Confronting a New Axis?
Published December 16, 2024
A potential new Axis of authoritarian powers – China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea – threatens global stability through unprecedented strategic cooperation. Unlike its World War II predecessor – Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Imperial Japan, and the Soviet Union -- these nations demonstrate stronger coordination through, no-limit partnerships, joint military operations, and shared infrastructure projects. To successfully challenge this emerging coalition, the United States must understand both what makes this new coalition similar to the original Axis and recognize what makes it entirely unique.
Philip Zelikow is the Botha-Chan Senior Fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. An attorney and former career diplomat, Zelikow's federal service includes work across the government in the five administrations from Reagan through Obama, and is a strategic consultant for the current Biden administration.
Check out more from Philip Zelikow:
- Read "What China Wants from Russia" by Philip Zelikow from The Spectator here.
- Watch "Threat Status with Philip Zelikow: Is humanity on the edge of world war?" here.
- Read "Defense Against the AI Dark Arts: Threat Assessment and Coalition Defense" from Philip Zelikow here.
- Watch "Artificial Intelligence: Real Promise and Real Peril" from Philip Zelikow on Policy Stories here.
The opinions expressed in this video are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Hoover Institution or Stanford University. © 2024 by the Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University.
United States is facing an increasingly dangerous political landscape with the real possibility of another world war in the near future. China, Russia, Iran and North Korea have emerged as a new Axis powers, reminiscent of Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, Imperial Japan and Stalin's Soviet Union. With global peace and stability at stake, the US can effectively challenge this new Axis through a better understanding of the original.
The original Axis was loosely bound not by trust or ideology, but mostly through through self-interested opportunism. Germany and Italy fought in World War I, but as Germany took ground in World War II, Mussolini saw his own chance to expand Italy's power and joined the Axis. Japan saw alignment with Germany as a way to strengthen its expansion in Asia and the Pacific.
Stalin, not naive about Hitler, still signed a non-aggression pact with Germany to acquire weapons, expand Soviet territory, and avoid conflict with the Soviet's old enemy, Japan. This, of course, did not stop Hitler from invading the Soviet Union, ultimately driving Stalin to join the Allies. Despite being a formal alliance, the first Axis lacked a unified strategy and rarely operated together, leading to its ultimate failure.
Today, the authoritarian, militaristic, and expansionist nations of the new Axis are united by disdain for America and the west. Evidenced by Russia's invasion of Ukraine against Western Europe and NATO, Iran's proxy military strikes against Israel. China's potential military takeover of Taiwan, and North Korea's nuclear threats against the US.
Unlike World War II, this new, though informal Axis is far more strategically cooperative than its predecessor. Across the powers, we see no limit, partnerships, joint military operations, and ballistic missile programs, and even joint railways and natural gas pipelines. Rather than declare war on the United States, this new Axis will likely do everything possible to deter American involvement.
But they are also unlikely to fall apart or fracture on their own. Thankfully, despite the cooperation of the new Axis, these nations fail to share common bonds beyond American and Western resentment. This weakness is our strength. America and its allies have a shared vision of peace and freedom.
Our opportunity is to strengthen these bonds with current allies, prioritize theaters of war where US Military strength and support for our allies is strongest, and maintain strategic adaptability to meet evolving threats. It might mean the difference between a Second Cold War or a Third World War.