a society embedded in history, a political system that can be understood—even if opposed. The language is measured. The analysis is structural. There is at least an attempt to grapple with cause and consequence.

When North Korea enters the conversation, that framework collapses almost instantly.

There is no structure, no history, no attempt to understand the strategic logic of the state and its rationale to secure nuclear weapons (nor the foresight of that decision as Iraq, Libya, Syria, and now Iran fell).

Instead, there is only caricature: madman. A single word replaces analysis. A label stands in for explanation. What had been a discussion grounded in rights, sovereignty, and restraint becomes something else entirely—dismissal.

This is not simply inconsistency. It reveals something more fundamental about the limits of even “clear thinking” in American foreign policy discourse. There are boundaries to empathy, and North Korea sits firmly outside them.

Iran, for Napolitano, is legible. It can be placed within familiar categories: a regional power, a negotiating partner, a state responding—however imperfectly—to external pressure. North Korea cannot. It is treated not as a system but as an anomaly; not as a state but as an extension of a single irrational figure. Once reduced in this way, there is no need to understand it. There is nothing to interpret, nothing to engage. Only something to contain.

And this is where the danger begins.

Dehumanization is not a rhetorical accident. It is a precondition for policy. A rational actor imposes constraints—you must consider how it will respond, how escalation might unfold, what unintended consequences may follow. But a “madman” imposes no such constraints. If the adversary is irrational, then deterrence fails, negotiation is pointless, and the only remaining logic is force or coercion.

What begins as a throwaway line becomes an intellectual shortcut. And that shortcut leads in one direction: toward escalation.

Using a framework that begins and ends with “madman” is not simply analytically thin—it is reckless.

Because once that framing takes hold, everything that follows becomes distorted. Signals are misread. Actions are interpreted as erratic rather than strategic. Escalation is seen as unpredictable rather than conditional. The possibility that North Korea behaves according to its own internal logic—however uncomfortable or alien that logic may be—is dismissed outright.

And if you cannot understand an adversary, you cannot anticipate it. If you cannot anticipate it, you cannot manage it. What remains is reaction—often late, often excessive, and often based on worst-case assumptions.

What makes Napolitano’s comment so revealing is not that it comes from a policymaker or a partisan voice. It’s not Fox News! It comes from someone who positions himself as a critic of the system.

If even those who challenge U.S. interventionism fall back on this language when discussing North Korea, then the problem is not confined to institutions like the Pentagon or the State Department. It is embedded more deeply, in the broader intellectual culture that shapes how the United States understands its adversaries.

North Korea, in this sense, is not simply misunderstood in America, it is rendered unthinkable within both dominant and alternative frameworks.

And that has consequences.

If attention shifts—whether gradually or suddenly—from Iran to the Korean Peninsula, the groundwork has already been laid. A state that is not understood becomes unpredictable. A state that is seen as unpredictable becomes dangerous. And a state that is defined as dangerous invites action.

This is how escalation begins. Not with a decision, but with a description.

It is tempting to dismiss a line like “he’s a madman” as casual rhetoric, the kind of shorthand that fills any unscripted conversation. But that misses its significance. These moments reveal the limits of analysis. They show where explanation gives way to instinct, where complexity is replaced by simplification.

If North Korea remains on the far side of that divide—outside the realm of rational actors, beyond the scope of serious analysis—then any future crisis on the peninsula will begin from a position of intellectual failure.

And wars that begin with that kind of failure don’t end well.

The United States has finally nominated a new ambassador to South Korea: Michelle Steel. Her appointment comes not at the start of a new administration, but 15 months into it—a delay that has already shaped the diplomatic environment she is about to enter.

By the time she arrives, the real story will not be who she is, but how long it took.

The absence of an American ambassador in Seoul is no longer an anomaly. It’s a pattern - and to many people on the ground, it also kind of feels like a slight.

The United States has routinely left its ambassadorial post vacant for extended periods—often around a year, sometimes longer. In this case, the gap stretched to well over a year, leaving the alliance without a Senate-confirmed envoy through a period of significant strategic friction.

During that time, acting officials filled the role. Policy coordination continued. But the absence was not neutral.

This time round, the gap coincided with stalled discussions on key issues—tariffs, trade, and investment, wartime operational control, nuclear submarines and shipping, and oh yeah... a f@cked up war disrupting the global economy. The first time Trump was in the White House, it coincided with “fire-n-fury” as Trump tweeted the peninsula towards confrontation. That was fun too.

Supporters can argue that the American process is deliberate by design. Ambassadors are nominated by the president and must go through Senate confirmation. This can result in real strengths. It can ensure scrutiny, accountability, and democratic legitimacy.

Nominees are questioned, vetted, and publicly evaluated. Because diplomacy is not left entirely to executive discretion, the ambassador holds a degree of political weight. They carry authority and institutional backing, representing not just the administration, but through the confirmation process, the American people. That’s how it’s meant to be.

Under Biden and Trump, the process aged like cheap plonk in a plastic bottle on a hot summer’s day. Oversight turned into formality but remained slow and politically clogged. It no longer kept pace with modern diplomacy. This time round, it took over a year for a nomination to even reach the Senate.

Meanwhile, across town, the Chinese embassy operates differently. Ambassadorial transitions are typically rapid. The chair is rarely empty for long.

The Chinese model ensures continuity without observable political friction. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs identifies and promotes candidates from the professional ranks of career diplomats who are then appointed through internal party-state processes.

It’s a streamlined process, and ensures continuity and speed. Rarely if ever, is there a vacuum. Diplomatic engagement proceeds without interruption and strategically important posts are never left unfilled. It produces greater consistency in messaging, with less room for personal proclivities and political swings.

Two systems. Two tempos. Two very different approaches to diplomacy. It’s almost like we’re comparing Chinese and American trains, airports or highways. One is new and works well, the other is old and worn out. The end result—China is almost always represented at ambassador level. The United States is not.

It’s easy to dismiss this as trite but when you narrow down to the street level, there’s a real difference. I can see it as a professor. Over the last year, how many university students did a Chinese ambassador engage with in Seoul? And over that same period, how many did an American ambassador engage with? A conservative estimate might put it at something like 500 to none. Probably more.

It seems somebody in Washington needs to rewrite or at least read, Willian J. Lederer and Eugene Burdick’s 1958 classic, The Ugly American. What that book warned about—amateurism, arrogance, and bureaucratic decay—now reads less like critique and more like description.

Think about Iran and Ukraine and the problem is clearly not just about delay alone. It is decay. The United States has not just slowed its diplomacy; its hollowed it out. Now I dare you to think about the Board of Peace (or is it Bored of Peace?).

The depth of the depravity in American diplomacy can be found in the logo alone. WTF were they thinking? It’s from a 1990s computer game—not the expensive one that that rich kid down the street had, but the cheap one your grandpa bought because it sounded the same. Then there’s “President Donald J. Trump’s Comprehensive Plan to End the Gaza Conflict”. On seeing that is probably the point at which the most diplomats ever decided to leave the State Department.

The State Department, once a professional corps with institutional memory and regional fluency, has been allowed to atrophy—underfunded, sidelined, and increasingly treated as an afterthought in the conduct of foreign policy.

Into that vacuum has crept a different type of operator. Not the patient diplomat, but the opportunist. Political appointees with thin experience. Donors and dealmakers. Polymarket anyone? The occasional grifter dressed up as a strategist, more comfortable talking markets and narratives than languages and alliances. It is not that every appointment fits this mold—but enough do to change the character of the system.

Michelle Steel may prove to be an excellent ambassador. All indications are that she will be. But when ambassadors arrive late, stay briefly, and operate within a system that no longer prioritizes the slow work of relationship-building, they’re not off to a great start. In a place like Seoul—where diplomacy is not abstract but lived, and negotiated daily across institutions, universities, and ministries—that absence is not just noticed. It is felt.

An ambassador embodies attention. Their presence indicates priority. Their absence—especially when prolonged—suggests something else.

This month there’s three articles on the Korean Peninsula in Foreign Affairs - the primary publication of the U.S. foreign policy establishment. The articles say more about America than Korea.

For the past decade, read anything on Korea in Foreign Affairs and you’re almost guaranteed no surprises. This month, we’ve been fed three articles and three variations on a theme: one revisits why denuclearization failed—only to suggest continuing down essentially the same path; another profiles Kim Jong-un, with the now-standard anxiety about North Korea’s ties to Russia; and the third leans fully into it, framing Pyongyang’s links with Russia and China as the central threat.

At most, you get minor updates to reflect current events, but continuity is the real story: the same voices, the same morbid framing, the same think-tank waffle. It’s less analysis than a kind of retail cycle—old arguments taken off the shelf, lightly dusted, and put back out as if they were new.

You’d be hard pressed to find a clearer example of Washington’s abject failure on the Korean Peninsula than the shite that comes in these pages: a stale Cold War worldview that treats the U.S. as inherently just, trustworthy and reliable—all while effectively erasing South Korea from the picture.

South Korea barely exists in these articles. It appears as a staging ground, an ally, a variable to be managed. At best, it’s a “partner” whose role is to align, reassure, or be reassured. At worst, it disappears entirely, reduced to geography—terrain for U.S. strategy rather than a state with its own agency, interests, or evolving strategic outlook. That’s not an oversight. It’s the Washington thinktank wankery framework.

Washington’s analysis of the peninsula remains frozen in a Cold War mindset where the primary relationship is U.S.–North Korea, with China and Russia as supporting cast. South Korea is folded into the “alliance,” and the alliance is treated as synonymous with South Korean interests. That sleight of hand does most of the analytical work. It’s also why the analysis feels so stale.

Here’s the writing production line: (1) North Korea is growing more dangerous; (2) Its nuclear program has advanced; (3) Its ties with Russia and China are deepening and (4) The United States must adapt—slightly. Perhaps shift from denuclearization to arms control, and add a catchy phrase like “cold peace.” Voila. Foreign Affairs article done!

The United States remains the central actor. The problem remains North Korea. The solution remains some variation of U.S.-led management.

After thirty years of failure, this is presented not as an indictment, but as continuity.

Even when these pieces acknowledge failure, they do so in the safest possible way. Denuclearization didn’t work—but we should still aim for it. Sanctions hardened Pyongyang—but they remain the primary tool. Diplomacy failed—but only because it wasn’t done properly, consistently, or with enough buy-in.

Foreign Affairs is repackaging shite that shouldn’t have been put on the shelves in the first place.

Recycled anxiety about North Korea’s alignment with Russia and China—as if this is a new development rather than the predictable outcome of sustained U.S. pressure and isolation. As if Pyongyang would do anything else. As if the current configuration is an aberration rather than a logical equilibrium. After Trump’s diplomacy, what else could anyone expect?

The Trump administration didn’t just introduce unpredictability; it exposed something far more significant: the fragility of U.S. strategic consistency. One moment the peninsula was on the brink of “fire and fury,” the next it was the stage for summit diplomacy that achieved little beyond optics. Allies were reassured, then questioned, then transactionalized. Military exercises were halted, then resumed. Commitments became negotiable.

What this reveals—whether Washington likes it or not—is that the United States is not a stable anchor. It is a variable. A high risk variable.

And that matters far more to Seoul than another recycled discussion about North Korea’s missile inventory.

South Korea is not sitting still. Its strategic debates are widening: nuclear armament, strategic autonomy, recalibration of the alliance, even the long-unthinkable question of how to live with North Korea rather than transform it. These are not fringe ideas anymore—they are responses to a changing environment in which U.S. guarantees look less absolute (or even dangerous) and regional dynamics more fluid.

If South Korea’s interests begin to diverge—if stability on the peninsula requires something other than permanent confrontation, permanent deterrence, and permanent U.S. presence—then the entire analytical framework starts to crack. The alliance becomes a question rather than an assumption. U.S. strategy becomes a constraint rather than a solution.

And once you see that, the repetition in these articles makes sense.

They’re not really trying to understand the Korean Peninsula as it is. They’re trying to preserve a way of seeing it that keeps the United States at the centre.

The irony is that the more this perspective is repeated, the less useful it becomes. Not because North Korea is misunderstood—though it often is—but because the peninsula itself is changing faster than the analysis allows. South Korea is evolving. The regional balance is shifting. The credibility of U.S. commitments is no longer taken for granted.

At some point, this stops being analysis and starts becoming performance.

The Korean Peninsula doesn’t need another article explaining why denuclearization failed or why North Korea is dangerous.

In no way is it the fault of the authors themselves. Each is competent and skilled at what they do. The problem is they work within a system that doesn’t reward creativity, analysis, or insight. They’re just cogs within a machine that has been overworked and is now leaking and grinding as it putters to an end.

What we really need is a willingness to ask more difficult questions: what if the problem isn’t just North Korea? What if it’s the framework itself? What if the biggest obstacle to thinking clearly about the peninsula isn’t Pyongyang—but Washington?

In some ways, the fecklessness of Foreign Affairs is a sign of the times. As the U.S. falters in its foreign policy, it’s only natural that its primary publication in the field becomes a catalogue of its own failures.

Support, share, comment, and/or subscribe - Buy Me a Coffee!

Commentary and scholarship on middle powers has long been shaped by the conditions of the American-led liberal international order. The focus was on stability: how middle powers contribute to institutions, reinforce norms, and exercise influence through diplomacy, coalition-building, and rule-making.

In this framing, middle powers were not sites of contestation but agents of order—bridges between great powers, facilitators of cooperation, and beneficiaries of a relatively permissive strategic environment. This literature neglected the harder question: what happens to middle powers located in contested zones—those that function not as stabilizers, but as strategic pivots struggling to survive amid great power competition?

Great powers seek to shape the political and strategic orientation of key spaces—borderlands, chokepoints, and frontier regions where competing systems meet. These are often middle powers.

The first objective is control. This does not always mean annexation or formal sovereignty. Control can be exercised through military presence, political alignment, economic dependence, or institutional integration. The key is not the flag, but the function. Territory matters because it shapes the distribution of power—who can project force, who can secure resources, who can deny access to others.

But control is only the first objective. The second is more subtle, and often more destructive: neutralization.

If a territory cannot be controlled, it must be denied. A rival’s access to it must be degraded, its utility diminished, its stability undermined.

Neutralization rarely presents itself openly. It appears instead as fragmentation—economic weakening, political paralysis, social division. External actors support competing factions, erode central authority, and hollow out institutions. The goal is not necessarily victory in the conventional sense, but denial: ensuring that no coherent, rival-aligned order can take root.

The historical record is replete with such outcomes. Where competing great powers cannot decisively impose control, the result is often a divided or contested space—a buffer zone. These zones are neither fully sovereign nor fully controlled. They exist in a condition of suspended resolution, where influence is exerted from opposing sides, often directly facing one another across hardened lines.

Neutralization sometimes takes the form of promised stability. Putting in place a government that is so threatened with instability that its very existence depends on the external patron is, in effect, a form of control by other means. Corrupt regimes that are stable in appearance but structurally insecure—locked into dependency because the costs of autonomy are existential. Their policies align not out of preference but necessity. In this way, stability becomes a mechanism of denial: the territory is governed, but never independently usable by a rival power.

In this sense, instability is not always a failure of strategy. It is of course its product.

The logic is brutally consistent. When control fails, neutralization takes over. When neutralization stabilizes, division emerges.

The Korean Peninsula remains the most enduring example: a territory split along a line of confrontation, each side embedded within a different strategic system. But it is not unique. Variations of this pattern can be observed across the twentieth century and into the present—Germany during the Cold War, parts of the Middle East, Africa, and regions of Eastern Europe where influence is contested rather than settled.

What is striking is not the diversity of outcomes, but their convergence. Strategic pivots do not tend toward equilibrium or autonomy. They tend toward absorption, fragmentation, or division.

This raises an uncomfortable implication for states that find themselves in such positions. The idea that a pivot can be managed indefinitely—that a state can balance between competing powers without being drawn into their rivalry—rests on a fragile assumption: that great powers will tolerate ambiguity in strategically significant territory. History suggests otherwise.

Much of the commentary and academic scholarship on middle powers obscures this reality. It suggests that smaller or mid-sized states can navigate these pressures through skillful diplomacy alone. That they have “agency”.

When geography places a territory at the intersection of competing strategic logics—agency narrows. Choices disappear or become more constrained. Outcomes become shaped less by preference than by position.

The fate of strategic pivots, then, is not determined by the intentions of the states that inhabit them, but by the interactions of the powers that surround them.

Here we have Iran. It started a long time ago with U.S. (and British) control under an imposed regime. When that failed, it then transformed to neutralization through sanctions, economic pressure, covert action, and proxy conflict—aimed not at control, but at constraining its capacity for autonomous power.

When other great powers (China and Russia) started to gain greater influence, more had to be done. The U.S. (and Israel) pushed further: economic pressure, currency collapse, and social unrest to erode the foundations of political order. Finally, the pursuit of regime change became an option. This failed - the next option was neutralization through destruction.

The cold hard truth is that the U.S. and Israel are seeking to weaken Iran to such a point that it becomes ungovernable. The aim: warring factions, at least some of which the U.S. can work with to ensure the territory remains neutralized.

This strategy has included the bombing of bridges, energy, schools, hospitals, police stations, banks and apartment blocks - something evident from the very first day of the conflict. It may soon even include nuclear weapons.

That’s the more degraded and filthy truth of middle power diplomacy behind the glimmering commentaries about Australia and Canada building, sustaining and restoring global governance. They were always building, sustaining and restoring a system that sought the control or neutralization of other middle powers. They contributed to institutions, reinforced norms, and exercised influence through diplomacy, coalition-building, and rule-making in support of the U.S.

So this is what happens to middle powers in contested zones. They do not balance. They do not hedge indefinitely. And they do not sit comfortably as “bridges” between competing systems. They are fought over. They are controlled or they are neutralized. That is the fate of middle powers in contested zones.

Throughout the Cold War, North Korea consistently made a single blunt accusation about South Korea: it was never fully sovereign, but rather a node in the wider the U.S. imperialist project.

These same claims still surface every now and again, and if we accept that we are actually entering a period of U.S. imperial decline, it is worth, if only briefly, taking the accusation seriously. Not because it is correct, but because it forces a sharper question: what happens to places like South Korea when the empire begins to recede?

To accept the premise, even provisionally, is to reframe South Korea’s strategic position. Since the end of the Korean War, the peninsula has functioned as a forward position in a maritime system of power projection. The United States, as an external naval hegemon, constructed a network of alliances, bases, and logistical nodes stretching across the Western Pacific. South Korea’s role within this system has been clear: a fortified outpost on the continental edge, anchoring presence near the Eurasian landmass while supporting broader regional deterrence.

South Korea is a wedge of the Eurasian landmass with secure supply lines connected to Japan, and the wider U.S. Asia-Pacific alliance network.

From this perspective, South Korea’s strategic function has been embedded within a larger architecture designed elsewhere. The peninsula sits at the intersection of maritime and continental logics: a hinge, a pressure point, and, potentially, a liability to the defense of the dominant continental power.

So, what happens when that empire ends? History suggests that empires do not end cleanly. They recede unevenly, leaving behind structures that persist long after the strategic logic that created them has faded. The end of the British Empire offers a useful, if imperfect, comparison.

Consider the British position east of Suez. For much of the 19th and early 20th centuries, Britain maintained a chain of bases and dependencies stretching from the Mediterranean to the Indian Ocean and beyond. These outposts—Aden, Singapore, Hong Kong, Australia—were not identical, but they shared a common function: they enabled maritime control, facilitated trade, and projected influence into continental spaces.

In Aden, British control ended abruptly in 1967 after years of insurgency and rising costs. The withdrawal was not the product of a single decision, but of accumulated pressure: local resistance, declining strategic necessity, and domestic fatigue within Britain itself. Once vital as a coaling station and imperial waypoint, Aden became untenable almost overnight.

Singapore represents a different trajectory. Its fall in 1942 during World War II exposed the fragility of imperial assumptions. The fortress that was supposed to anchor British power in Asia collapsed with startling speed. After the war, Britain returned, but the illusion of permanence had been shattered. By 1965, Singapore emerged as an independent state, transforming itself into something entirely new—no longer an imperial node, but a sovereign actor navigating between larger powers.

In Hong Kong, the end came through negotiation. The 1997 handover to China was orderly, anticipated, and structured through formal agreements. Yet even here, the transition revealed limits. The systems and expectations built under imperial rule did not simply dissolve; they lingered, often uneasily, within a new political framework.

In Australia, the end came with the inability of the British to maintain a defense of the region in the 1940s as Japan rose and began to threaten Australia’s near north. Australia accepted America in place of the British. The political-strategic transition was abrupt but the cultural transition was slow and smooth.

These cases illustrate three broad pathways by which imperial outposts tend to end.

First, collapse under pressure. When the costs of maintaining an outpost exceed its strategic value, and when local resistance intensifies, withdrawal can be sudden and disorderly.

Second, strategic obsolescence. When the underlying logic of empire shifts—due to technological change, economic transformation, or altered threat perceptions—outposts can lose their purpose and be abandoned or repurposed.

Third, negotiated transition. When both the imperial center and local or regional actors recognize the inevitability of change, they may attempt to manage the end through formal agreements. These are often presented as orderly, but they rarely resolve underlying tensions.

Fourth, substitution rather than collapse or negotiation. In this model, an imperial outpost does not disappear or become fully independent in strategic terms. Instead, one external power replaces another, often rapidly at the level of security arrangements, while deeper political culture, institutions, and habits of alignment adjust more gradually. The structure persists, but the centre shifts.

What unites these pathways is not their form, but their inevitability. Empires, by their nature, expand and contract. They depend on resources, legitimacy, and strategic coherence—all of which erode over time. The question is rarely whether an imperial system will end, but how, and what replaces it.

For South Korea, this is not an abstract historical exercise. If the U.S.-led order in East Asia evolves or diminishes, the peninsula will not simply continue as before. Its strategic meaning will shift. The assumptions that have governed alliance, deterrence, and economic integration will be tested. And the range of choices—long constrained by the stability of the existing system—will expand, often uncomfortably.

This is precisely why it is useful to revisit accusations that are too easily dismissed. North Korea’s claim, stripped of its ideological framing, forces attention onto structure rather than intent. It asks whether South Korea’s position is contingent on a broader system, and what happens if that system changes.

To think clearly about such questions requires a willingness to engage with revisionist perspectives. Not to accept them wholesale, but to use them as tools—to unsettle assumptions, to expose blind spots, and to widen the field of possible futures. Orthodoxy, particularly in international relations, has a tendency to harden into dogma. It narrows debate at precisely the moment when conditions demand intellectual flexibility.

The next question to ask is whether the U.S. will leave or whether South Korea will push it out. That will determine the path as much as any other input.

Empires end. Outposts are redefined. Alignments shift. The real danger is not that change will come, but that it will arrive before the imagination has caught up. Reading against the grain may be uncomfortable, but at least it prepares you to make decisions that will be just as uncomfortable.

In recent months, former politicians, senior scholars, eager-to-please next-generation think-tankers, and fly-by-night pundits have taken to the commentary and policy circuit to suggest that countries like Canada, Australia, and South Korea can “step in” and stabilize the fraying U.S.-led order. They make me wanna puke.

Let’s make it clear: Middle powers cannot build a new international order, cannot sustain an old one, and cannot save the world.

Middle powers did not build the postwar system. They operated within it. Their influence, prosperity, and diplomatic reach were contingent on a deeper structural condition: the presence of a dominant power willing and able to underwrite security, absorb costs, and enforce rules - that aligned with those states. The United States was not simply first among equals. It was the system manager.

If international order were a temple, the United States was the pillars that kept up the roof. Those pillars are gone. The United States is not simply retrenching materially; it is retreating from the very norms it constructed and enforced. From selective adherence to trade rules, to the instrumental use of sanctions, a transactional approach to alliances, and illegal wars. Washington now treats the order as if it didn’t exist. The middle powers cannot hold up the weight of the temple roof.

And yet, as the roof crashes down upon the pews, former politicians, senior scholars, eager-to-please next-generation think-tankers, and fly-by-night pundits continue to project an almost romantic vision of middle power agency. With their hopeful op-eds, it’s like they’re trying to hang chandeliers in the temple as it crumbles around them.

Canada and the inspirational Carney will lead, Australia will coordinate, South Korea will mediate. Collectively, they will sustain the system. The heck they will!

Middle powers are, by definition, constrained. Their military capabilities are limited. Their economic weight, while significant, is insufficient to anchor global stability. Their diplomatic reach depends on institutions that require enforcement. Most critically, they lack the capacity to absorb systemic shocks—financial crises, regional wars, or great power confrontations—without external backing.

Middle powers are not substitutes for a great power. They cannot build a new international order and they cannot sustain an old one.

Take security. Australia’s strategic position remains fundamentally dependent on extended deterrence and U.S. power projection. South Korea’s entire defense posture is built around the U.S. alliance. Canada’s role in global security has long been mediated through NATO and U.S.-led operations. None of these states can independently deter major adversaries, let alone manage escalation in a great power conflict.

Or consider economics. The open trading system that enabled middle power prosperity was underwritten by U.S. market access, financial stability, and naval dominance. Fragmentation of that system—through protectionism, sanctions, and geopolitical competition—cannot be offset by middle power coordination. When the U.S. itself breaks the rules and norms of that trading system, middle powers adapt.

Lastly, think diplomacy. Through budget cuts and misdirected investment in national security rather than diplomacy, and an ever increasing preference for political appointments rather than departmental appointments, both Australia and Canada have weakened their diplomatic capacity. South Korea stands out as the sole middle power still investing in diplomacy.

What we are seeing, then, is not the rise of middle powers as system managers, but their exposure. The conditions that allowed them to act with confidence are disappearing. In their place is a more contested, less predictable environment in which their room for maneuver is narrowing, not expanding.

Some commentaries spin on about past grand schemes, like APEC, the Cairns Group, or R2P and dream about their revival. When I read them I can help but imagine a colonial Kitchener type rallying call: “We did it once, we can do it again, rah rah!” Sure, it’s hard for former politicians to let go, but really, does this serve any purpose? APEC was formed in 1989 and it was a great initiative. Talking about it now is the same as people in 1989 talking about the San Francisco Peace Treaty - that is, talking about an initiative that established an order, at the end of an order.

Others have gone so far as to suggest that some of the paler post-2000 middle power initiatives demonstrate the capacity to step up - like MIKTA. Mexico, Indonesia, Korea, Turkey, Australia (MIKTA) was a pointless endeavor that marked the fecklessness and misdirection of the concept. Diplomats today know that they’re on the way out when they’re assigned to work on it. It’s like an IR academic being asked to teach academic writing - it’s just a matter of time before your office is shared with three PhD students, broken chairs, and a sink for the cleaner’s mops.

None of this is to suggest that middle powers are irrelevant. They matter. They can shape regional outcomes, build coalitions, and influence specific issue areas. But they do so within constraints. They do not define the system.

The more honest conversation is not about how middle powers can preserve the existing order. It is about how they will adapt to its transformation.

That means asking questions about how middle powers will fare in a multipolar international order in which China holds the greatest influence. Some middle powers in Southeast Asia have been adapting to this for some time. Some middle powers across other regions, such as Iran, have adapted so readily that their power has been greatly enhanced - to the point that some question whether they are a great power.

The danger of the current discourse is that it delays this reckoning. Insisting that middle powers can compensate for the U.S. encourages policies that assume continuity where there is rupture. It prioritizes reassurance over realism.

The era in which middle powers could rely on U.S. leadership has ended. The temple has collapsed. There ain’t no point hanging those chandeliers anymore.

Middle powers cannot save the world - and many will struggle to adapt to the emerging multipolar order.

This little piece won’t stop former politicians, senior scholars, eager-to-please next-generation think-tankers, and fly-by-night pundits from spinning s&%t about the promise of middle powers. Most publishers of such commentaries are invested in the concept and/or the names of those who push it.

All that I can do is leave a stern warning: if you’re in public, carry a vomit bag the next time you read about how middle powers will save the world.

The characteristic conservative rally in Seoul is awash with Korean, American, and, weirdly enough, Israeli flags. To be conservative is to be pro-American. For generations, South Korea’s conservatives sided with America.

With Gaza and Iran, a change is coming to conservatism in South Korea - and it will impact foreign policy directly. It is a change so profound that very few will currently accept that it is even possible—Korean conservatives will turn their back on the U.S. alliance.

Conservative alignment with the United States rests on two pillars: values and security.

The United States served as the benchmark for what was considered legitimate, virtuous, rational, and just. To stand with the United States was, in effect, to align with a particular conception of order, democracy, and moral authority. It also functioned as South Korea’s principal security guarantor against existential threats—first North Korea, and more recently, China.

Alignment with the U.S. became deeply entrenched in foreign policy. The two pillars permeated institutions, education, and elite discourse. Alignment with the U.S. embedded itself so deeply that even left-leaning progressives on entering the foreign policy field often felt compelled—almost reflexively—to reproduce alliance-affirming narratives in order to advance. It became, in effect, a habit of thought in foreign policy discourse and decision-making.

However, what was once taken as given—that the United States was both morally right and strategically reliable—is no longer so easily sustained.

The problem is not simply one of policy disagreement. It is deeper. It is the growing recognition, among conservatives themselves, that the United States may neither embody the moral clarity it once claimed nor possess the unquestioned capacity to defend South Korea in a crisis. These two pillars—moral authority and security credibility—have so long underpinned Korean conservatism that if you remove one, the structure weakens. Remove both, and it begins to collapse.

The wars in Gaza and Iran have fused what were once separate moral and security questions into a single crisis. Gaza has exposed the limits of the claim that U.S.-aligned power is inherently just. Iran has raised doubts about American judgment, priorities, and reliability. Taken together, these are not isolated events—they suggest a pattern that is increasingly difficult to ignore.

This breaks the old foundation. Korean conservatism long rested on a simple fusion: that the United States was both morally right and strategically necessary. Gaza challenges the first. Iran challenges the second.

That is why this moment is so difficult for conservatives. To reject Israeli conduct in Gaza is to question a moral framework tied to alignment with the United States. To question U.S. actions in Iran is to doubt the security guarantee at the core of their worldview. But to accept both is to unravel the foundation of Korean conservatism itself.

Taken together, these developments strike at the core of conservative identity in South Korea. If the United States is no longer clearly right, and no longer unquestionably reliable in security terms, then what, exactly, does it mean to be a pro-alliance conservative?

This is where the effects are most visible—not yet in mass politics, but within the institutions that have long reproduced and sustained this worldview. The foreign ministry, the Korea National Diplomatic Academy, and academia have historically functioned as custodians of alliance orthodoxy. They trained generations of officials and scholars to think within a framework in which the United States was both anchor and horizon.

But these are also, by their nature, conservative institutions in the small “c” sense—risk-averse, hierarchical, and oriented toward continuity. When the underlying assumptions that justify continuity begin to fail, the resulting tension is acute.

Younger officials and scholars, exposed to a more fragmented international environment, are less willing to treat the alliance as an article of faith. They ask questions that previous generations avoided: What if the United States does not come? What if its actions undermine, rather than reinforce, the values it claims to defend? What alternatives exist?

Senior figures, meanwhile, often find themselves caught between institutional loyalty and creeping doubt. The language of alliance persists, but with less conviction. The repetition of familiar lines begins to sound increasingly like ritual rather than belief.

This is how paradigms end—not with a declaration, but with erosion.

For Korean conservatism, the implications are profound. A tradition that once drew strength from clarity now confronts ambiguity. Its intellectual foundations—moral alignment with the United States and confidence in its protection—are no longer secure. And without those foundations, its influence over the institutions that shape foreign policy begins to weaken.

At the moment, conservatives satisfy themselves with rage-baiting and anger-filled invective against political progressives and their vehement rejection of Israel’s actions in Gaza and America’s wars.

Yet, as the voting public swings toward condemning Washington’s mistakes—as much of the U.S. public already has—blind support for the alliance will become a political wedge issue. Younger, sharper conservatives are already less emotionally attached to the alliance and more willing to question it on pragmatic grounds; they will see the writing on the wall.

Before long, a younger, more ambitious and fundamentally different kind of conservative will emerge. The old boomer-era debates are worn out—dated frameworks that no longer reflect reality on the ground in Korea or reality in the relationships between states in the post-American era.

Much like in other countries, conservative rallies will turn to more overtly nationalist displays: symbols that evoke a distinctly Korean sense of identity and pride—and, more than likely, ever-larger Korean flags :) With time, however, the American, and, weirdly enough, Israeli flags, will steadily fade from view.

Support an academic wannabe novelist and buy me a coffee.

In Seoul, there are quiet conversations about what the war in Iran means beyond the oil shortages and economic crises. The gravest concern is that U.S. action has established a precedent: contested regions where continental and maritime powers collide can be controlled or neutralized.

Control seeks to incorporate a space into one’s own strategic system—through alliance, occupation, or political dominance—so that it can be used to project power and shape the broader balance.

Neutralisation, by contrast, is a strategy of denial. It does not require ownership, only that the space be rendered unusable to rivals—politically constrained, militarily limited, or strategically inert.

Where control is ambitious, costly, and often escalatory, neutralization is narrower and more pragmatic - and this is where we are with the U.S. in Iran.

Great powers rarely seek control everywhere. Control is costly, escalatory, and often unnecessary. What they seek instead is something more limited and more attainable: neutralization. In the contested spaces of Eurasia’s rimlands - the region where continental and maritime powers collide, the aim is not always to dominate, but to ensure that no rival can use a given territory to project power, shift the balance, or threaten the broader system.

This logic is becoming increasingly visible. The United States, long the preeminent maritime power, is adjusting to a world in which its ability to operate freely along the rimlands is eroding. In such an environment, outright control is harder to sustain. What becomes rational instead is the neutralization of key spaces—ensuring that they do not fall decisively into the orbit of a continental rival.

The ongoing pressure on Iran reflects precisely this logic. It is not simply about regime change or nuclear thresholds. It is about ensuring that Iran cannot consolidate its position as a stable, integrated node of continental power linking Central Asia, the Caucasus, and the Persian Gulf. A weakened, constrained, or fragmented Iran is not necessarily a victory—but it is a denial of advantage to others.

Neutralization is, in this sense, a second-best strategy. But in a shifting balance of power, second-best strategies often become dominant ones.

There is no reason to assume that this logic is unique to maritime powers. As continental powers grow in strength, they too will adopt strategies that deny their rivals forward positions along the rimlands.

This is where it gets scary for South Korea.

China faces a persistent strategic problem: the presence of a highly developed, U.S.-aligned Korea projecting maritime influence directly onto the Asian continent. From Beijing’s perspective, South Korea is not just a neighbor. It is a forward platform—a space through which external power can observe, constrain, and potentially strike into the continental sphere.

If the United States seeks to neutralize Iran to prevent the consolidation of continental influence, it is entirely plausible that China could one day pursue a similar objective on its own periphery. Not necessarily through invasion or annexation, but through pressure designed to erode alignment, weaken external military integration, and ultimately render the peninsula strategically inert.

The goal would not be to control South Korea outright, but to ensure that it cannot be used as a base for balancing against China.

This is the uncomfortable symmetry of the current moment. Neutralization is not an aberration. It is a rational response to a world in which decisive control is increasingly difficult, but the consequences of losing key spaces are too great to accept.

For South Korea, this presents a stark strategic reality. It is not a passive observer of this contest, but one of its most exposed arenas. Its value lies precisely in its position—as a technologically advanced, economically vital, and geographically proximate node on the rimland. That value, however, cuts both ways. It attracts protection, but it also invites pressure.

The question is not whether South Korea can avoid this dynamic. It is whether it can shape its position within it.

There are, in essence, three options.

The first is to double down on alignment with maritime power—maintaining and deepening integration with the United States. This preserves deterrence in the short term, but it also entrenches South Korea’s role as a forward position, making it a persistent target for neutralization. This ensures South Korea becomes the contested zone and raises the prospect it ends up like Ukraine or Iran.

The second is armed neutrality. This would involve building sufficient independent military capability—potentially including strategic deterrents—to make South Korea a self-sustaining actor that cannot easily be coerced or used by others. It is a difficult path, requiring political will and strategic clarity, but it offers the possibility of remaining relevant without being instrumentalized.

The third is acquiescence to China’s regional dominance. This does not necessarily mean subordination in a formal sense, but rather a gradual realignment that reduces strategic friction and removes South Korea from the front line of great power competition. It is the path of least resistance, but also the one that most clearly accepts the emerging hierarchy.

None of these options are comfortable. But the worst option is to assume that no choice is required—that South Korea can remain as it is while the balance around it shifts.

Neutralization is not a distant possibility. It is already being practiced elsewhere along the rimland. The U.S. is a great power contesting the rimland, and it is pursuing strategic aims in Iran. Unfortunately for South Korea, the logic that drives this strategy will not stop at the Middle East.

South Korea must decide whether it will be a space that others seek to neutralize—or one that has already rendered that effort unnecessary.

***
As published on ANTIWAR.COM on 08 April 2026 at https://original.antiwar.com/jeffrey_robertson/2026/04/07/the-iran-war-precedent-control-or-neutralization/

Threatening to end a civilization is a veiled nuclear threat. With that threat, Trump has shaped future actions.

Strategy begins with language. The way leaders describe capabilities, signal intentions, and frame red lines shapes not only how others interpret them, but also the limits and possibilities of future action.

First, the veiled threat of nuclear weapons use by a major power against a middle power weakens the nuclear taboo. For decades, nuclear weapons were treated as fundamentally different. They were politically unusable except in the most extreme circumstances and they were the preserve of major powers. That restraint depended not only on capability, but on language and signaling.

When the leader of a major power implicitly invokes nuclear use in a regional conflict with a middle power, even without crossing the threshold, the boundary shifts. Nuclear weapons become part of the spectrum of coercion rather than instruments of last resort. The taboo does not collapse outright, but it is incrementally eroded. Each repetition makes such rhetoric more acceptable, and therefore more likely to recur.

Second, this erosion makes nuclear acquisition more rational for middle powers. States such as South Korea observe that nuclear weapons are not merely deterrents, but tools of leverage. If nuclear ambiguity can shape crises and extract concessions, then remaining non-nuclear becomes a position of vulnerability rather than restraint.

On the Korean Peninsula, this logic is particularly stark. South Korea has two nuclear-armed neighbors, and depends on US extended deterrence. The credibility of US extended deterrence is now associated with veiled threats of nuclear weapons use. Under these conditions, pursuing an independent nuclear capability and ensuring more competent signalling, begins to look less like defiance of the international order and more like adaptation to it.

Third, the normalization of nuclear threat makes actual use more conceivable. Language shapes strategic behavior. As nuclear threats are discussed more openly, they are increasingly incorporated into military planning and political decision-making.

The psychological and political barriers to use are gradually lowered. This is especially dangerous in regions like the Korean Peninsula, where crises are fast-moving and escalation pressures are intense. Once nuclear weapons are treated as usable in theory, the conditions under which they might be used in practice become easier to imagine—and therefore easier to justify in moments of acute tension.

For decades, restraint in language reinforced restraint in action. Nuclear weapons were not just rarely used—they were rarely spoken of as usable. That linguistic boundary helped sustain the broader strategic one. When that language changes, strategy changes with it.

North Korea’s nuclear threats were once dismissed as bluster and bluff. When a U.S. president does the same, the frame changes. Trump’s first term came close enough to conflict with North Korea. After a short while, it was pretty clear that it was all a show for the cameras.

Imagine now a direct contest between Kim Jong-un and today’s less competent Donald Trump. The similarity of their language hides a near complete inability to understand each other. For Trump, veiled nuclear threats will now be just another card to play. The risk of miscalculation is frightening.

The introduction of nuclear threats into routine strategic language has set off a chain reaction: it will weaken the taboo, encourage proliferation, and lower the threshold for use. Regardless of whether Trump’s intention was ambiguity or bluff, the precedent has been set.

In the future, historians will look back and argue that the most significant nuclear shift was not the launch, but the normalization of strategic language that made a launch possible.

With the Trump Administration, oil markets, and Iran, Polymarket is in the news near every day now. Prediction markets, like Polymarket, turn questions into tradable contracts. Traders buy and sell based on their beliefs, and the resulting price reflects a probability. The mechanism depends on incentives: those with better information or better judgment profit, and their trades move the market.

Their appeal is simple. In domains like elections, prediction markets often outperform polls and experts. They reward accuracy, aggregate diverse inputs, and operate continuously—and in certain circumstances can bring out fragments of intelligence that would otherwise remain scattered or unarticulated. From an intelligence point of view, they collect information from what are often inaccessible sources, and they reward and crowd-source analysis (meaning analysis of share trading is also valuable). For the individual, in an era of skepticism toward institutions, they also offer a wee skerrick of decentralized truth.

In theory, this produces a real-time synthesis of distributed knowledge. Applied to North Korea—the archetype of opacity—it seems almost ideal. Unfortunately, this intuition is flawed. The conditions that make North Korea analytically difficult also make it resistant to market-based intelligence.

The problem is not that prediction markets are flawed in general. It is that North Korea violates the assumptions that make them work.

First, there is no meaningful insider participation. Prediction markets derive much of their power from participants who possess privileged or semi-privileged knowledge. In open systems, this includes bureaucrats, contractors, journalists, and industry actors. North Korea offers none of this. The regime is sealed, information is tightly compartmentalized, and even elites operate within narrow informational silos.

More importantly, those with genuine proximity to decision-making cannot participate in global financial platforms (although, it is conceivable that this opens opportunities for coordinated insider trading as a revenue source for North Korea’s revenue hungry entrepreneurs?). The result is a market often composed almost entirely of external observers - often largely American-based. It aggregates misinterpretation—not access. This is intelligence analysis crowd sourcing at best.

Intelligence crowd sourcing can be useful, but only when interpretation is tracked, tested, and refined over time—when analysts build a record, good judgment is identifiable, and reliable signals can be separated from noise through repetition and feedback. In the North Korean case, this process breaks down. The signals are too sparse, outcomes too infrequent or ambiguous, and feedback too weak to clearly distinguish good analysis from lucky guesses.

Second, the informational baseline is too weak to sustain convergence.
Markets work by processing signals. North Korea produces very few, and those it does produce are often ambiguous. Satellite imagery, state media releases, and indirect economic indicators provide only partial and highly contestable insights.

In such an environment, price does not converge toward accuracy; it drifts. Small pieces of information—often no more than anomalies—take on exaggerated significance. A missed public appearance by Kim Jong-un becomes a proxy for regime instability. Activity near the Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center is read as strategic intent. With no dense stream of data to discipline interpretation, the market cannot stabilize around a reliable estimate.

Third, narrative replaces information as the dominant driver. In high-information environments, markets can correct for bias because new data constantly challenges prevailing views. In the North Korean case, data is sparse, so narratives fill the void. Once a dominant storyline emerges—imminent escalation, leadership instability, internal crisis—it begins to drive trading behavior. Prices move not because new information has arrived, but because participants align with or react to the narrative. This creates reflexivity: the market reinforces the story, and the story reinforces the market. Rather than aggregating independent signals, the system amplifies shared assumptions.

Fourth, thin markets are structurally vulnerable to distortion. Prediction markets on North Korea are unlikely to attract deep liquidity. This matters. In thin markets, relatively small trades can move prices significantly. This introduces noise and opens the door to manipulation. A trader—or coordinated group—does not need vast resources to shift probabilities in a visible way. In a strategic context where perception itself can matter, this is not trivial. Whether or not state actors actively intervene, the structural vulnerability remains: price can be moved without corresponding information.

Fifth, markets struggle with the distinction between capability and intent. Even well-functioning prediction markets are better at forecasting observable events than interpreting underlying motivations. North Korea magnifies this gap. A market can price the likelihood of a missile launch, but it cannot see the internal deliberations that produce it. The result is a familiar slippage: patterns of capability are read as signals of intent.

Over time, this creates a deeper distortion. Trading begins to reflect not North Korean decision-making, but expectations about how the United States and its allies will interpret North Korea. Prices move on anticipated reactions—what Washington thinks Pyongyang might do—rather than on direct insight into Pyongyang itself. The market, in effect, becomes a mirror of external strategic imagination, not a window into the regime.

Sixth, opacity creates asymmetry, not just uncertainty. In most markets, uncertainty is broadly shared. In the North Korean case, uncertainty is asymmetric. Some actors—state intelligence agencies, for instance—may possess significantly better information than the general trading population, but they are unlikely to participate directly. Their knowledge does not enter the market efficiently. Instead, the market is dominated by second-order interpretations of what better-informed actors might know. This produces a recursive structure of inference, rather than a direct aggregation of primary information.

Finally, the absence of feedback loops limits learning. Prediction markets improve over time when outcomes provide clear feedback. In North Korea, many of the most important questions—about regime stability, internal power dynamics, or long-term strategy—do not resolve cleanly or quickly. Even when events occur, their meaning is often contested. This weakens the market’s ability to learn and recalibrate. Errors are not easily identified, and correct predictions may be indistinguishable from lucky guesses.

None of this means money cannot be made. If anything, North Korea markets can be profitable precisely because they are so prone to misinterpretation—especially the kind that circulates through Western media. Coverage routinely inflates weak or ambiguous signals into coherent narratives, and those narratives drive pricing.

The opportunity, then, is not in superior analysis of North Korea itself, but in recognizing when the market has absorbed and amplified these distortions. Profit comes from trading against consensus when it is built on thin, exaggerated, or poorly grounded interpretations.

In this sense, Polymarket does reward “better analysis”. But crucially, this is not insider intelligence in any meaningful sense. It’s an arbitrage on misinterpretation. The profits come not from knowing what North Korea will do, but from recognizing when the market is overconfident in what it thinks it knows.

Prediction markets function best where information is dispersed but available, where insiders can participate, and where outcomes provide clear feedback. North Korea satisfies none of these conditions.

In this context, prediction markets do not uncover intelligence on North Korea—they price America’s misinformed expectations.

The wars in Ukraine and Iran are routinely seen as separate—one a grinding territorial conflict in Europe, the other a slow-burning confrontation in the Middle East.

This framing is neat, even comforting. Some like to imagine that it all could have been avoided if it weren’t for Trump or Netanyahu’s influence. They like to think that each conflict can be managed on its own terms. This is wrong.

Ukraine and Iran are not isolated events. They are connected expressions of technological change and geopolitical struggle—one driven by the rising strength of continental powers and the relative decline of maritime power, playing out across the rimlands where they collide.

Nearly a century ago, Nicholas J. Spykman argued that power is not decided in the continental interior, but along the more densely populated, economically vital edges of Eurasia—the zones where land and sea power meet. These rimlands are not peripheral. They are decisive. Control them, and the balance of the entire system shifts.

For much of the modern era, this contest along the rimlands favored maritime powers. Sea control allowed them to move forces at scale, supply distant positions, and project power onto the continent’s edges with relative freedom. The rimlands were accessible, penetrable, and—crucially—contestable on maritime terms.

Over the past two decades, that balance has shifted. Advances in precision strike, layered air defence, missile technology, and surveillance have transformed these same zones into hardened barriers. What were once gateways have become denial belts. Continental powers can now extend their reach outward, holding coastal approaches at risk and complicating any attempt at external intervention. The rimlands remain decisive—but they no longer favor those who approach from the sea.

This shift is already visible in Ukraine. What might once have been a contest decided by external reinforcement and maritime access has instead become a grinding struggle shaped by proximity and denial. Ukraine sits at the fault line between continental Russia and the maritime-oriented European order, but the terms of that contest have changed.

Russia’s ability to project power from the land—through missiles, air defense, and depth—has complicated Western efforts to decisively shape the battlefield. What was once a rimland accessible to maritime influence has become a contested denial zone. Ukraine is no longer simply a hinge between systems; it is a demonstration of how the European rimland is tilting toward continental advantage.

The same dynamic is unfolding further south in Iran. The Persian Gulf was long treated as a maritime domain—open to naval dominance and external control. That assumption no longer holds.

Iran’s growing capacity to threaten shipping, target regional bases, and extend its reach through missiles and proxies has transformed the southern rimland into a space of persistent risk and constrained access. Its geographic position—linking Central Asia, the Caucasus, and the Indian Ocean—remains critical, but it is now reinforced by an ability to deny rather than simply endure. The result is a strategic environment in which maritime power can no longer operate with impunity, and where continental influence increasingly defines the terms of engagement.

Taken together, these conflicts reveal a pattern. They occur along the margins of the continent, in zones where competing forms of power collide. They are not aberrations. They are structural.

And this is what makes Korea so consequential.

The Korean Peninsula is not simply another point along the rimland. It is one of its most volatile and strategically loaded positions. Unlike Ukraine or Iran, Korea is not a broad corridor or a contested hinterland. It is a narrow, compressed space—a wedge.

Projecting out from the Asian continent, Korea functions as a maritime foothold embedded directly against continental power. It is, in effect, a forward operating position for maritime states—most notably the United States—placed at the very edge of China’s strategic environment. This makes it invaluable. From Korea, maritime power can monitor, constrain, and if necessary project force into the continental sphere. It is not simply adjacent to China; it is pressed up against it.

This is precisely why Korea is so volatile. As continental powers accrue advantages—through geography, industrial depth, and increasingly sophisticated denial capabilities—the value of secure, forward positions along the rimland rises sharply. Korea offers exactly that: a defensible, highly developed, and deeply integrated platform from which to offset continental strength.

But that same value makes it intolerable from the continental perspective.

To a rising continental power, the presence of a maritime-aligned wedge on its doorstep is not a neutral fact. It is a constraint—a permanent intrusion into its strategic depth. The logic that drives contestation in Ukraine and Iran applies here with greater intensity. If the European and Middle Eastern rimlands are about influence and access, Korea is about proximity and penetration.

It is the difference between contesting the edges of a system and confronting an embedded position within it.

This is why Korea cannot remain a passive space. The structural pressures that have already produced conflict elsewhere along the rimland are present here in concentrated form. A maritime state seeks to maintain a secure forward position. A continental power seeks to remove or neutralise it. Neither objective can be fully realised without altering the status quo.

The result is not necessarily immediate war, but it is persistent instability—military signalling, alliance tightening, technological competition, and periodic crises that test the boundaries of control. Over time, these pressures accumulate.

What Ukraine shows is that rimland conflicts cannot be deferred; they eventually erupt. What Israeli/US action in Iran shows is that maritime powers are willing to see territories neutralized rather than see continental power expand. As Chinese and Russian power rises and American maritime dominance erodes, these dynamics intensify.

The wars we see today are not random. They are sequential contests along the same geographic belt. The system is not breaking apart; it is reorganizing along its most sensitive edges.

Ukraine is one front. Iran is another.

As the most exposed and valuable maritime wedge on the Asian continent, South Korea may be where that contest will sharpen next - unless Seoul takes control of its own destiny.

Trump is scheduled to visit Beijing May 14–16. The public diplomacy imagery, if he goes to Beijing, will define the era.

If you thought the repetitive foreign policy failures, from tariffs and Greenland to Iran and NATO; the rambling late night social media posts; and the confused, nonsensical address to the nation were signs of American decline, just wait till Beijing. It is from this visit that future textbooks will take their imagery.

Think about it for a moment - a confused, physically weak, tired old Trump, meets a firm-standing and focused Xi. We’ll see Trump and his team of real-estate financiers: instigators of wars of aggression and de facto war criminals; floundering engineers of global economic collapse; and desperate supplicants ready to perform tributary rites.

The visit was originally scheduled earlier, but put off, either because Trump imagined things would be better by mid-May or because Xi didn’t want to be seen next to Trump as he launched a war of aggression. That delay lends the trip a different tone.

America’s fortunes since the the attack on Iran have tumbled - economic strain, geopolitical overreach, and domestic political fragility. Trump’s approval ratings hit new lows every day; he has lost his base and now relies on shills like Mark Levin to push Israel’s wars to pensioners between ads for gold and weight loss drugs; and his party is looking down the barrel of its worst midterms ever. Trump is toast.

China, like any state, carefully manages its public diplomacy imagery. The first image will be arrival. Trump descending the aircraft stairs onto Chinese soil will not evoke the assured theatre of past presidential visits. There will be no sense of commanding presence or agenda-setting authority - despite Trump’s always hollow pomposity. Instead, the visual grammar will suggest concession: a leader arriving late, under pressure, and on terms increasingly set by the host. The symbolism will be subtle but unmistakable—this is not 1972, and Trump is not Nixon.

The second image will be the greeting. Xi’s composure—carefully cultivated, immovable—will contrast sharply with Trump’s performative unpredictability. In earlier eras, American presidents set the tone of bilateral encounters, their presence shaping the rhythm and staging of diplomacy. In Beijing, the choreography will belong to China. The setting, the pacing, the framing: all will reinforce hierarchy without ever stating it. Xi will appear as the steady axis of a system; Trump as the visitor seeking accommodation within it.

Then come the meeting room visuals—the long tables, the symmetrical delegations, the flags placed with geometric precision. Here, the contrast will deepen. Xi will project continuity: a leader presiding over a state that has prepared for this moment over decades. Trump, by contrast, will carry the weight of immediate crises. A financial system shaken by instability, alliances frayed by unilateralism, and conflicts either escalated recklessly or left unresolved. Whether framed as the brandisher of overwhelming force or as a leader mired in strategic overextension, the visual impression converges: a presidency defined by disruption now seeking stabilisation from abroad.

Yet, China hardly has to do anything to influence the public diplomacy visuals on this occasion. Trump and his team of short-horizon oil market traders are way outta their league.

Anyone paying attention knows this. A hollowed out State Department led by Rubio, but negotiations led by Kushner and Witkoff versus Russians backed by the institutional knowledge of the Russian Diplomatic Academy and its Foreign Ministry full of skilled, experienced diplomats? A hollowed out State Department led by Rubio, but negotiations led by Kushner and Witkoff versus Iranians with combat experience, PhDs, and years of diplomatic experience? Now, a hollowed out State Department led by Rubio, with negotiations led by Trump? The visuals coming out of this trip will seal regional views of the post-American order.

Trump’s visit will not be remembered for any specific agreement—trade concessions, security assurances, or diplomatic frameworks. It will be remembered as a visual marker of transition. A moment when the imbalance between image and reality collapsed, and the United States could no longer sustain the performance of primacy.

There are, of course, multiple possible interpretations. American officials will frame the visit as pragmatic engagement, a necessary dialogue between great powers in a complex world. They will emphasise negotiation, mutual interest, and strategic competition managed responsibly. Why Mark Levin will even sell it as a huge success. But such language operates at the level of text. The images will operate at the level of perception—and perception, once fixed, is far harder to revise.

For international audiences, particularly in Asia, the message will be clear. The visit will signal that even at its most assertive, Washington must ultimately turn to Beijing. That economic stability, conflict management, and geopolitical equilibrium increasingly run through China. That the gravitational centre of the system has shifted.

In this sense, the visit will not mark a dramatic collapse but something more consequential: recognition. Empires rarely end with formal declarations. They fade through moments of adjustment—through visits that would once have been unnecessary, through gestures that would once have been unthinkable. The language remains the same; the meaning changes.

What will be captured in May is precisely such a moment. A U.S. president, weakened by crisis and constrained by circumstance, standing alongside a Chinese leader whose system has absorbed shocks and extended influence. The images will not declare the end of American power. They will not need to. They will show a world already behaving as if that end has, in practice, arrived.

And that is how it will enter future textbooks if Trump goes to Beijing.

The Cold War did not end with a grand diplomatic bargain. There was no Peace of Westphalia, Congress of Vienna, Berlin Conference, or Potsdam Conference - moments when powers came together to reconcile legitimate interests and realities on the ground to secure lasting peace.

Instead, we essentially had a near forty-year frat party where the victors partook in drunken excesses and the losers bowed their heads and built their credentials.

The Iran conflict and its consequent (imminent) economic crisis has brought that frat party to a sudden end. It’s tempting to imagine that once again, the major powers will sit down and strike a grand diplomatic bargain to reorder the world.

First, there’s Europe. The war in Ukraine is drifting toward exhaustion. Russia cannot be defeated and Europe is tiring. Europe cannot sustain confrontation and now without access to Middle East oil and gas nor Russian energy, it is undermining its own economic base with every day the war continues. A settlement—however uneasy, is inevitable. Trade will resume in altered form. Energy flows will be reconfigured. Political language will soften. Europe will, in time, move from exclusion back to accommodation.

Then there’s West Asia, the logic appears similar. The confrontation with Iran has reached its structural limits. Iran holds all the cards and the U.S. and Israel have no choice but to concede - outside extremes that don’t bear contemplation. The United States will be forced to remove itself from the region, Iran will be acknowledged as a regional hegemon, and BRICS (read China) will provide the logistics.

Finally, there’s East Asia. The region reflects a contest between continental and maritime power—China’s proximity against America’s distant network of bases and alliances. For decades, U.S. dominance sustained this balance, but it is now shifting. China’s rise and advances in missiles, surveillance, and air defence are eroding the advantages of maritime projection, turning distance into a constraint. The result is a more precarious order: U.S. forces are increasingly exposed, allies more uncertain, and the region drifting toward a gradual reordering in which China’s centrality deepens and American advantages narrow.

It’s tempting to imagine that major powers will sit down and strike a grand bargain to reorder the world - but they won’t.

At least not in West and East Asia.

Grand diplomatic bargains are a European diplomatic tradition. We’re now in a different system and Chinese diplomatic traditions will soon come to the fore.

European diplomacy emerged from a fractured, competitive system of roughly equal states, and it carried the imprint of that history: balance-of-power thinking, formal congresses, legally codified settlements, and the expectation that rivals can be brought to the table and bound by mutually recognised agreements.

Chinese diplomatic tradition, by contrast, developed within a hierarchical order centred on a dominant civilisation-state, where stability derived less from negotiated equilibrium than from acknowledged primacy, managed asymmetry, and relational ties rather than fixed legal bargains.

Where the European model seeks closure through grand settlements and clearly delimited spheres, the Chinese approach has historically been more incremental, status-conscious, pragmatic and fluid—preferring calibrated adjustment, deference, and long-term positioning over definitive, one-off bargains.

So what can we expect to happen?

In Europe, we’ll maybe see the last grand diplomatic bargain. Russia’s settlement of the Ukraine conflict, will reconcile Europe’s legitimate interests with its own realities on the ground, and secure a lasting peace.

The United States and Europe are not in a position to argue. Their diplomacy (and strategic acumen) has been found wanting. Their relative power has declined, their domestic politics constraining strategic flexibility, and their alliances no longer instruments of unified design but arenas of divergence. Let’s face it, the United States top diplomats are a couple of real estate finance grifters with questionable loyalty to their homeland - and Europe’s best diplomats at the behest of their feckless leaders follow their lead. They cannot impose order, nor can they negotiate its replacement.

In West Asia, China will be reluctant to pursue a decisive, European-style settlement that fixes outcomes, redraws balances, and binds actors into a stable, final arrangement. Instead, it will prefer to call for ceasefires, facilitate dialogue, and position itself as a mediator while avoiding responsibility for enforcing any agreement.

The result will be a system in which a strengthened Iran does not anchor a negotiated regional order, but rather sits within a looser, more fluid hierarchy—one sustained by economic ties, tacit understandings, and shifting alignments. China’s priority is not to close the system through a grand bargain, but to keep it open, stable enough for trade, and flexible enough to preserve its relationships across competing actors, including Iran, the Gulf states, the U.S. and Israel.

In East Asia, the likely result is not a dramatic rupture but a steady unwinding. U.S. forces will thin out—first in function, then in presence—on the Korean Peninsula and, in time, even in Japan. Taiwan’s status will shift from a focal point of confrontation to a question managed within a broader regional accommodation, with integration—formal or otherwise—quietly accepted.

The South China Sea will cease to be contested in practice, becoming an acknowledged sphere of Chinese primacy. What were once flashpoints will be repurposed into channels of coordination, trade, and managed interdependence. The language will remain cautious, even ambiguous, but the substance will be clear: regional states prioritising economic continuity and systemic stability over abstract commitments and open-ended confrontation.

This is what the end of the post–Cold War era looks like. Not a grand settlement, not a new congress of powers, but the quiet end of the near forty-year “frat party” that followed U.S victory. There will be no moment of reckoning where victors and losers gather to formalise a new order. No declarations, no signatures, no clean lines drawn across maps. The expectation of such a moment is itself a relic of a European diplomatic imagination that no longer fits the system taking shape.

We’re in a new era. The United States will not declare retreat; Europe will not declare accommodation; East Asia will not declare hierarchy. But each, in its own way, will begin to act as if these conditions already hold. There will be no formal settlement—and no grand diplomatic bargains to settle relations among the major powers. There will be calibrated adjustments, quiet understandings, and a gradual alignment with the centre. Welcome to the era of Chinese statecraft.

I’m not a big fan of the beach. It reminds me of the never-ending fight between Scottish genetics and the Australian sun. I lost every fight and came home redder than a well-boiled lobster, but like most Australian kids, I still loved the beach - especially sandcastles. There’s no greater joy I have in building this analogy for middle powers and their choices as the tide of change begins to sweep over the sandcastle they helped build.

One of the best things about sandcastles was that others join in. No one built a grand sandcastle alone. Some shaped towers, others carved out defensive walls, others ferried water in cupped hands to bind the structure together. Over time, it became something impressive: layered, interconnected, surprisingly resilient. It had form, function, and—most importantly—a shared belief that it would hold.

This is also how international order is made.

For decades, the U.S.-led system functioned much like that sandcastle. Institutions were shaped, norms embedded, alliances layered like reinforced walls. Trade routes flowed like carefully carved channels. There were flaws—structural weaknesses, uneven foundations—but the collective effort sustained it. More importantly, most participants believed in maintaining it.

But then the tide comes in.

Not suddenly. Not dramatically. But undeniably.

The water creeps forward, first filling the outer trenches, then softening the base of the walls. The edges begin to blur. The new wing built onto the sandcastle by that gawky uncoordinated boisterous orange-haired buffoon weakens the sandcastle walls.

What once looked permanent now looks temporary. The assumption that the castle would stand indefinitely begins to dissolve.

And so the question emerges—not theoretical, but immediate. What do you do when the tide comes in?

Pick up a shovel?

One option is to walk away from the castle entirely and join the group further down the beach—the ones already digging in a different direction.

They are not trying to preserve what was built. They are building something new.

This is the path of integration into an emerging order—one that is not anchored in Washington, but elsewhere. The tools look different. The design is less familiar. The rules are still being negotiated, sometimes imposed. But there is energy there. Momentum. Direction.

To pick up a shovel is to accept that the tide is not an aberration—it is the defining condition.

It means becoming a founding participant in what comes next, rather than a nostalgic defender of what is receding. It requires adjustment: diplomatic, economic, and strategic. It requires learning new norms, engaging new centres of power, and—crucially—accepting that influence now comes from proximity to the builders of the new structure, not loyalty to the old one.

There is risk here. The new castle may not be stable. The builders may not share your interests. You may end up contributing to something that ultimately marginalises you.

But there is also opportunity: to shape the design early, to embed your preferences before the structure hardens.

Walk to the other end of the beach?

A second option is more solitary. You leave both groups—the defenders of the old castle and the builders of the new—and walk down the beach until you find your own stretch of sand. There, you begin again. Smaller, perhaps. More compact. But entirely yours.

This is the logic of independent security.

In practical terms, it means reducing reliance on external guarantees and building capabilities that ensure survival regardless of the fate of larger systems. Historically, this has often meant one thing above all others: nuclear weapons.

A nuclear capability is the ultimate sandcastle reinforcement—not because it stops the tide, but because it deters others from interfering with your space on the beach. It is a declaration: whatever happens to the broader order, this patch of sand is not up for negotiation.

This path offers clarity. Autonomy. A kind of brutal certainty.

But it comes at a cost. It is isolating. When some kid’s mum comes along and offers everyone an ice-cream, you’re not there to receive it. It invites pressure, sanctions, and suspicion. It reduces room for diplomatic manoeuvre. And it does not solve the larger problem—it simply sidesteps it.

You are not saving the castle. You are not shaping the new one. You are building a bunker in the sand and hoping it holds.

Try to hold back the tide?

The third option is the most familiar—and, perhaps, the most instinctive.

You stay where you are. You rally the others. You reinforce the walls. You dig channels to redirect the water. You pile sandbags. You tell yourselves that with enough effort, enough coordination, enough belief, the castle can still be saved.

This is the project of restoring or sustaining the U.S.-led liberal international order.

It is not irrational. The castle is, after all, impressive. It delivered decades of relative stability and prosperity. Its institutions still function. Its alliances still exist. Its defenders are still numerous and, in many cases, powerful.

Though in the end, the problem is not a lack of effort. It is not even a lack of resources. The problem is the tide and it ain’t stopping.

Structural shifts—economic, technological, geopolitical—are moving the water in ways that no amount of shovelling can fully reverse. Power has diffused. The balance between continental and maritime forces has shifted. The assumptions that underpinned the original design no longer hold in the same way.

Trying to hold back the sea risks exhausting energy on a fundamentally losing proposition. Worse, it can blind participants to alternative strategies—locking them into a defensive posture as the environment transforms around them.

This is not to say the effort is meaningless. Parts of the castle may be preserved. Elements may be carried over into whatever comes next.

But the idea that the structure can be fully maintained as it was—that you can repair what that gawky uncoordinated boisterous orange-haired buffoon wrecked, or that the tide can be pushed back indefinitely—is increasingly difficult to sustain.

Make a choice - now!

You’re now sunburnt, and there’s probably just an hour or two until your skin will be so painful to the touch that you’ll regret ever having gone to the beach. What do you do?

The reality, of course, is that most states will not choose just one path. They will hedge. They will hedge awkwardly, inconsistently, sometimes incoherently.

They will pick up a shovel with one hand, reinforce the old walls with the other, and quietly begin sketching out their own small castle further down the beach.

But hedging is not a strategy. It is a delay. At some point, choices harden. Resources are finite. Commitments become visible. Others begin to respond. And so the question returns, sharper each time the water advances.

Do you help build what comes next? Do you secure yourself against it? Or do you try, against the tide, to preserve what is slipping away? There is no perfect answer. Only trade-offs. But one thing is clear. The incoming tide is not going to slow down.

Support, share, comment, and/or subscribe - Buy Me a Coffee!

In Western culture, nuclear weapons are often considered unusable—a taboo embedded over decades in public consciousness. But taboos are not fixed. Like other norms, they erode under pressure. The willingness of the Trump Administration to openly sideline international law and international norms suggest that constraints once thought firm are now conditional.

It is only a short step further to accept the use of nuclear weapons.

Deterrence theory always posited that nuclear weapons are not unusable; they are conditionally usable. Their purpose is to impose catastrophic risk—and they become viable when three conditions converge: existential loss, failing conventional options, and shrinking time. Under these pressures, nuclear weapons shift from deterrent to last resort—not necessarily to win, but to prevent what is perceived as an intolerable outcome.

What, then, constitutes an intolerable outcome for Israel and the United States?

In considering this, it is important to think not in the context of values (how or why the war started), but rather the current situation and what the trajectory suggests is the worst case outcome. Scarily, both Israel and the U.S. fit within the framework for nuclear first use.

Israel’s nuclear posture was once tied to survival. Since securing conventional dominance within the region, its nuclear posture transformed to regional domination. The emergence of Iran as a regional competitor that can both punish Israel and restrict U.S. action in the region reset Israeli calculations. A worst case outcome leaves Israel unable to decisively weaken Iran through conventional means, and unable to rely on the U.S. for support (see below).

In this case, delay does not stabilise the environment; it shifts the balance. Israel faces a closing strategic window that it may believe is a threat to its survival.

Nuclear use, in this logic, would not be about battlefield outcomes but about resetting that trajectory—imposing costs so severe that the emerging regional order is disrupted before it consolidates. It is a logic of pre-emption at the highest level of escalation.

The United States operates on a different scale, but the underlying reasoning converges. Its concern is not immediate survival, but systemic position.

The U.S. focuses on three regions: Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia. The Middle East is a critical segment of the broader strategic rimland that underpins U.S. global influence. Losing effective control over it would reverberate through energy markets, alliance structures, and perceptions of American reliability.

A regional loss will cascade—undermine credibility in other theatres and accelerate challenges from peer competitors. It would weaken and potentially lead to U.S. departure from both Europe and East Asia. Nuclear use would effectively be seen as a means of halting sudden and precipitous decline. Again, it is a logic of pre-emption at the highest level of escalation.

Compounding this structural logic are political conditions that heighten risk.

• First, both administrations have dehumanized their opponents, narrowing the space for restraint.

• Second, both are morally compromised, subordinating values to expediency. If you’ll bomb schools, you’ll use nukes.

• Third, both show an inability to signal clearly, coupled with a tendency toward deception—raising the risk of miscalculation.

• Fourth, Israel has demonstrated an ability to shape U.S. decision-making in ways that do not clearly align with American national interests. Striking Iran was not in U.S. interests. Paradoxically, escalation and nuclear use now brings the debacle more into line with U.S. national interests.

• Fifth, both states are supported by largely weak, compromised, and compliant political classes, lacking the leadership and strategic awareness necessary to recognize and resist escalation risks.

The danger lies precisely here. Nuclear use emerges from coherent, internally consistent reasoning under extreme pressure. If Israel sees a closing window and the United States sees cascading decline, both may conclude that the costs of inaction exceed the risks of escalation.

The war was launched on a shifting, inadequate frame: Iran seeks nuclear weapons, sponsors terror, and its people want regime change then became about oil and the Straits of Hormuz. It began without strategy, preparation, public support, or allied consultation. In such conditions, nuclear use is not a breakdown of logic—but its culmination.