Spare a moment, please, for the lame-duck superpower. It calls itself the leader of the free world, but the free world no longer believes it. When it extends its hand, nobody rushes to accept. When it threatens, nobody trembles.

After President Trump arrived in Beijing this week, Xi Jinping showered him with pomp befitting a summit of great powers. Yet the Chinese leader permitted potshots at his guest to go viral on his country’s internet rather than suppressing them, as some observers expected he would during a state visit. Xi answered Trump’s lavish praise by sternly lecturing him about meddling with Taiwan. In the end, Xi offered nothing of great substance—no solutions to the war in Iran, no sweeping trade deals, no promises of access to rare earth minerals. Xi used the visit to humor the lame-duck president, waiting for his time to pass.

Argentine author Jorge Luis Borges with a cat, a frequent subject in his life and work.

During the first Trump administration, foreign leaders flattered and accommodated the president out of deference to American power. They feared it; they relied on it. During the second administration, and especially since the beginning of the Iran war, their calculus has quietly shifted—not because the strategy of obsequiousness has failed, but because it’s no longer worth the trouble. Like many of his counterparts around the world, Xi has begun to assume that it’s not just Trump who is term-limited; it’s also his nation.

Trump’s war in Iran was meant to showcase American power. It did the opposite. In the course of failing to remove a much weaker regime or eliminate its nuclear threat, the United States blew through its arsenal—so much so that allies in the Pacific reasonably wonder whether enough munitions remain to protect them. According to The Wall Street Journal, the Pentagon is now worried that it lacks the firepower to execute contingency plans for defending Taiwan.

Supporters of the war argued that it would deal China a severe blow by eliminating one of its most potent allies. But the Gulf nations most threatened by Iran have actually turned to China. As first reported by The Washington Post, an intelligence assessment prepared for the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff warned that those countries have begun acquiring from Beijing the systems needed to protect their oil infrastructure and bases. Trump didn’t just fail to weaken China’s position in the Middle East. He strengthened it.

Without exerting itself much, Beijing has profited from America’s self-immolation. China’s petroleum reserves and its investments in renewable energy have allowed it to offer Thailand, the Philippines, and Australia relief from the energy crisis that the United States instigated. Instead of applying diplomatic pressure on Iran to cut a deal, China has let the conflict linger, so that the United States continues to bear the blame for the disruptions to shipping. Meanwhile, China poses as the faithful steward of the rules-based order—the cooler head, the power on which even the U.S. must now rely.

Foer argues that Iran is using the same strategy, letting American weaken itself.

Use the gift link to read the rest.

One more on this subject from Timothy Snyder at Project Syndicate: America’s Superpower Suicide.

The United States is spending billions of dollars to lose a war in Iran that is enriching its oligarchs, impoverishing its citizens, sabotaging its alliances, and strengthening its enemies. The war is exposing a guiding principle of US President Donald Trump’s foreign policy: superpower suicide. Empires rise and fall, but to my knowledge no state has ever deliberately, and systematically, killed its own power—much less with such speed.

This strategic suicide can be difficult to admit: one still hopes that Trump’s misadventures are based on some understanding of the American national interest. They are not.

Alejandro Jodorowsky, a Chilean-French filmmaker, playwright, author, and spiritual guru.

At a minimum, a superpower must be a modern state that includes, through the rule of law and other institutions, a substantial body of citizens committed to a common endeavor. But the Trump administration treats the US not as a modern state but as a commercial opportunity for a select few.

A superpower must also have a sense of the national interest. While international relations experts disagree about how leaders define this concept, we are unprepared for a situation in which the president is indifferent to the good of the people or the state.

To remain a superpower, a state must also maintain itself over time. Continuity depends on a principle for transferring political authority. By aspiring to remain in power indefinitely and undermining faith in elections, Trump is calling into question the principle that enables political succession in the US. There are of course other ways of going about it, like dynastic rule or a politburo’s decision. Moving to one of these arrangements—one could image the coven of tech oligarchs responsible for the rise of Vice President JD Vance as a capitalist politburo—would end the American republic.

Ensuring that the right people are in charge is crucial for a state to gain and maintain power. Historically, powerful states sought ways to identify and elevate qualified people to serve in positions of authority, regardless of birth. Ancient China had an examination system. Napoleon established the principle of merit in both civilian and military life.

The US, for its part, once had a civil service that was the envy of the world, as well as a highly meritocratic military. But the Trump administration has gutted the civil service and purged the military’s senior ranks—a process carried out by people who are themselves unqualified for the positions they occupy. The fact that Tulsi Gabbard, Kash Patel, and Pete Hegseth are now, respectively, Director of National Intelligence, FBI director, and defense secretary is a clear indicator of a superpower committing suicide.

Read the rest a the link above.

Trump stabbed another ally in the back yesterday, reducing the number of troops in Poland not long after he did the same thing in Germany.

Military Times: Army leaders in hot seat over Poland deployment cancellation.

Army leaders struggled Friday to respond to congressional furor over the Pentagon’s decision to abruptly cancel a deployment of more than 4,000 soldiers to Poland this month.

Portrait of author Doris Lessing taken in 1984 by photographer Marianne Majerus.

Acting Army Chief of Staff Gen. Christopher LaNeve said in an Army budget hearing that the order to halt a planned 9-month rotation to Europe by 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division to Eastern Europe came from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

LaNeve and Army Secretary Dan Driscoll said they were informed of the order and had been consulted, but they wouldn’t provide the exact timing of the decision. On May 1, the unit had cased its colors in preparation for deployment, dispatched its advanced team and launched its equipment overseas.

Soldiers began discussing the decision to scrap the deployment publicly early Tuesday morning; the order was confirmed Wednesday by Army Times and other news media.

LaNeve said the decision was made “in the last two weeks” by the Defense Department and Gen. Alexus Grynkewich, commander of U.S. European Command and the NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe.

LaNeve and Driscoll downplayed the move as part of routine manning reviews conducted throughout the year.

Politico: ‘Slap in the face’: Republicans skewer Pentagon over Poland move.

Top Republicans on Friday condemned the Pentagon for canceling a U.S. troop deployment to Poland, an abrupt move that also appeared to catch Army leaders by surprise.

The decision, House Armed Service Committee members said, amounted to a gut punch to the NATO ally and to a Congress that has sought to beef up the U.S. presence in Europe. They made those frustrations clear at a hearing with Army officials, where the service’s top civilian and uniform leaders had few answers about the rationale for the move and confirmed its last-minute timing.

“I just want to say this is a slap in the face to Poland; it’s a slap in the face to our Baltic friends,” Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) said. “It’s a slap to the face of this committee.”

The blowback comes after lawmakers, European allies and even Pentagon staff were caught flat-footed by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s decision to halt the long-planned nine-month rotation of 4,000 troops based in Texas.

The move is the latest in a rift between the Trump administration and Republicans on Capitol Hill who have been at odds over U.S. security interests in Europe. Lawmakers enacted limits on troop withdrawals from Europe last year amid concerns the administration would unilaterally scale back troops on the continent.

“We don’t know what’s going on here, but I can just tell you we’re not happy with what’s being talked about, particularly since there’s been no statutory consultation with us,” Armed Services Chair Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) said.