Published 2026-03-06 | Version v1.0
Working PaperOpenPublished

The Global Strategic Chain Reactions of the U.S.–Iran War

East Asia as the Next Plausible Capability-Revealing Theater

Description

This working paper analyzes how the U.S.–Iran war may generate cross-regional strategic chain reactions by consuming scarce U.S. assets, narrowing alliance decision space, and reshaping threat perceptions in East Asia. It argues that East Asia is the next plausible capability-revealing theater, with the most likely pathway being a Taiwan-centered coercive or blockade-like confrontation rather than immediate large-scale war, followed by a South China Sea limited clash with alliance spillover and a lower-probability but high-escalation Korean Peninsula scenario.

Abstract

Major-power capabilities are often misread in peacetime. Force structure, alliance reliability, industrial resilience, and escalation tolerance become fully visible only under operational stress. The Russia–Ukraine War and the ongoing U.S.–Iran war have already served as capability-revealing events, exposing the gap between peacetime expectations and wartime performance in the cases of both Russia and the United States. This paper argues that the strategic significance of the current Middle East war lies not only in its regional consequences, but also in its potential to generate cross-regional strategic strain by drawing on U.S. high-demand assets, increasing pressure on alliance coordination, and altering threat perceptions in the Western Pacific. The most plausible East Asian test is not a simple “China–Japan war,” but a broader crisis within the U.S.–China competitive system, most likely centered on Taiwan, secondarily on the South China Sea, and less likely though potentially more dangerous on the Korean Peninsula. Current indicators suggest that the most probable East Asian pathway is not immediate large-scale war, but a prolonged gray-zone or blockade-like confrontation that tests logistics, alliance cohesion, and escalation control. East Asia may therefore become the next major theater in which military capability, strategic endurance, and political resolve are revealed under real operational conditions.

Files

PDF preview
Files
NameType
The Global Strategic Chain Reactions of the U.S.–Iran War.pdf
Full-text PDF of the working paper		application/pdfDownload

Keywords

  • U.S.–Iran War
  • Strategic chain reactions
  • Cross-regional strategic strain
  • Middle East conflict
  • Russia–Ukraine War
  • East Asia
  • Taiwan contingency
  • South China Sea
  • Korean Peninsula
  • Alliance coordination
  • Blockade
  • Gray-zone confrontation
  • Capability-revealing theater
  • Strategic endurance
  • Force allocation
  • Escalation dynamics
  • Deterrence
  • Alliance cohesion
  • Multi-theater pressure
  • AI-mediated warfare

Subjects

  • Strategic Studies
  • International Security
  • Middle East Security
  • East Asian Security
  • U.S.–China Strategic Competition
  • Taiwan Contingency Analysis
  • South China Sea Studies
  • Korean Peninsula Security
  • Alliance Politics
  • Escalation Dynamics
  • Military Capability Assessment
  • Policy Analysis
  • AI-Mediated Warfare

Recommended citation

Wu, Shaoyuan. (2026). The Global Strategic Chain Reactions of the U.S.–Iran War: East Asia as the Next Plausible Capability-Revealing Theater (EPINOVA Working Paper No. EPINOVA–WP–F–2026–03). Global AI Governance and Policy Research Center, EPINOVA LLC. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18893892. DOI: To be assigned after Crossref membership approval.

APA citation

Wu, S. (2026). The global strategic chain reactions of the U.S.–Iran war: East Asia as the next plausible capability-revealing theater (EPINOVA Working Paper No. EPINOVA–WP–F–2026–03). Global AI Governance and Policy Research Center, EPINOVA LLC. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18893892. DOI: To be assigned after Crossref membership approval.

Alternate identifiers

SchemeIdentifierDescription
DOI10.5281/zenodo.18893892Zenodo/DataCite DOI shown in the PDF recommended citation
DOI10.5281/zenodo.18893891DOI recorded in the early ORCID-derived metadata; retained as a discrepancy note for reconciliation
ORCID put-code207636372ORCID Public API record identifier from early metadata
EPINOVA working paper numberEPINOVA–WP–F–2026–03Working paper number shown in the PDF title page and running header
File nameThe Global Strategic Chain Reactions of the U.S.–Iran War.pdfSource PDF file name
Short titleThe Global Strategic Chain Reactions of the U.S.–Iran WarShort form of the working paper title

Related works

RelationIdentifierTypeDescription
Prior EPINOVA policy brief used as related analytical foundation for U.S.–Iran missile-exchange escalation dynamics10.5281/zenodo.18843800
Prior EPINOVA policy brief used as related analytical foundation for escalation-ladder interpretation10.5281/zenodo.18869404

References

  1. Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative. (2025a, February 27). Dropping the act: China’s militia in 2024. Center for Strategic and International Studies. https://amti.csis.org/dropping-the-act-chinas-militia-in-2024/
  2. Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative. (2025b, June 16). Holding the line: China’s expanding patrols around Scarborough Shoal. Center for Strategic and International Studies. https://amti.csis.org/holding-the-line-chinas-expanding-patrols-around-scarborough-shoal/
  3. Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative. (2026a, January 29). Eyes on the prize: CCG patrols prioritize Scarborough in 2025. Center for Strategic and International Studies. https://amti.csis.org/eyes-on-the-prize-ccg-patrols-prioritize-scarborough-in-2025/
  4. Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative. (2026b, February 23). All together now: China’s militia in 2025. Center for Strategic and International Studies. https://amti.csis.org/all-together-now-chinas-militia-in-2025/
  5. Cancian, M. F., Cancian, M. F., & Heginbotham, E. (2025, July 31). Lights out? Wargaming a Chinese blockade of Taiwan. Center for Strategic and International Studies. https://www.csis.org/analysis/lights-out-wargaming-chinese-blockade-taiwan
  6. Department of Defense. (2024, December 18). Military and security developments involving the People’s Republic of China 2024. U.S. Department of Defense. https://media.defense.gov/2024/Dec/18/2003615520/-1/-1/0/MILITARY-AND-SECURITY-DEVELOPMENTS-INVOLVING-THE-PEOPLES-REPUBLIC-OF-CHINA-2024.PDF
  7. Frederick, B., Gunness, K., Tarini, G., Stravers, A., Mazarr, M. J., Ellinger, E., Blank, J., Cochran, S., Hornung, J. W., Morris, L. J., Ernstsen, J., Grek, L., Wang, H., & Chao, L. N. (2023). Improving conflict-phase access: Identifying U.S. policy levers (RR-A1742-1). RAND Corporation. https://doi.org/10.7249/RRA1742-1
  8. Kepe, M., & Harold, S. W. (2025). Building Taiwan’s resilience: Insights into Taiwan’s civilian resilience against acts of war (RR-A3388-1). RAND Corporation. https://doi.org/10.7249/RRA3388-1
  9. Lee, S. (2026, January 21). The impact of the U.S. national security strategy’s blind spot on North Korea. 38 North. https://www.38north.org/2026/01/the-impact-of-the-us-national-security-strategys-blind-spot-on-north-korea/
  10. Reuters. (2024, July 28). U.S. upgrades military command in Japan, warns of China threats. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/us-announce-military-command-revamp-japan-official-says-2024-07-28/
  11. Reuters. (2025, June 5). Philippines, U.S., hold joint maritime drills for seventh time. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/china/philippines-us-hold-joint-maritime-drills-seventh-time-2025-06-05/
  12. Reuters. (2026a, March 6). South Korea, U.S. militaries discuss moving Patriot missiles to Iran war, Seoul says. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/south-korea-us-militaries-discuss-moving-patriot-missiles-iran-war-seoul-says-2026-03-06/
  13. Reuters. (2026b, March 5). Iran crisis could disrupt supply of key chipmaking materials, South Korea warns. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/south-korean-chip-industry-worried-iran-crisis-affect-middle-east-data-center-2026-03-05/
  14. Reuters. (2026c, February 27). Philippines, Japan, U.S. hold joint military drills in South China Sea. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/china/philippines-japan-us-hold-joint-military-drills-south-china-sea-2026-02-27/
  15. Reuters. (2026d, January 30). South Korea, Japan defence ministers agree to upgrade cooperation. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/south-korea-japan-defence-ministers-agree-upgrade-cooperation-2026-01-30/
  16. Reuters. (2026e, February 25). South Korea and the U.S. to conduct Freedom Shield military drills in March. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/south-korea-us-conduct-freedom-shield-military-drills-march-2026-02-25/
  17. Reuters. (2026f, March 3). Trump’s Asian allies fear Iran war will sap defences against China. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/china/trumps-asian-allies-fear-iran-war-will-sap-defences-against-china-2026-03-03/
  18. Reuters. (2026g, February 25). North Korea’s Kim promises more nuclear weapons as Congress closes with military parade. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/north-koreas-kim-says-relations-with-us-depend-us-attitude-2026-02-25/
  19. Reuters. (2026h, January 27). North Korea fires missiles into sea amid talks on U.S.–South Korea defence posture. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/north-korea-fires-projectile-towards-sea-south-koreas-military-says-2026-01-27/
  20. Reuters. (2026i, March 5). China’s parliament rolls out economic, political blue-print; here’s what you need to know. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/chinas-parliament-rolls-out-economic-political-blue-print-heres-what-you-need-2026-03-05/
  21. Schatz, H. J., Drezner, D. W., Grossman, D., Weber, T., & Flachsbart, C. (2025). Economic deterrence in a China contingency (RR-A4022-1). RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA4022-1.html
  22. Wu, S. (2026a). Escalation risk in protracted missile exchanges: Assessing low-probability, high-impact dynamics in the U.S.–Iran conflict based on IRGC Operation True Promise 4 (Waves 1–13) (EPINOVA Policy Brief No. EPINOVA-2026-PB-08). EPINOVA LLC – Global AI Governance and Policy Research Center. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18843800
  23. Wu, S. (2026b). Escalation dynamics in IRGC’s Operation True Promise: Interpreting the conflict through an escalation ladder framework (EPINOVA Policy Brief No. EPINOVA-2026-PB-09). EPINOVA LLC – Global AI Governance and Policy Research Center. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18869404
  24. Xinhua. (2026a, March 5). 《中华人民共和国国民经济和社会发展第十五个五年规划纲要（草案）》摘要 [Summary of the draft outline of the Fifteenth Five-Year Plan for National Economic and Social Development of the People’s Republic of China]. 新华社. https://app.xinhuanet.com/news/article.html?articleId=be1e54f908da3777c06cd3b68f2a4e57
  25. Xinhua. (2026b, March 5). China’s top legislature opens annual session. Xinhua. https://english.news.cn/20260305/33ff72f90c8a4c989b1a86e4222bd478/c.html