Peril Ahead

The previous year was chaotic: conflicts erupted in Gaza, Ukraine, Lebanon, and Sudan; the removal of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad; heightened tensions pitting Israel against Iran, and China against the U.S. and Taiwan; and a record-breaking 4 billion voters who displaced incumbent leaders across multiple nations. What awaits us in 2025?

In this edited dialogue from Jan. 27, Ben Rhodes, former deputy national security adviser and speechwriter for President Barack Obama, examines prospective developments in critical global hotspots and how different nations may respond to some of the new foreign policy concepts proposed by President Donald Trump. Before Trump’s Feb. 4 meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Rhodes shared his insights with the Gazette and will be presenting the Warren and Anita Manshel Lecture in American Foreign Policy this Thursday.

---

Considering the current global chaos, what issues would you emphasize as primary concerns if you were advising the president on national security today?

I would emphasize two main points: We are in a phase where the international order that has governed geopolitics for several decades is gone, and there is a normalization of conflict taking place.

When you consider Ukraine, the Middle East, and Taiwan, the chance of significant power conflict feels unsettlingly high right now. There’s a return to a pre-World War I scenario where rules are absent, large nations disregard norms, and feel at ease with territorial expansion without mechanisms to resolve disputes because the existing system is ineffective. Therefore, the first priority is to acknowledge the serious risk of escalating global conflicts.

The second aspect involves structural challenges: climate change, artificial intelligence, and nuclear armament once more. We seem to be headed towards a new arms race concerning nuclear weapons, a lack of regulations surrounding the proliferation of artificial intelligence, which will generate various risks, and an absence of a unified effort on climate issues. These matters are interconnected. In the absence of diplomacy and strong power relations, both the capacity to prevent conflict and the ability to tackle pressing issues is currently lacking. To me, that represents the largest threat.

U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres recently remarked that the Middle East “is undergoing a significant transformation, filled with uncertainty yet also opportunity.” What could be on the horizon?

There are some encouraging developments. The removal of Assad, undoubtedly, is a very favorable change that opens up avenues for Syria and Lebanon to move toward a brighter future. The Gulf states are not only engaging with each other but also attempting to create a stability paradigm interconnected with the rest of the world based on their autocratic prosperity model.

However, I believe there are substantial challenges ahead. Besides the Palestinian issue, one underrecognized risk currently is the fragility of governments in Egypt and Jordan, which evokes memories of the pre-Arab Spring period. In Egypt, there exists a highly unpopular and corrupt military regime alongside a population that is quite dissatisfied, if not resentful. Meanwhile, in Jordan, there’s a monarchy that is perpetually somewhat vulnerable, hosting a significant Palestinian demographic. Therefore, there exists potential for unforeseen events in the Middle East beyond what is already occurring.

Then, of course, there is the unfinished dilemma regarding Iran. While Iran is indeed weakened, what implications does that have concerning its nuclear agenda? Does this steer us towards pursuing a diplomatic agreement similar to the 2015 nuclear deal, or does it pose a threat of military confrontation involving the U.S. and Iran?

The incoming administration must decide whether to adopt a regime-change strategy for Iran or consider a military option concerning the nuclear issue, considering how advanced the situation is, or if they will seek to resolve the matter diplomatically, believing they possess a stronger negotiating position. Despite Trump’s clarity on multiple matters recently, this question remains relatively unresolved.

“We are witnessing a revival of a pre-World War I scenario marked by an absence of rules, with major nations disregarding norms and becoming comfortable with territorial acquisition.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin and Trump have indicated interest in a broader dialogue that would encompass Ukraine but also nuclear disarmament and the lifting of sanctions, as reported by The New York Times. If this is true, what could that imply?

Putin would certainly aim to expand the conversation since he views Ukraine as part of a larger dispute with the United States, which spans NATO’s future, nuclear disarmament, and sanctions impacting the Russian economy. Consequently, Putin has significant motivation to broaden this dialogue.

I would not be surprised if Trump is inclined to entertain this expansion, as he appears less emotionally invested in the matter of Ukrainian sovereignty and the moral complexities surrounding the conflict. This observation is not intended as a critique: through Trump’s transactional lens, Ukraine represents merely a fragment of a larger scenario.

The Biden administration initially rejected this viewpoint of perceiving Ukraine within a broader context, because for them, it was about
“`

The morality of Russia’s actions in Ukraine is a complex issue. Nevertheless, that is the situation we face, and if widening the agenda leads to possible advantages for Ukraine, it’s worth pursuing. My stance is always in favor of diplomacy, or at the very least, investigating it. However, we must recognize that such efforts may falter unless Trump is ready to negotiate aspects that previous administrations were hesitant to compromise in the U.S.-Russia dynamic.

The state of U.S.-China relations fluctuated during Trump’s first term. Currently, with Trump’s readiness to discuss the TikTok ban while simultaneously raising tariffs, the administration is projecting more ambiguous messages. What trajectory is this relationship taking?

Similar to the situation with Iran, I find it unclear what path Trump intends to follow. He has assembled a national security team comprising individuals who perceive our stance not merely as an economic rivalry with China but as a broader geopolitical and ideological struggle.

I interpreted the TikTok ban as an early signal that Trump’s more practical approach is likely to take precedence. TikTok exemplifies an issue that intertwines ideology and influence, along with some aspects of geopolitics. Despite having legislation passed under the former administration, Trump refrained from escalating the conflict on this front.

This indicates to me that he will concentrate more on trade matters. I anticipate tariffs; I foresee a kind of trade conflict; yet I doubt it will follow the Republican Hawk interpretation of a China strategy that heavily emphasizes Taiwan and focuses on ideological dilemmas.

Some of Trump’s actions may inadvertently benefit China. His shift back to fossil fuels aligns seamlessly with China’s ambition to dominate clean energy innovations and supply networks. Regarding artificial intelligence, China is navigating around numerous sanctions and export restrictions quite effectively, as we’ve observed.

Should I be China during Trump’s administration, I would exploit the various disruptions Trump is likely to cause in Europe, Africa, and Latin America. There may be greater prospects for China during a Trump presidency than what appears on the surface.

What do allies and adversaries make of discussions surrounding the U.S. potentially annexing Greenland, the Panama Canal, or Canada?

I believe the threat regarding Greenland is taken seriously by many. While I am not fond of the notion of reverting to territorial expansionism, the U.S. does have a legitimate interest in Greenland. It is an extensive landmass with vast natural resources that will become more accessible as climate change progresses, and it holds strategic value in relation to Russia and China.

Denmark’s control over Greenland is quite fragile. Among the three options, Greenland appears most likely to become a genuine point of contention.

The Arctic holds immense significance. If Greenland were to become part of the United States or a territory under U.S. control, it would certainly serve U.S. strategic interests. However, my concern is that while there are considerable strategic advantages, the global implications of this could lead to an escalating conflict, which poses a genuine risk.