The United States faces a critical window to conclude its military campaign against Iran before the March 31 summit between President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping. Delaying a resolution risks handing Tehran leverage to wait for the summit’s outcome and then seek Beijing’s backing. This gamble, though risky, may appear preferable to Iran’s hardliners than immediate concessions.
If the conflict drags on, markets could grow jittery, oil prices may surge past $100 a barrel, and regional actors—from Gulf states to Russia—could recalibrate their positions. Israel and the United States might find themselves on increasingly shaky ground. Within a month, Iranian hardliners could regain the upper hand, arguing for prolonged resistance. Trump, under pressure, might then make strategic errors, worsening the situation.
For these reasons, Washington should aim to end active hostilities within one to two weeks, declare victory, and let the Iranian political landscape evolve. A summit with a diminished Iranian threat on the table would then allow for a reassessment of options. Iran already faces a significant power vacuum; its defenses and nuclear capabilities could be substantially degraded in that timeframe. A pause could open the door to a different trajectory.
Yet the longer the war continues, the more uncertainties multiply. Iran is not Gaza or Ukraine. The region’s complexity—spanning Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Gulf—means that prolonged conflict could create a geopolitical void destabilizing Central Asia, Pakistan, Turkey, the Caucasus, and the Gulf directly. Countries like Turkey, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, and Pakistan could face adverse spillover effects.
The Temptation of Total Victory
The idea of Iran’s complete surrender may be tempting, but the timeline and cost are uncertain, especially with Russian and Chinese involvement. A victory achieved solely through force, without a political settlement, could reinforce the belief that raw power is the only solution. This logic could spread, convincing other nations that only a nuclear arsenal can shield them from America’s unpredictable anger.
North Korea, with its massive nuclear stockpile, already exemplifies this reality. Many states may now seek to emulate Pyongyang’s model, sparking the first multipolar nuclear arms race. Instead of North Korea adopting liberal global norms, the world could see norms shaped by Pyongyang. Kim Jong-un’s hereditary dictatorship might become an envy of world leaders, condemning billions to endless misery.
Many desired a multipolar world where the United States would no longer act as the global policeman. They got it: each country, including America, now focuses narrowly on its own interests, often ignoring the global commons. Trump, consciously or not, has adopted a selfish geopolitical approach: eliminate threats without regard for the order left behind. This mirrors the U.S. exits from Afghanistan and Iraq, where democracy and stability were abandoned in favor of short-term threat elimination.
With Iran, the same logic may apply: either Tehran makes peace and changes its regime, or it is eliminated as a threat. This solution may appeal to some in Turkey and Saudi Arabia, who might prefer a weakened Iran over a pro-Western one that could force them to reassess their positions. But if the war continues indefinitely, Iran could become a failed state, creating a vast void from Iraq to Afghanistan.
The overall approach disrupts the international rules established after World War II. As Cardinal Pietro Parolin noted, “The law of force has replaced the force of law.” Without rules, chaos affects everyone, even the strongest. The plight of migrants, both American and European, stems from such destabilization.
China’s Hedgehog Strategy
China, unlike Russia, has remained cautious. Xi Jinping has progressively less political space—his allies are disappearing—and he is far less powerful internationally than the Soviet Union was. But Beijing’s strategy differs fundamentally. The USSR sought to spread communism globally; China’s primary focus is system survival. In this, China is prepared.
Beijing’s approach resembles that of a hedgehog: it extends quills that stay tightly connected to the body. If a quill becomes problematic, it is cut. This flexibility allows China to avoid overextension. Its unmatched industrial strength, particularly in rare earths, gives it leverage. After the Trump-Xi summit, China may assess whether America is stronger or weaker, and adjust its support for Iran accordingly.
If the conflict ends soon, the worst outcomes may be avoided. But if it drags on, the world could slide into a hedgehog order where only nuclear deterrence matters. The United States should end the war now, before the summit, to prevent this scenario. As the Hormuz blockade raises stakes ahead of the Trump-Xi summit, the window for decisive action is narrowing. A prolonged campaign could also lead to a Pyrrhic victory, where short-term gains come at the cost of long-term stability. The alternative is a world where finishing the job against Iran’s regime becomes a never-ending cycle of conflict.
