Since the end of the Cold War, American primacy has rested on two strategic spheres: the Asia-Pacific and the Middle East. In Asia, Washington reinforced its influence through alliances with Japan, South Korea, Australia, and its expanding basing agreements in the Philippines, while sustaining a forward-deployed military posture and naval dominance in critical waterways such as the South China Sea, with a particular emphasis on deterring coercion against Taiwan. In the Middle East, Washington anchored its influence not only through enduring security partnerships with the Gulf monarchies, intelligence and military cooperation with Israel, and defense guarantees safeguarding energy flows and regional stability, but also through Egypt’s pivotal role as a linchpin of Arab politics and regional diplomacy and, prior to 1979, through a close strategic partnership with Iran that served as a cornerstone of U.S. regional security architecture. Yet this balance is now under strain, challenged by the rise of China as a technologically advanced and militarily assertive power, Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and its destabilizing repercussions, and North Korea’s persistence as a nuclear-armed state. The convergence of these actors was vividly demonstrated on September 2, 2025, when Beijing hosted the first-ever trilateral summit between the leaders of China, Russia, and North Korea—coinciding with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) gathering and immediately followed by China’s grand military parade—an event widely described as the birth of an “Axis of Upheaval” and a clear signal of their intent to recalibrate global power dynamics across Asia and the Middle East.
The strategic implications of this so-called axis for the Middle East are profound. In the aftermath of the Assad regime’s collapse in December 2024, the strategic foothold of both Russia and Iran in Syria has contracted markedly, diminishing their direct influence in the Levantine theater. Yet Tehran continues to present a formidable challenge to U.S. interests, principally through its steadfast refusal to curtail its nuclear program—a trajectory that both Israel and the West perceive as increasingly oriented toward the development of a nuclear weapon. Bolstered by the potential backing of Moscow and Pyongyang, Iran’s negotiating posture is emboldened, enabling it to assert a more defiant and confrontational stance vis-à-vis the Western alliance. This confluence of factors not only complicates U.S. strategic calculations in the region but also amplifies the leverage Tehran wields in regional diplomacy and deterrence dynamics.
China’s Military and Strategic Ambitions
China’s military modernization, vividly unveiled during the September 3 parade, infuses an additional layer of strategic complexity into regional and global security dynamics. The event highlighted an array of cutting-edge systems—from ground-breaking YJ-series hypersonic anti-ship missiles and mobile ICBMs to SLBMs, autonomous combat platforms, and electronic warfare tools— all clearly intended as a calculated fusion of deterrence and offensive display, signaling not mere domestic theater but a readiness to project force, particularly in the direction of Taiwan and the South China Sea. Satellite imagery confirmed dozens of newly developed mobile launchers for anti-ship weapons, including hypersonic variants explicitly designed to suppress U.S. naval capabilities in the Western Pacific. The parade also featured strategic missile systems such as the road-mobile DF-31AG and the heavy-hitting DF-41 ICBMs, both capable of delivering MIRV warheads over intercontinental ranges, underscoring the maturation of China’s long-range forces. Complementing these were the JL-3 SLBMs aboard nuclear-powered submarines, projected to extend Beijing’s undersea-based strike reach into new frontiers.
Moreover, the parade introduced what USA analysts believe to be China’s first combat-ready stealth unmanned combat aerial vehicle, the FH-97, a force multiplier capable of synchronizing with manned fighters for reconnaissance, strike, and electronic warfare. Additional platforms included autonomous ground systems, uncrewed surface and underwater drones, and directed-energy weapons—components of a broader shift toward multi-domain, AI-enabled warfare.
These capabilities are not for domestic reassurance alone—they convey an unmistakable signal to U.S. forces, regional partners, and adversaries. For Gulf Arab states, the message is clear: China now possesses the tools to project power into the Indian Ocean and secure vital energy corridors, reshaping perceptions of Beijing from economic partner to emergent security architect. For Washington, these technologies escalate the operational stakes, complicating freedom of navigation missions and forward basing, especially in the Indo-Pacific and, potentially, the Middle East. In tandem with these displays, the wider narrative shift—elevating China’s role in World War II memory politics and institutional reframing—complements the hardware in asserting Beijing’s ambition to redefine regional order.
North Korea and Regional Security Challenges
The renewed rapprochement between Beijing and Pyongyang carries profound strategic ramifications for both regional and global security architectures. Kim Jong Un standing shoulder to shoulder with Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin marks a watershed in diplomatic re-normalization, and signals not merely a rekindling of Sino–North Korean engagement, but an institutionalized alignment that reaffirms North Korea’s aspiration to be perceived as a bona fide nuclear power rather than an aberrant pariah.
Historically, North Korea has functioned as a secretive but effective arms broker, providing missile technology and conventional weaponry to states such as Iran and Syria under the Assad regime, as well as to non-state proxies like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. Notable examples include the provision of components for Iranian Katyusha rockets and contributions to Syria’s ballistic missile capacity. More recently, Iran’s proxies—like the Houthis in Yemen—have launched Scud missiles traced back to Pyongyang.
What heightens concern now is the convergence of Beijing’s diplomatic sympathy and Moscow’s military-technical cooperation, which together embolden Kim’s negotiating posture and proliferation capability. Since September 2023, North Korea dispatched over 20,000 containers of munitions, more than 100 ballistic missiles, and upwards of 11,000 troops to assist Russia in its war on Ukraine, in blatant defiance of multiple UN Security Council resolutions. Despite operational weakness of North Korean troops, such transfers have translated into battlefield utility: North Korean artillery and missiles, including KN-23 variants directing devastating strikes in Ukraine’s urban centers, have surpassed reliance thresholds, with Pyongyang supplying as much as 40% of Russia’s ammunition for the Ukraine war. In return, Kim’s regime has received battlefield experience, advanced weapons technologies, and financial support—creating a grim feedback loop of escalation.
This evolution carries hazardous implications not only for Northeast Asia—where South Korea, Japan, and U.S. forces already face heightened threats, especially in Taiwan—but also for the Middle East. While North Korea’s arms transfers to Iran have not been conclusively shown to involve support for Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, both Israeli and U.S. intelligence agencies have uncovered indications of Pyongyang’s involvement in a Syrian nuclear initiative—allegedly financed by Iran—that was targeted and destroyed by the Israeli Air Force in 2007. There are clear indications that North Korea supported Libya’s self-financed nuclear program with missile and uranium enrichment chemical technologies prior to Qadhafi’s ouster in 2011. The possibility that North Korean nuclear expertise could return to the Middle East adds an additional layer of complexity to Pyongyang’s already fraught relationship with Washington, heightening the urgency for strategic coordination among U.S. allies and reinforcing the imperative to monitor and constrain the proliferation of advanced weapons technology across multiple theaters.
Toward a Multipolar Order
From a U.S. strategic perspective, the coalescence of China, Russia, and North Korea into an authoritarian matrix worsens a multidimensional threat environment—where pressure applied in one theater (e.g., naval deterrence in the South China Sea) may be counterbalanced by escalations elsewhere (e.g., arms proliferation to the Middle East). This systemic entanglement degrades conventional deterrence models and undermines alliance coherence, obliging Washington to rethink strategy not as a mosaic of isolated challenges but as a holistic struggle against a synergistic axis of revisionist states.
Beyond mere military signaling, the recent summit and Beijing parade profoundly illustrate China’s escalating ambition to challenge Western leadership in global affairs. Beijing’s unwavering support for Iran—particularly its refusal to enforce new sanctions and its continued procurement of Iranian oil—represents a deliberate effort to subvert U.S.-led international regimes and enable pariah states to operate within alternative frameworks. Despite European efforts to invoke the UN’s ‘snapback’ mechanism to reimpose sanctions, Iran has curtailed cooperation with international inspectors and withheld transparency over nuclear facilities damaged in recent strikes, while Beijing’s continued purchase of Iranian oil sustains Tehran’s economic lifeline, eroding the effectiveness of verification regimes and weakening the leverage that underpins Western attempts to enforce compliance.
Moreover, the China–India relationship adds a complex layer to U.S. strategic considerations. Despite the overarching Sino-Russian-North Korean alignment, India continues to pursue a pragmatic rapprochement with Beijing—Prime Minister Modi and President Xi agreed during the SCO summit to push border de-escalation, resume direct flights, and view each other as “partners, not rivals.” Yet, longstanding friction persists: China’s infrastructure investments in Pakistan and ambitious territorial claims on water resources, along with substantial trade imbalances, limit trust accumulation. From Washington’s vantage, this places India at the fulcrum of U.S. strategy, enhancing its value as a balancing force in Asia. The evolving India–U.S. defense and technology cooperation—including joint military exercises and expanding ties under initiatives such as COMPACT and TRUST—reflects a converging strategic calculus aimed at countering Beijing’s assertiveness. The relationship, however, remains delicate, as India calibrates its posture to preserve autonomy while deepening strategic alignment with the U.S. This balance is further strained by recent trade tensions: Washington implemented a sweeping 50 percent tariff on a range of Indian exports—from garments and jewelry to chemicals—as a punitive measure linked to India’s purchase of discounted Russian oil, raising serious concerns about the durability of the strategic partnership.
Institutional alliances reinforce these dynamics. Both the SCO and BRICS+ serve as growing pillars of a nascent multipolar order. The SCO, originally a regional security bloc, has expanded greatly—now encompassing Iran and Belarus—and focuses increasingly on economic integration and mutual development, reinforcing its role as a viable alternative to Western-led institutions. Similarly, BRICS has undergone a strategic transformation: its recent inclusion of oil-rich Middle Eastern actors like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Iran boosts its economic heft and enhances its role in redefining global governance through investment, infrastructure growth, and dedollarization efforts.
On a symbolic plane, China leverages history and collective memory to assert moral authority. Using the 80th anniversary of World War II to reframe national narratives—attempting to portray the CCP, rather than the Allies, as the central force against Japanese aggression—Xi Jinping envisions China as a rightful successor to the World War II global order. This historical reframing bolsters national pride and attempts to legitimize Beijing’s leadership claim while displacing Western contributions from collective memory.
Taken together, this multi-dimensional strategy—melding military theater, economic realignment, institutional creation, and narrative engineering—is central to Beijing’s long-term vision for reshaping the international order in favor of its allies and trading partners, most of them authoritarian states. Through parallel frameworks and reimagined memory politics, China advances its claim to global leadership while offering sanctioned or sidelined actors an escape from Western dominance.
The talks surrounding these summits, while officially framed around trade and economic cooperation, clearly pave the way for broader security coordination. Russia benefits from North Korean military supplies, China signals its readiness to contest U.S. deterrence frameworks, and Mongolia’s participation indicates the potential for broader Eurasian integration. While no formal military alliance has been announced, the combination of joint summits, symbolic pageantry, and public defiance of Western norms lays the groundwork for future intelligence-sharing, joint defense initiatives, and potentially coordinated military exercises. In practice, this could evolve into a de facto security bloc capable of projecting influence across multiple regions simultaneously.
U.S. Policy Recommendations: Alliances and Regional Recalibration
Despite the apparent emergence of an “axis of upheaval” comprising China, Russia, and North Korea, this alignment is fraught with inherent contradictions and strategic divergences that limit its cohesion. A primary regional fault line exists between India and China, whose longstanding border disputes have led to multiple military confrontations, most notably the 2020 Galwan Valley clash. Although the 2024 India-China Border Patrol Agreement has facilitated a return to pre-2020 patrolling arrangements in areas like Depsang and Demchok, the underlying territorial claims remain unresolved, and mutual distrust persists. This tenuous peace is further complicated by China’s strategic interests in the Indo-Pacific, which often conflict with India’s regional aspirations.
Beyond India, China faces persistent challenges in its regional neighborhood that complicate both regional influence and international standing. In the South China Sea, Beijing’s expansive claims and militarization of artificial islands provoke disputes with multiple Southeast Asian states, while simultaneously drawing sustained naval patrols and freedom-of-navigation operations by the U.S. and allied partners. Taiwan represents an even more sensitive flashpoint, where Chinese military signaling, coercive diplomacy, and exercises of power projection heighten the risk of miscalculation, challenging both regional stability and U.S. deterrence strategies. Internally, issues such as the suppression of pro-democracy movements in Hong Kong and the treatment of Uyghur populations in Xinjiang continue to generate international criticism, sanctions, and reputational costs, constraining Beijing’s diplomatic flexibility and amplifying friction with Western powers. Collectively, these regional and domestic pressures illustrate the multifaceted difficulties China faces in securing unambiguous influence across its immediate periphery, even as it pursues broader global ambitions.
Simultaneously, China’s relationship with North Korea is increasingly strained due to Russia’s growing influence in Pyongyang. The 2024 North Korea-Russia Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Treaty, which includes mutual defense commitments, has led to North Korea supplying troops and military aid to Russia in the Ukraine conflict. This development undermines China’s traditional role as North Korea’s primary ally and introduces complexities into Beijing’s strategic calculus, as it must navigate the delicate balance between supporting Pyongyang and countering Russian encroachment in its sphere of influence.
These fissures within the so-called axis present strategic opportunities for the United States to exploit. By strengthening bilateral relations with India, particularly in defense and intelligence-sharing, the U.S. can reinforce India’s position vis-à-vis China, thereby complicating Beijing’s regional ambitions. Additionally, the U.S. can leverage its influence to mediate and support India’s security concerns, providing a counterbalance to China’s assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific.
To further address these evolving challenges, the United States must also consolidate and expand its traditional alliances in Europe and Asia by aligning its strategic, economic, and diplomatic posture with long-term partnership goals. In Europe, this means strengthening collaboration with EU states on peace efforts in Ukraine—offering both security assurances and economic support to sustain Kyiv’s resilience while signaling to Moscow that transatlantic solidarity remains unbreakable. Further, rather than resorting to protectionist measures such as imposing 50% tariffs on key trade partners like India—which risks alienating a vital democratic counterweight to China—Washington should prioritize partnership-building within frameworks like the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) with Japan, India, and Australia. By offering tangible incentives in trade, technology, and infrastructure financing, the U.S. can cultivate durable alignment with Asian partners while simultaneously reinforcing NATO cohesion. This twin approach, bridging European and Asian alliances, not only enhances deterrence against China, Russia, and their partners but also demonstrates U.S. commitment to collaborative security rather than unilateral coercion.
Equally important, the United States must recalibrate its Middle East strategy to rebuild credibility with Arab partners and reposition itself as a reliable actor in the region. This requires engaging not only Gulf states, Egypt, and Jordan, but also Syria, Turkey, and European partners, in crafting a just and sustainable resolution to the Palestinian–Israeli conflict. Washington should move beyond rhetorical support and actively strain Israel’s war machine in the region by conditioning military aid, pressing for humanitarian relief, and mapping out a credible roadmap toward a two-state solution. Such a posture would not only mitigate the destabilizing effects of protracted conflict but also elevate U.S. moral standing in the Arab world, countering narratives of double standards. By aligning with Arab states on this core issue, Washington reinforces its credibility as a trustworthy partner, balances strategic competition with China and Russia in the region, and creates diplomatic space for broader cooperation on energy security, counterterrorism, and economic modernization. This recalibrated Middle East engagement thus becomes both a moral imperative and a strategic necessity for sustaining American influence.
Ultimately, the consolidation of the Beijing–Moscow–Pyongyang axis represents a deliberate counterweight to U.S. influence across multiple theaters, from Europe and the Indo-Pacific to the Middle East, Central Asia, and Latin America. By pooling resources, aligning narratives, and leveraging their respective strengths—China’s economic and technological clout, Russia’s military capacity and energy leverage, and North Korea’s disruptive proliferation networks—these authoritarian states are constructing a parallel order that challenges the foundations of Western leadership. Their cooperation undermines sanctions regimes, complicates arms control, and weakens U.S. deterrence by stretching American commitments across diverse regions simultaneously. For Washington, this reality underscores the urgency of moving beyond piecemeal responses toward a coherent grand strategy that integrates alliance management, economic statecraft, and normative leadership. Only by reinforcing traditional partnerships, recalibrating its posture in volatile regions like the Middle East, and investing in global governance structures can the United States preserve its credibility and shape the contours of an increasingly multipolar world in which adversarial coalitions seek to erode its primacy.