As simple rules that history constantly repeats, without us ever really listening. Among them: never attack without being prepared for the worst.
We live in a world where power dynamics are no longer as they seem. Power is no longer just measured in armored divisions, military budgets, or number of aircraft carriers. It hides in the value chains, in narrow maritime straits, in the invisible dependencies that we have built for ourselves. Power is no longer upfront; it is oblique. It does not strike where we look, but where we depend.
China understands this better than anyone. Faced with commercial attacks from the United States, pressured to yield under the weight of tariffs, technological restrictions, and sanctions against its most iconic companies, China could have responded symmetrically. It did not. It chose a different battlefield. One where it is indispensable. Where, silently, it holds the rest of the world in check. China does not just produce goods; it controls the essential conditions of their production. It refines most of the rare earths, essential materials for energy transition, modern aircraft, and guided missiles. It dominates battery manufacturing chains, holds key positions in accessing strategic minerals, from Congolese cobalt to South American lithium. It can slow down, direct, suspend. It can, without firing a single shot, disrupt entire economies. Therefore, when faced with the US president’s tariffs, China mentions the possibility of restricting exports of gallium, germanium, or graphite, reminding that the most effective response is not tit for tat, but hitting where the opponent cannot defend themselves.
In response, the United States hesitated, retreated, circumvented. They were not prepared for the worst. They did not imagine that China could ruin most of their businesses within months. They are now trying to rebuild industrial and technological sovereignty that, out of pride, they let crumble. But this reconstruction will take decades. Dependence, however, is immediate. Yet China, aware of this absolute power, did not fully exploit this fatal weapon; because it knows that its power also rests on system stability. Because it thinks long term.
Iran, on the other hand, plays a different game. More brutal, more risky, but based on the same logic. Under military attack, threatened in its very existence, the regime of mullahs and pasdarans is not just seeking to match an infinitely superior power head-on. It shifts the conflict to survive. It chooses its battlefield. The Strait of Hormuz, whose existence the US president seemed to ignore: a narrow passage, barely a scar on the world’s geography, through which over a fifth of the world’s oil and everything that fuels the bordering countries transit. Simply by selectively closing it, the Iranian regime can shake things up, potentially causing a recession and inflation that could impact the global economy. For this, the Iranian regime just needs a few naval mines, some fast boats, missiles, drones, and the support of groups like the Houthis. And where China holds back because it knows its strength, the mullahs’ Iran, threatened with disappearance, might be tempted to fully leverage this to push the Americans out of the region. And more.
This recalls an obvious truth, as recently mentioned in a private conversation by Niall Ferguson: power is never symmetrical. It is about intertwined dependencies, unstable balances, hidden vulnerabilities. Vietnam showed this against the United States. Russia demonstrated it against Europe using gas as a political lever. So many examples throughout the centuries convey the same message: the weak point of the strong is always where they are not looking.
To this adds another often forgotten truth: the adversary is almost always a partner. China is the US’s top trading partner. Iran, despite the horror of the regime and its willingness to destroy its people rather than disappear, is a major player in energy, a rising power. It is important to consider the risks when attacking seriously.
From these two seemingly different situations emerges a universal rule. A rule elevated to doctrine during the Cold War: deterrence. Do not attack someone who can destroy you in return without considering this risk. Even if they are weaker. Especially if they are weaker.
This logic applies not only to states but also to our lives:
Before thinking about attacking a competitor, in any context, in a market or in private life, you must first identify what vulnerabilities you have. Understand what the other can destroy without harming themselves. Evaluate not just their apparent strength, but their actual capacity to cause harm. Be prepared to face the consequences of the risks taken. Only engage in the battle when it is truly worth it, especially when defending values.
In literature and cinema, tragedies often originate from this initial mistake: attacking someone whose hidden power is unknown without having the means to counterattack. Macbeth triggers his downfall while seeking to secure his power. In The Godfather, those trying to weaken the Corleones spark a war they can no longer control, leading to their destruction.
Wisdom does not lie in avoiding all conflicts. It lies in knowing which ones are worth engaging in and assessing the risks one is willing to take.
…
Sources: Based on content from original article.
Fact Check: Niall Ferguson is a renowned historian and commentator known for his work on international relations and economics.
Context: The article discusses the complex power dynamics and strategies employed by China and Iran in response to challenges from major powers like the United States. It emphasizes the importance of understanding vulnerabilities and risks before engaging in conflicts.
