Highlighting the interconnected nature of modern warfare, foreign policy experts at the Raisina Dialogue 2026 stated that the ongoing conflict in West Asia is no longer a regional affair but one that is “bleeding together” with global security theatres, including the Indo-Pacific.
Speaking at a session titled ‘Beyond Strategic Ambiguity: Rethinking Deterrence in the Taiwan Strait’, Dhruva Jaishankar, Executive Director of the Observer Research Foundation (ORF) America, noted that the scope of the Middle East conflict is “obviously widening.”
“From Cyprus, we have had drone strikes against British military facilities in Cyprus, so a European country was listed directly, obviously off the coast. And I think that, in some ways, indicates the expanding interest, you know, the range that both in terms of the missile and drone capabilities that Iran has demonstrated,” Jaishankar remarked.
He emphasised that both the US and Iran are aware that their “war is not going to be contained to a very narrow area,” creating a significant spillover effect.
Drawing a parallel to the Indo-Pacific, he added: “All this indicates is that these conflicts, whether in Ukraine or Iran, have nothing pertained to those regions. These theatres are bleeding together in ways that we had not been okay.”
Addressing the shift of American military resources from East Asia to West Asia amid the Iran conflict, Bonnie Glick, Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defence of Democracies, maintained that the United States remains capable of addressing multiple crises simultaneously.
“I think one of the things that we focus on in the United States is addressing conflicts individually, while also simultaneously having access to an ability to respond elsewhere in the world,” Glick said.
She noted that while there is concern over China using the “opportunity vis-a-vis Taiwan,” the messaging from Washington remains firm.
“I think China views bottom line American intervention in Iran right now as a moment for consideration of Taiwan, but also as a moment of this probably does not make sense right now, because we know that the United States will be able to respond if needed,” she added.
Helena Legarda, Head of Program Foreign Relations at the Mercator Institute for Chinese Studies, suggested that while Beijing might use these foreign conflicts for “rhetorical ammunition,” they do not necessarily legitimise military action against Taiwan.
“Beijing does want to present itself as a responsible global power and force for peace and a defender of the interests of smaller countries,” Legarda noted, adding that these narratives find a “receptive audience in some parts of the world.”
However, she cautioned that the timeline of these conflicts impacts European response capabilities.
“If the war in Ukraine is still ongoing, and Europe is facing that one alone, I would find it unlikely that most European or EU member states, rather, will be able to muster military assets or substantial military assets to send to the Indo-Pacific region,” she said, though she noted economic sanctions would remain a viable form of involvement.
Providing a perspective from Taipei, I-Chung Lai, Senior Advisor to the Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation, stated that current regional conflicts do not yet shift the fundamental military balance in the strait.
“When we look at the Chinese capability, we do not think that China possess the kind of invasion capability. They cannot just accept invasion of Taiwanese movement. No, they can’t, and probably even they won’t be able to do it next year as well,” Lai remarked.
He emphasised that the primary concern remains the “longer term the military supply” of weaponry and ammunition to ensure Taiwan’s security is not compromised by global demand elsewhere. (ANI)
