There are simple rules that history always repeats, rules we never truly listen to. One such rule: never attack without being prepared for the worst.
We live in a world where power dynamics are not what they seem. Power is no longer just about armored divisions, military budgets, or aircraft carriers. It resides in the hidden gaps of value chains, in narrow maritime passages, in the invisible dependencies we have created for ourselves. Power is no longer straightforward; it is oblique. It strikes not where we are looking, but where we are dependent.
China understands this better than anyone. Faced with commercial attacks from the United States, pressured with tariffs, technological restrictions, and sanctions targeting its most iconic companies, China could have retaliated symmetrically. But it didn’t. It chose a different battleground. One where it is indispensable. One where, silently, it holds the rest of the world on a leash. China doesn’t just produce goods; it controls the fundamental conditions of their production. It refines most rare earth elements essential for energy transition, modern aircraft operation, and missile guidance. It dominates battery manufacturing chains, holds strategic mineral access from Congolese cobalt to South American lithium. It can slow down, direct, or suspend. Without firing a single shot, it can disrupt entire economies. When China hints at restricting gallium, germanium, or graphite exports in response to American tariffs, it demonstrates that the most effective retaliation strikes where the adversary cannot defend.
In response, the United States hesitated, retreated, circumvented. They were not prepared for the worst. They never imagined that China could dismantle their businesses in a matter of months. They are now trying to rebuild industrial and technological sovereignty that they let disintegrate out of pride. But this reconstruction will take decades, while dependence is immediate. Yet, China, aware of its absolute power, chose not to fully exploit this fatal weapon, understanding that its strength also lies in the system’s stability and long-term thinking.
Iran, on the other hand, plays a different game. More brutal, riskier, but rooted in a similar logic. Faced with military aggression, threatened in its very existence, the regime chooses survival over direct confrontation with a much more powerful enemy. They alter the conflict to ensure their survival. The Strait of Hormuz, a vital chokepoint for global oil transit, is a lever that could potentially trigger a recession and global economic turmoil. With a few naval mines, fast boats, coastal missiles, drones, and supporting groups like the Houthis, Iran could disrupt the world economy. While China exercises restraint due to its strength, Iran, on the brink of extinction, might fully utilize its leverage to push America out of the region.
These scenarios, seemingly different, underscore a significant principle: the essence of deterrence. It echoes the Cold War doctrine: refrain from attacking someone who could destroy you in return, even if they appear weaker. Especially if they are weaker.
This concept applies beyond states to our daily lives:
Before considering an attack on any competitor, in business or personal life, one must first identify vulnerabilities within oneself. Understand what the other can destroy without self-damaging. Assess not just their apparent strength but their actual ability to inflict harm. Be prepared to face the consequences of the risks taken. Engage in battle only when the stakes are meaningful, especially when defending values.
In literature and cinema, tragedies often stem from this original error: attacking without realizing the hidden power of the opponent and lacking the means for counter-attack. Macbeth, in securing his power, triggers forces that lead to his downfall. In The Godfather, those attempting to weaken the Corleones ignite a war they cannot control, ultimately leading to their destruction.
Wisdom lies not in avoiding all conflicts but in discerning which ones are worth engaging in and soberly evaluating the risks involved.
