Dov S. Zakheim, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, warned the United States may face an unprecedented challenge in any direct confrontation with China: a four-way axis consisting of China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran. Zakheim’s analysis highlights a grim reality—any war involving China is unlikely to be fought in isolation, as its allies are poised to play significant roles that could stretch U.S. military resources thin across multiple theaters of operation.

Understanding the Four-Way Axis

Zakheim emphasizes that China’s alliances are not merely symbolic. Russia, North Korea, and Iran have each demonstrated their willingness to assist allies in need, as evidenced during Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine. According to Zakheim, “The war in Ukraine has demonstrated that the four-way axis of Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran is very real.” Each member has actively supported Russia in its conflict, setting a dangerous precedent for how they might align in support of China.

• Russia: Moscow could amplify China’s military capabilities by providing advanced chemical, biological, or space-based weapons, while simultaneously threatening NATO’s eastern flank to force the U.S. to divert resources to Europe. Zakheim warns that Russia could also mobilize forces against NATO or attack an ally, further complicating U.S. strategic calculations.
• North Korea: Pyongyang, deeply indebted to China for its survival during the Korean War, could supply troops and artillery to Beijing or destabilize the region by attacking South Korea or launching ballistic missiles toward the U.S. mainland. Zakheim notes, “At a minimum, Pyongyang can be expected to send troops, artillery, and other systems to bolster China’s capabilities.”
• Iran: Tehran could send drones and other weapons to China while escalating tensions in the Middle East, targeting vital shipping lanes like the Red Sea to stretch American naval forces. Iran’s support could flow seamlessly through Russia or the Caspian Sea, bypassing chokepoints vulnerable to U.S. and allied control.

The Compounding Challenges for the U.S.

This four-way axis presents a complex scenario for the United States. Each member of the alliance could draw U.S. attention to different regions, forcing Washington to fight a multi-front war. Resources diverted to defend NATO allies in Europe or protect South Korea would be unavailable for countering China in the Indo-Pacific. Zakheim underscores, “A war with China would therefore not be a war with China alone.”

The U.S. military’s ability to respond to simultaneous global conflicts is already under scrutiny. Decades of focusing on counterterrorism and smaller-scale conflicts have left gaps in readiness for large-scale, high-intensity warfare. Military analysts argue that such a conflict would expose vulnerabilities in U.S. supply chains, force readiness, and munitions stockpiles—all of which would be exacerbated by the need to counteract Russia, North Korea, and Iran simultaneously.

Strategic and Historical Context

Zakheim’s analysis aligns with broader concerns about America’s ability to deter or respond to great-power conflicts. Historically, U.S. grand strategy has aimed to prevent the emergence of a regional hegemon in Eurasia—an approach that has required sustained military commitments in Europe and Asia. However, the rise of China has shifted the strategic focus, with policymakers increasingly concerned about Beijing’s military and economic assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific.

Past U.S. policies have aimed to maintain dominance through alliances, forward-deployed forces, and advanced weaponry. Yet the alliances among China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran represent a direct challenge to this approach. These countries have learned to coordinate their actions, creating a scenario where U.S. global commitments are continually tested. “American planners must ensure that each of Beijing’s allies will fear American reprisals if any one of them comes to China’s assistance,” Zakheim advises.

Recommended U.S. Strategy

Zakheim argues that the U.S. must prepare for this potential coalition by adopting a multifaceted strategy:

1. Global Deterrence: Washington should maintain military forces in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia to deter both Russian and North Korean aggression. This approach would also tie down the forces of these adversaries, limiting their capacity to assist China.
2. Targeted Pressure: U.S. planners must ensure that each member of the axis fears significant reprisals if they intervene in a U.S.-China conflict. For example, credible threats of economic sanctions or military retaliation could serve as deterrents.
3. Alliance Strengthening: Strengthening ties with NATO, Japan, South Korea, and other allies is critical to share the burden of countering threats from China and its partners. Enhanced cooperation, such as joint military exercises and intelligence sharing, would bolster collective security.
4. Middle East Presence: Despite calls for reducing U.S. involvement in the region, a robust Middle Eastern presence is vital to counter Iran’s influence and ensure the security of vital shipping lanes. Zakheim highlights the importance of maintaining forces to “project sufficient power both to pressure Iran and to eliminate the Houthi threat to shipping.”

Zakheim’s warning is clear: A war with China will not be fought in isolation. The United States must approach this challenge with a holistic strategy that accounts for the four-way axis of China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran. By maintaining robust global commitments and deterring these allies, the U.S. can better prepare for the complexities of modern great-power competition. However, this will require difficult choices, sustained investment, and a renewed focus on building and maintaining global alliances. Zakheim’s conclusion serves as a call to action: “The new administration would do well to plan against such a scenario and retain forces in both Europe and the Middle East to prevent the four-way axis from working as one.”

ACZ Editor: Unfortunately the Biden Administration has been thinking in one-dimensional terms on this multi-dimensional issue. Biden’s approach to foreign policy has fostered weakness and doubt, not what you would want in creating a united front with one’s allies. Trump had started working with NK’s Kim, and had working relationships with Putin and Xi, but he will likely have to start over in his next term.