As the United States conducts military operations in the Middle East, a sharp disagreement has emerged within Washington's foreign policy establishment. Speculation over a potential summit between President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping is fueling the debate.
Experts are deeply divided over a foundational geopolitical question regarding America's strategic priorities in the Indo-Pacific. They are fiercely debating how much Taiwan actually matters to the United States and whether defending it justifies risking a catastrophic war with China.
Assessing Taiwan's Strategic Value
The debate surfaced publicly during a major think tank forum co-hosted by the Brookings Institution and the RAND Corporation on March 23. Two prominent American analysts staked out strikingly opposing positions on Washington's current approach to cross-strait relations.
Bonnie Glaser, managing director of the Indo-Pacific Program at the German Marshall Fund, argued that Taiwan carries deep symbolic and strategic significance. She described the island's democratic resilience as a powerful alternative model to the Chinese Communist Party's authoritarian governance
Glaser also pointed to Taiwan's massive economic weight, noting it recently surpassed Germany to become America's fourth-largest trading partner. She emphasized that Taiwan's central role in global semiconductor supply chains is a structural factor Washington simply cannot afford to ignore.
Beyond vital economic interests, Glaser argued that Taiwan remains central to how the broader international community perceives American global credibility. She questioned how allied nations would reassess their relationship with Washington if China attacked Taiwan and the United States stood aside.
The Case Against Military Intervention
Jennifer Kavanagh, director of military analysis at Defense Priorities, pushed back sharply against the idea of military intervention. She argued that shared democratic values alone do not constitute a sufficient strategic basis for the United States to commit to Taiwan's defense.
Addressing American credibility, Kavanagh noted that U.S. commitments to Taiwan are categorically different from formal alliance relationships in Europe and Asia. She added that other international partners broadly understand and accept this vital diplomatic distinction regarding mutual defense obligations.
Kavanagh contended that the geopolitical consequences of cross-strait unification would be manageable, whereas a direct war with China would be incalculable. She warned that the costs of a U.S.-China conflict would be astronomical, heavily featuring the looming shadow of nuclear escalation.
Current U.S. policy relies on strategic ambiguity, but Kavanagh argued this approach has become a dangerous liability rather than an asset. Because Taiwan does not represent a vital national interest, she stated Washington must make clear it will not fight this war.
Fundamentally Divergent Frameworks
The two analysts maintained their opposing frameworks throughout the subsequent panel discussion. Glaser warned that if Taiwan came under Beijing's control through coercion, nearly every Asia-Pacific nation would immediately accommodate China, effectively destroying American credibility across the region.
Conversely, Kavanagh maintained that clearly signaling military non-intervention would better protect core American interests regardless of how cross-strait dynamics evolve. She suggested repositioning U.S. military assets to safer locations while strengthening American infrastructure along the more secure second island chain.
Kavanagh concluded that Washington should be fully prepared to accept any peaceful resolution negotiated between the two sides. She suggested that if America clearly refuses to fight, Taiwan might independently conclude that military resistance is not worthwhile and seek political compromise. （Related： Exclusive| U.S. Defense Scholar Warns Iran War Has Backfired—and China Is the Real Winner ｜ Latest ）
