The Dragon’s Puppeteering: Deterrence by Entanglement

As of mid-April 2026, the traditional architecture of the Western alliance is changing. Across Europe and Asia, NATO and other alliances are being traded for a dystopian reality: a world where economic survival is dictated by Beijing, and military-diplomatic alignment with Washington is seen as a liability.

China encourages Western nations to isolate Israel, and to “tag” it as the “bad guy.” While China portrays its ally Iran, as the “victim” of US and Israeli aggression.

This “Grand Disintegration” is not accidental; it is the culmination of China’s strategic use of economic entanglement combined with political cooptation to isolate the United States and its alliances, especially the US alliance with Israel. The goal is to weaken global opposition to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP’s) long-term Indo-Pacific objective of annexing Taiwan and the so-called “South China Sea.” The means are Sun Tzu’s second strategy of disrupting or destroying your enemies’ alliances or the classic Roman “divide and conquer.”

The Rupture: A War of Words

The most visible sign of the CCP’s emerging efforts to destroy or disrupt alliances is the vitriol directed at Israel. Two examples illustrate this situation.

In South Korea, President Lee Jae-myung ignited a firestorm by proposing analogies between Israeli military conduct in its the war against Hamas to the Wehrmacht’s operations in occupied territories during the Holocaust, and the historical trauma of Korean “comfort women.” President Lee concluded his ill-conceived analogies by accusing Israel of failing to reflect on universal criticisms.

Lee proposed these grotesque offensive historical parallels on the eve of Holocaust Remembrance Day, which signaled a flawed South Korean leadership that is ignorant, subject to cognitive manipulation, and rude.

In Europe, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez positioned Madrid as the “conscience of the continent,” and accused the Netanyahu government of a “contempt for life and international law.” Since the Hamas attack on 7 October 2023, Sánchez’s rhetoric escalated from calls for a ceasefire to explicit accusations of “systematic genocide” and “apartheid.”

Italy and Spain: The Mediterranean Defiance

The rhetoric is backed by tangible military and logistical withdrawal. Italy, once a reliable cornerstone of Mediterranean security, sent shockwaves through Tel Aviv on 14 April 2026, by suspending the automatic renewal of its 2003 bilateral defense cooperation agreement with Israel. While Rome cited the safety of Italian UNIFIL peacekeepers in Lebanon, the move was underscored by a 75% surge in Chinese exports to Italy earlier this year.

Italy’s refusal to provide naval support for US operations in the Strait of Hormuz—and its reported restrictions on US base usage for strikes against Iran—indicates that Rome is “rebalancing” toward a future where its economic lifelines to the East are protected at the cost of its defense ties to the West.

Spain has gone even further. In a direct challenge to US military mobility, Madrid closed its airspace to US aircraft involved in the Iran war and prohibited the use of the jointly operated Rota and Morón bases for combat support operations. This logistical blockade was scheduled to begin during Sánchez’s visit to Beijing, where he courted a 4.1 billion Euro Chinese battery plant for Zaragoza. For Spain, the choice was clear: the potential for Chinese economic investment outweighed the obligation to support a U.S. military venture.

The “Great Transatlantic Balk”: the UK-France Axis

The most alarming development for the US is the “balking” of its nuclear-armed NATO allies, the United Kingdom and France. Prime Minister Starmer has been categorical: the UK will not join the US military blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. This refusal marks a historic low in the “Special Relationship.” Rather than aligning with Washington’s “Operation Epic Fury,” the UK joined France in proposing a “peaceful multinational mission” that pointedly excludes the US military.

This Franco-British axis is forged in the fires of economic necessity. China is now the UK’s third-largest trading partner, and France has become the “Battery Valley” of Europe through Chinese investments in Dunkirk. For Paris and London, the 2026 Iran War represents a threat to supply chains that Beijing now controls. Recently, Prime Minister Keir Starmer faced accusations of kowtowing to Beijing after allegedly forcing the bypass of a failed security review to appoint Lord Mandelson as US Ambassador, despite “red flag” warnings regarding Mandelson’s extensive business ties to China and Russia and his past relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The cooptation is extensive for both Starmer and Macron. By refusing to assist the US, they mistakenly think they are protecting their industrial futures.

The Asian Anchor: Japan and South Korea

In the Pacific, disintegration of alliances is equally stark. Japan, traditionally the “indispensable” US ally, has resisted requests to commit warships to the Middle East, citing constitutional constraints and a lack of public support. With a 1.08 trillion Yen trade deficit with China, Tokyo is terrified that military alignment with a bellicose US administration would trigger a total collapse of its Japan-China integrated supply chains. Prime Minister Takaichi has taken a stronger stand in many national security areas, but it remains to be seen how far she will support the US in the future.

South Korea has followed a similar path of silence and reset. President Lee Jae-myung’s “Beijing Reset” has seen a full restoration of ties with China, moving toward a high-tech Free Trade Agreement that includes AI and green manufacturing. Seoul’s refusal to commit military assets to the US operation against Iran, paired with its blistering critiques of Israel, signal a nation that has miscalculated that the US security umbrella is no longer worth the risk of potential Chinese economic retaliation.

The Moral Disintegration: The Vatican’s Political Reckoning

As Western alliances fracture, a moral front has opened in the Vatican. Pope Leo XIV has issued a blistering indictment of US-Israeli operations in Iran and Lebanon, labeling the conflict an “unjust” war born from a “delusion of omnipotence.” This stance has sparked a rift with the Trump administration, especially after the Pope condemned threats against Iranian civilization as “truly unacceptable” violations of international law. By explicitly stating that “God does not bless any conflict,” the Pope has dismantled the religious rhetoric used to justify the war.

However, the Vatican’s sudden moral assertiveness faces a harsh reckoning with its own historical “immoral precedents” and the paradox of its neutrality framework.

Critics argue that the Holy See’s current outrage is selective, noting its long history of “tacit acceptance” and “legacy of complicity” in past atrocities. The Vatican’s declared neutrality during World War II, and its failure to explicitly condemn the Holocaust have left a permanent stain on its moral standing.

While the Vatican claims “permanent neutrality” under Article 24 of the 1929 Lateran Treaties, its neutrality has been viewed as a tool of realpolitik rather than moral principle. Its current refusal to “take sides” in conflicts like the Russia-Ukraine war has been condemned as a “betrayal of moral authority” in favor of diplomatic posturing.

Critics, including US Vice President JD Vance, have urged the Holy See to “stick to matters of morality” and cease its interference in sovereign political affairs. Father Gerald Murray, a Catholic priest, canon lawyer, and pastor of St. Joseph’s Church in New York City, noted in his recent Free Press article, “The Catholic Case for War with Iran,” that “the attack on Iran was an act of protection, rather than aggression, under just war theory” because the Islamic Republic of Iran “is a relentless enemy, using proxies to kill Americans and America’s allies. There is no doubt that Iran has been and presently is a grave threat.” Steve Witkoff, the senior negotiator, reported:“Both Iranian negotiators said to us directly with, you know, no shame, that they controlled 460 kilograms of 60 percent [enriched uranium] and they’re aware that that could make 11 nuclear bombs, and that was the beginning of their negotiating stance.”

The Rare Earth Trap: Weaponized Supply Chains

One critical entanglement “chokehold” that China exerts over these allies is its near monopoly on critical minerals. Beijing has strategically implemented export license requirements for heavy rare earth elements, including yttrium, terbium, and dysprosium—materials essential for the F-35 warplane, Tomahawk missiles, and advanced radar systems.

In late 2025, China  denied export licenses to companies with any foreign military affiliation, effectively cutting off Western defense contractors from materials with which their militaries cannot function. This situation created procurement delays and longer lead times for US and allied avionics and aeroengine manufacturers. While Israel joined a US-led “Critical Minerals Ministerial” in February 2026 to seek alternatives, China controls more than 90% of global rare earth refining. For allies like the UK, France, and Japan, any military escalation that invites a Chinese embargo on these minerals would disrupt their domestic industrial bases. This industrial paralysis is the ultimate deterrent, forcing Western capitals to prioritize “de-risking” their economies over supporting US military objectives.

Escaping Beijing’s “Rare Earth Trap”

To escape Beijing’s “Rare Earth Trap,” a US-led coalition treats mineral independence as a high-stakes national security mission. This “Grand Decoupling” aims to dismantle China’s refining monopoly through a coordinated 55-nation Mineral Alliance.

Washington launched Project Vault, a $12 billion strategic reserve, to stop China from undercutting the market. The Pentagon granted $400 million to MP Materials, guaranteeing a 10-year price floor. Simultaneously, USA Rare Earth (REalloys) isfast-tracking facilities to secure F-35 magnet production by late 2026.

Britain’s Saltend Refinery targets its first rare earth oxides by late 2026, aiming for a sovereign supply chain by 2030. South Korea’s “K-Mineral” Strategy targets 50% refining independence by 2029, using technological bypasses like rare-earth-free motors (due 2027) to reduce total demand.

The US and Australia doubled joint funding to $3.5 billion to move processing off the mainland, while Vietnam has banned raw ore exports to force domestic refining. Canada is using a $2 billion Canadian dollar sovereign fund to buy direct equity in mines, protecting them from predatory Chinese pricing.

But there is a timeline gap before sufficient production begins.

The Grand Disintegration and the Taiwan Endgame

Beijing is masterfully using its economic leverage—the entanglements of green tech and refining monopolies—to wedge itself between Washington and its critical partners. This moral and political rupture is the visible friction of a planned disintegration. By cultivating dependency in nuclear-armed NATO powers like the UK and France and destabilizing bilateral anchors like South Korea and Japan, China is trying to systematically erode the US alliance network.

The strategy is a calculated long game: as allies “balk” at military assistance and moral authorities like the Pope condemn the war as “senseless and inhuman,” the West becomes increasingly divided. This “window of vulnerability” (also called the “Davidson window of vulnerability”) through 2029—before alternative mineral lifelines are fully operational—is precisely what Beijing aims to exploit. If China moves against Taiwan before 2029, it bets that a resource-starved and morally divided West will be too industrially and politically paralyzed (disintegrated) to provide a collective defense.

We must aggressively execute a threefold strategy to affect the CCP’s risk calculations: a smart strategic disentanglement from China, a robust deterrence by entanglement with our allies, and a commitment to industrial and technological superiority. Concurrently, we must accelerate our forward presence and bolster Taiwan’s self-defense capabilities to ensure any attempt against the island is seen as a guaranteed failure.