The President Needs to Lead the Cold War on China | It’s Time to Learn How to Blow Things Up Again | Countering Russia’s African Strategy, and more

The President Needs to Lead the Cold War on China  (Randy Schriver, Dan Blumenthal, and Josh Young, Foreign Policy)
The United States is in a cold war with the People’s Republic of China, and it urgently needs a strategy led and directed by the president himself if it is going to win. Absent such leadership, Washington’s approach to China will remain fragmented, contradictory, and unfocused. The absence of leadership is in stark contrast to Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Secretary-General Xi Jinping and the approach that he laid out in the country’s 20th National Congress in 2022, which directs all instruments of China’s power to wage a “protracted struggle”—in other words, a cold war—against the United States.
The United States has been especially timid in responding to China’s economic assault. For decades, China has been building geo-economic leverage through its “military-civil fusion” and “dual circulation” strategies—efforts by the CCP to build the country’s technological and industrial capacity both for domestic economic growth and military modernization. Beijing’s dominant position in global supply chains is also a deliberate result of policies that seek to hold nations hostage by placing China at the center of the production of key economic elements such as critical minerals, semiconductors, and now next-generation energy technology.
And globally, the CCP has gained geopolitical influence through its Belt and Road Initiative, which has also laid the foundation for a new economic network across Southeast Asia, Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, and even a part of Europe that operates on Beijing’s terms.
Conversely, except for sanctions, the United States has been much less active in deploying its economic strengths to promote its foreign-policy and national security interests. Washington’s efforts today to address decades of negligence in foreign economic policy are still fitful and inconsistent. Though there have been some attempts by U.S. government agencies—such as the Treasury Department’s Chinese Military-Industrial Complex Company (CMIC) list or the Justice Department’s current Disruptive Technology Strike Force—to crack down on China’s economic crimes and tighten exports of advanced technologies, these efforts will remain inadequate unless the president himself takes control and directs a strategy to undermine China’s malign economic influence.
Both the Trump and Biden administrations deserve some credit for overseeing a fundamental policy shift on China—now a strategic competitor—and for their willingness to start imposing tariffs and export controls to unwind the U.S. economy from years of inert and thoughtless engagement with the CCP. And yet, nearly eight years after Washington finally recognized that it was in competition with China—and after the implementation of hundreds of millions of dollars in tariffs and a series of prohibitive export and investment controls—the United States is still struggling to reach the level of intensity needed to emerge victorious in the competition with China.

Manipulating the Narrative: How Hamas is Retelling Historic Islamic Battles to Influence the Muslim Community and Reshape Jihadist Ideology  (Suha Hassen, HSToday)
Islamic history encompasses two of the most powerful battles in the collective memory and consciousness of Muslim nations: the Battle of the Trench and the Battle of Hattin. Hamas and its allies from the Brotherhood attempt to portray the October 7 war as a continuation of these religious battles. Recently, narratives from Hamas and Brotherhood theologian scholars have increasingly focused on these two battles, aiming to reshape jihadist philosophy in response to the negative image associated with groups like ISIS and Al-Nusra. This article delves into the profound historical and religious significance of these battles and explores their transformative impact on contemporary jihadist ideology and evolution.  
Understanding why Hamas and Brotherhood theologians have resurrected these ancient battles as ideological touchstones amid the protracted Gaza-Israel conflict requires a nuanced examination of their relevance and the enduring implications. By dissecting the historical context and strategic significance of these battles, we can trace the ideological lineage and symbolism that underpin Hamas’s narrative and assess the potential ramifications of its resurgence. To clarify this connection, let’s explore the history of one of the two battles: the Battle of the Trench. In the Islamic narrative and collective memory, this battle holds significant symbolism, particularly in connection with a pivotal event in early Islamic history.  

Countering Russia’s African Strategy  (John P. Connor, National Interest)
Despite the recent surge of Russian activity in the Sahel—the arrival of Russian troops in Niger in April, the presence of Africa Corps mercenaries in Burkina Faso (largely absorbing Wagner Group operations), and the continued activities of Russian mercenaries in Mali, the Central African Republic (CAR), and elsewhere—some analysts have argued that Russia lacks a coherent strategy on the continent and that its threats to the continent are overblown.  
Russia’s use of mercenary and paramilitary forces is argued to reflect an uncoordinated pursuit of cash and mineral wealth. In economic terms, such activities are outclassed by the United States, China, and the European Union (EU) and tend to focus on military aid (as opposed to infrastructure-focused investments). How could these efforts pose a major threat to U.S. national interests? 
This view crucially misunderstands Russia’s approach in two ways. First, a study of Russian activity in Africa’s new “Coup Belt” and elsewhere reveals coordinated efforts to swing the views of African populations towards supporting Putin’s regime and its interests in the region. Second, while Westerners may assume that a successful grand strategy must include economic aid and institution building, Russia’s scaled-down approach has been equally efficient in yielding results.  

U.S. Development Finance Helped Rescue Europe from Russian Energy  (Jeremy Harrell, National Interest)
America is facing a critical period of intensifying international challenges. The aggressive maneuvers of adversaries demand an increasingly robust use of U.S. foreign policy assets. Energy to sustain growing economies is at the heart of these issues. America has the opportunity to ensure its influence on the world stage as a provider of affordable, reliable, and clean energy security for decades to come. As Congress considers reauthorizing the U.S. Development Finance Corporation (DFC), whose authorization expires in 2025, it’s time to supercharge this agency as part of an integrated international energy security and climate strategy.
The DFC, the modernized U.S. government development finance institution ramped up during the Trump administration, with bipartisan Congressional support, is a crucial player in helping America compete in geoeconomic rivalries over the future of energy leadership. In 2022, following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, America demonstrated its capacity as a global energy powerhouse. For decades, the European Union (EU) had depended on Russian natural gas imports, which grew in share even after the invasion and annexation of Crimea in 2014. In just one year, the U.S. surged its LNG exports, driving Russian market share in the EU down from 40 percent in 2021 to just 8 percent in 2023. 
This lifeline to Europe was partly enabled by the DFC, which provided over $1.5 billion in financing to support Europe’s energy diversification away from Russian gas. This is just one example of how the DFC has become a key federal agency in supporting America’s geopolitical and geoeconomic interests.
Energy projects supported by the DFC cut across various sectors, ranging from diversifying natural gas supplies in Poland to developing an energy supply hub in Greek shipyards to fostering clean energy generation in Bulgaria and Georgia. This provides allies and partners with U.S. alternatives to malignant energy producers like Russia and the predatory lending for energy infrastructure performed by actors like China. Furthermore, unlike most federal agencies, the DFC typically generates a financial return for taxpayer dollars. In FY 2023, the DFC returned a net positive income of $340 million to the U.S. Treasury from projects it invested in abroad.