Seth Cropsey
Subject: Containing the New Axis Powers: China, Russia and Iran
Bio: President of the Yorktown Institute and Author of Breaking the New Axis: A US Grand Strategy for Eurasia
Transcript:
Containing the New Axis Powers: China, Russia and Iran
What Happens Next in 6 Minutes - 07.27.2026
Larry Bernstein:
Welcome to What Happens Next. My name is Larry Bernstein. What Happens Next is a podcast that covers economics, politics, and history. Today’s episode is Containing the New Axis Powers: China, Russia and Iran.
Our speaker is Seth Cropsey is the President of the Yorktown Institute and the author of a new book entitled Breaking the New Axis: A US Grand Strategy for Eurasia.
I want to learn from Seth about why the Eurasian land mass is critical to American security. In addition, I want to hear about why the lack of ideological coherence of our adversaries is a weakness that we can exploit.
Seth, can you please begin with six minutes of opening remarks.
Seth Cropsey:
American foreign policy has to deal with one superpower China, another near competitor Russia, and Iran. What is our strategy?
There are three schools: the most extreme is the isolationist approach, we can simply protect our borders and we’ll be safe. The second is China is the biggest threat so our resources should pivot toward China to prevent its global dominance.
The third school, which I would include myself in, is that our security, diplomacy, economic relationships, technology rest on understanding that the threats come from Eurasia, Europe and Asia, everything from the English Channel to the South China Sea. Europe, the West Pacific and the Middle East offer different economic opportunities, raw materials and finished goods and exclusion from any one of them would be like taking away the third leg from a stool.
Larry Bernstein:
What did we accomplish the Iran war, and is it part of an ongoing Eurasian conflict?
Seth Cropsey:
We destroyed a lot of Iranian military assets and hurt the Iranian economy significantly. The long-term consequences don’t look good because of the memorandum of understanding, there’s no effective compliance requirement to maintain the status quo in their search for nuclear weapons and the question of their increasing production of ballistic missiles is not addressed.
The ballistic missile production was harmed. It was not destroyed. It’s going to come back. And against their pledge of good performance, we’ve promised to provide economic relief in terms of sanctions and an ending of the blockade. The only assurance that that agreement has of Iranian compliance is the current administration’s threat to go to war again.
The history of the West complying with agreements with problematic states is bad. Going back to the Versailles Treaty, where Germany rearmed and no one did anything about it. The anti-ballistic missile treaty required the Soviet Union not to use radars. The Russians built a radar before and during the Reagan administration, but we did nothing in return. The Oslo agreement that Israel signed with the United States required certain behaviors of the Palestinians, which they quickly failed to observe.
Larry Bernstein:
We have enemies and Iran is one. What do we do about it? We can destroy their military forces. We can try to do a regime change which may require ground forces and we can apply economic sanctions.
Seth Cropsey:
And we can also arm their population that protests against the regime.
Larry Bernstein:
Trump and Netanyahu destroyed their existing nuclear supply, their existing ballistic missiles and destroyed their naval forces.
Seth Cropsey:
The ballistic missile production was harmed. It was not destroyed.
Larry Bernstein:
It’s a whack-a-mole situation.
Seth Cropsey:
It’s going to come back, yes.
Larry Bernstein:
Years ago, Ben Gurion made a statement that what distinguished Israel’s defense strategy was that it could not employ land forces to take over Arab capitals and subjugate them. What they could do is destroy their existing military equipment knowing that they would re-arm and attack Israel again. That’s the cards they’ve been dealt.
As we describe three foes of the United States (China, Russia, and Iran), we can’t use ground forces to destroy these enemies. We have economic sanctions that we’re currently employing against Iran maybe not for long, and also with Russia, but we’re limited of what we can do.
Seth Cropsey:
I’m concerned that the current memorandum of understanding tells me nothing more than to expect another war to take place at some time in the future.
Larry Bernstein:
For sure, because that’s our only option available to us unless there’s a regime change, or they decide that they do not want to destroy the United States or its allies.
Seth Cropsey:
Greater force could have destroyed Iran’s energy infrastructure.
Larry Bernstein:
There was fear that Iran would destroy our Gulf allies’ petrochemical infrastructure. It was a mutual assured destruction strategy for petrochemicals and that would create significant economic pain in the United States that weighed in the decision.
Seth Cropsey:
Which would be worse: their possession of a nuclear weapon and ballistic missiles in the near future, or the sort of damage that you described. I think the former would be worse.
Larry Bernstein:
Do you think we’re worse off than having not destroyed their existing military capacity?
Seth Cropsey:
We’re worse off now, yes. A famous Italian political philosopher observed that if you’re going to kill a king, make sure you don’t fail. We’ve stirred up the hornet’s nest and laid the way for them to recover financially by lifting sanctions against promises, which we should know they’re not going to observe.
If they out wait Trump, they know that they have a reasonable chance of facing an American president who is less likely than Trump to use force. And with the rift in his supporters that the war has caused, it’s a reasonable calculation that Trump would not use force again.
Larry Bernstein:
You learn in conflicts, both sides. The world learned that the Strait of Hormuz is more delicate than expected because of technological improvements with drones. The Saudis are now aware of it and they’re beginning construction of additional pipelines to take oil that would otherwise go through the strait. There’s also possibility of a canal.
Seth Cropsey:
A canal would make a lot of sense.
Larry Bernstein:
These aren’t expensive compared to a carrier group. I expect that these pipelines and canals will be built and be operational probably in two to three years. They don’t want to be paying this tax to the Iranians. How will this change the dynamic of future administration’s ability to be more aggressive?
Seth Cropsey:
If the oil did not have to flow through the Strait of Hormuz that’s a good thing, but that does not answer the question of ballistic missiles, which already can reach the Gulf States from Iran with no trouble. And if their production is ramped up even without a nuclear weapon that also presents a threat.
Larry Bernstein:
UAE and Saudis are aware that they have soft targets in their petrochemical infrastructure as well as their desalination plants. They could harden those assets.
Seth Cropsey:
They certainly could and we could help them.
Larry Bernstein:
Let’s move to the Russia-Ukraine situation. How should we think about this conflict in your paradigm of maximizing US security and emphasizing the importance of the Eurasian landmass as being critical to our security?
Seth Cropsey:
Putin looks at the expansion of Russia the way the Czars did in the 16th century. He understands that without productive military capabilities that Ukraine brings, Russia remains short of being an imperial power. I take Putin’s words seriously that the dissolution of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical disaster of the 20th century and he means to reverse it.
Larry Bernstein:
How has this Ukraine war influenced Putin’s position?
Seth Cropsey:
It’s not clear that Putin has an accurate grasp of the casualties that the Russian military is taking or the amount of destruction.
Larry Bernstein:
I found surprising the ineffectiveness of the Russian Navy versus Ukrainian bomb-laden jet skis and drones. The Russians have abandoned the Black Sea. If they can’t even beat a country that doesn’t have a Navy, imagine what Americans would do to them.
Seth Cropsey:
It’s a significant setback for them and the Ukrainians accomplished it through imagination and determination. But as long as Putin is willing to accept the casualties for moving the front forward, kilometer by kilometer, the West faces the possibility that the war will be resolved in Russia’s favor. If he thinks that he is successful in Ukraine, the danger that exists there applies elsewhere in Europe.
Larry Bernstein:
Imagine that Ukraine had been a member of NATO during this attack. Would it have resulted in World War?
Seth Cropsey:
The entire point of NATO, which is a defensive alliance would have been proven correct. The threat of having to face the joint efforts of the United States and the European countries would deter him from attacking Ukraine in the first place.
Larry Bernstein:
And if it didn’t?
Seth Cropsey:
Then there’d be a fight.
Larry Bernstein:
It’s also possible that Trump would have said, “We’re not going to fulfill our treaty obligations.” Would that have been worse?
Seth Cropsey:
Yes, that’s true.
Larry Bernstein:
We should never have expanded the NATO alliance to include Ukraine. It’s always been Russian. You can see Trump making these arguments. I’m not sure that there would have been bipartisan support for a major war against Russia to fulfill these obligations.
Seth Cropsey:
That’s a separate question from what the consequences would be if Ukraine had been a member of NATO.
Larry Bernstein:
I understand that it could have deterred Russia, but there’s some probability it wouldn’t have.
Seth Cropsey:
That’s true.
Larry Bernstein:
Biden did say, “Don’t do it. I see you on the border, demanding that you respect the borders of Ukraine.”
Seth Cropsey:
But how likely was Putin to take Biden’s word seriously?
Larry Bernstein:
How seriously would Putin have taken the NATO obligation?
Seth Cropsey:
Given Europe’s desire not to have a major conflagration in Europe again for the third time in 110 years, pretty good.
Larry Bernstein:
You mentioned in the book that if Ukraine gets lost, that Poland is next, but Poland does incorporate the NATO deterrence. Do you think that the NATO deterrence will work in Poland?
Seth Cropsey:
It will work. NATO would be effective against Russia now. Putin has avoided mass mobilization since the beginning of the war. He won’t go to the families in Petersburg and Moscow to have their sons go into this war.
Larry Bernstein:
It’s probably just as true amongst the Western Europeans as well. I don’t know how effective a draft would be in Spain to defend Poland.
Seth Cropsey:
Well, a draft in Spain wouldn’t produce anything. But if you look at the steps that are being taken in Germany, Poland, the Baltic states, Romania, Italy and England to increase the defense budget, those are already bearing fruit and Putin can see that.
Larry Bernstein:
Russia has been pretty bloodied by this Ukraine war. It’s lost a half a million men. More than a million people, mostly their brightest have emigrated out of Russia. They’ve lost a substantial amount of their munitions. They have to be very disappointed in their military capabilities, watching them against a third-rate armed force like Ukraine to be stalled for four years now. Is there any internal recognition in Russia that they’re very limited what they can accomplish to halt them from invading Poland as an example?
Seth Cropsey:
Russian oligarchs question whether this makes sense to continue losing money, enduring sanctions, losing men, and being an international pariah. People’s tolerance for being ostracized is limited to say nothing of having their national wealth expended on a project that in four years has produced gains that are not commensurate with the sacrifices that have been made.
Larry Bernstein:
Now having seen the Iranian memorandum of understanding, do you anticipate that the US will give up on Ukraine and they will be forced to give up their homeland to the aggressor?
Seth Cropsey:
I think a lot of that is up to us and our ability to work with allies and our strategy. If we are party to Ukraine’s loss of sovereignty, that will have effects around the world, Taiwan being the most obvious one.
Larry Bernstein:
Why are you focused on Eurasia as a single landmass as being important in the context of US strategy?
Seth Cropsey:
The question is whether we focus on China to the exclusion of everything else. That I think is a mistake because of the connections between the Middle East, the Far East and Europe. The productive capabilities of East Asia cannot be separated from the energy from the Middle East, and neither can be separated from the financial and technological advantages and the political, cultural, economic, historical connections that we have with Europe. The argument is to see Eurasia as a whole, rather than three parts, two of which can be regarded as lesser in favor of China.
Larry Bernstein:
How should we think about India as an ally as a member of the Quad, particularly regarding the defense of Taiwan and as a bulwark against Chinese aggression? What level of Indian support should we expect in a conflict with China in the Indian Ocean?
Seth Cropsey:
For the import of oil, ships have to pass through the Indian Ocean if they’re going to East Asia. And for the export of Chinese goods to Europe, the Indian Ocean is necessary transit. India is a place of significant strategic importance, and that’s why it’s not necessarily a good idea to have changed the name of what the Trump administration had originally called the Indo-Pac Command to its former name Pacific Command, PACOM.
Larry Bernstein:
I suspect that the Japanese would be brought into the war. I don’t imagine the Chinese would be able to export goods to Japan.
The Middle Eastern powers will have to choose a side and may be unwilling to export oil to China or alternatively the US Navy could prevent it.
What is the Chinese trade and export plan with a Taiwanese conflict?
Seth Cropsey:
It’s an uncertain situation because we don’t know their strategy, but when you frame it in those terms. If they went for a blockade, that’s an act of war, but nobody’s shooting things. What would our reaction be?
Larry Bernstein:
We’re going to blockade China.
Seth Cropsey:
The Chinese want to avoid counterblockades. They want to resolve a situation militarily by doing it quickly. Then it’s all over and that can be put aside while the West continues to import goods from China.
A large amphibious assault preceded by a tremendous missile barrage avoids the economic problem that you rightly point out.
Larry Bernstein:
I want to talk about demographics. The reason why the Eurasian landmass is so important is this is where most people live. Where is the world’s GDP away from the United States? It’s in the European Asian landmass.
Seth Cropsey:
The combined GDP of Eurasia is greater than that of the United States.
Larry Bernstein:
Europe and Asias populations are in incredible decline. The Democratic Republic of the Congo, as an alternative, in 1960, its population was 15 million. It’s now 115 million, expected to be 215 million by 2050 and 325 million by 2075 and by 2090 its population will be greater than the United States. GDP follows population to some extent and Africa will become a much more important part of the world. South Korea, its population is expected to fall 80% at current rates between now and 2100 and will not be a material economic power. How should we think about population driving economies and reducing the relative importance of the European Asian land mass as it depopulates?
Seth Cropsey:
I don’t see the West situation as being hopeless. I think it’s remediable, but that would take a considerable shift in the political, social, and cultural currents that run not only in Europe but increasingly here.
Larry Bernstein:
I want to go back to Taiwan. The Chinese violated the terms of their Hong Kong treaty during the first Trump administration. Trump called them out and asked for international support to push back against the Chinese and there was radio silence from our European and Asian allies. Trump said, “Nobody cares. What do you want from me? “ Is what we saw in Hong Kong a precursor of the international reaction for Taiwan?
Seth Cropsey:
I’d like to believe not, but a more vigorous reaction response requires an important nation to take the lead.
Larry Bernstein:
As an example, the United States took the lead on the Iran situation. The Europeans, the Indians, they didn’t care. They were, if anything, opposed to the US action. Could you imagine a situation where if the United States said we’re going to boycott China, that the Europeans would say that’s a violation of international law, we want our stuff?
Seth Cropsey:
If United States leadership is serious about its goals, willing to explain what they are and to back them up with the means necessary, the support of others is desirable; it’s not necessary.
Larry Bernstein:
It’s a big world and the United States has a number of foes and you’ve also mentioned that the only way to push back on that is through an alliance system. But if the allies neither arm nor are supportive with those arms during conflicts, it doesn’t allow for this interchange.
Seth Cropsey:
That’s why alliance management is so important.
Larry Bernstein:
Earlier I asked you about the Spanish if they were to tolerate a draft, you said they’re not going to show up and I believe you. Maybe the Poles will show up I could see the South Koreans showing up. Actually, maybe the South Koreans won’t show up.
Seth Cropsey:
The English, the French and the Italians deployed carrier strike groups to the Taiwan Strait within the past two years. They showed up. They understand what’s at risk there. I don’t count them out.
Larry Bernstein:
One of the aspects of your book is that countries end up doing what’s in their interests. Modi’s relationship with Trump is not critical to your prediction for Indian behavior.
Seth Cropsey:
Talk to 10 senior Indians and see what you think.
Larry Bernstein:
What I would find out is that they’re not aligned.
Seth Cropsey:
Their opinions are not held universally.
Larry Bernstein:
For sure. And that is true in the United States as well.
Seth Cropsey:
Yeah.
Larry Bernstein:
The progressive left and John Bolton don’t agree on first principles.
In each podcast, I end on a note of optimism. Seth, what are you optimistic about as it relates to the Eurasian landmass?
Seth Cropsey:
The profound ideological differences between the Iranians and the Russians and the Chinese are certain to produce fracturing in the future. There is no line through China, Russia, and Iran the way there was between Germany and the Soviet Union before the Ribbentrop deal came undone. There was a commonality of ideology, authoritarian-fascist, but the lack of an ideological connection spells trouble for the axis and we ought to take advantage of it.
Larry Bernstein:
Thanks to Seth for joining us.
If you missed our previous podcast, it was Following the Terrorist’s Money.
Our two speakers were Eyal Azoulay and Ellie who founded an Israeli Not-for-profit called ColEven. Terrorists move money from their Western supporters to the Middle East to fund their nefarious affairs despite the efforts of Western banks to stop it.
ColEven’s staff of former Israeli intelligence professionals follow the cash and then inform the banks to shut it down.
You can find our previous episodes and transcripts on our website. Please follow us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.
I am Larry Bernstein with the podcast What Happens Next.
Check out our previous episode, Following the Terrorist’s Money, here.
