As tensions between the U.S. and China intensify, a new axis of authoritarian powers is emerging, united not by ideology but by a shared opposition to Western dominance. In Foreign Affairs, Stephen Hadley characterizes this alignment of China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea as an “axis of losers,” a group whose actions threaten global stability. Hadley argues that to prevent these regimes from consolidating power, the United States must adopt a multifaceted approach that addresses each partner’s regional ambitions, demonstrates the costs of alignment with Beijing, and isolates China. This article unpacks Hadley’s strategy to counter the “axis of losers” and explores its potential implications for U.S. foreign policy.
China’s autocratic network
Hadley contends that this emerging axis centers on practical cooperation rather than a cohesive ideological agenda. China has become a central economic and technological supporter of Russia, especially since the onset of the war in Ukraine. Although Beijing has refrained from sending actual weapons, it has significantly increased its purchases of Russian oil, provided dual-use technology, and even supplied components for Russian weaponry. North Korea and Iran are actively supplying Russia with munitions and drones, while receiving technology and economic aid in return. Together, these countries coordinate diplomatically, frequently leveraging their U.N. Security Council positions to block or dilute resolutions that might harm each other’s interests.
While this axis lacks formal alliances, its members are increasingly willing to provide each other with the support necessary to challenge Western influence. Russia, Iran, and North Korea each bring unique resources to the table: North Korea offers artillery and munitions, Iran contributes drones and missile technology, and Russia provides diplomatic cover and shared military technology. Their alignment with China strengthens their ability to act independently of Western approval and, if unchecked, could further destabilize regions like Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia.
Why this axis matters to Xi Jinping
Unlike its autocratic partners, China is deeply embedded in the global economy. Hadley argues that this reality distinguishes China from Russia, North Korea, and Iran and makes it vulnerable to economic pressures that do not affect its more isolated allies. China’s alignment with these “rogue states,” Hadley suggests, is not a sign of its own ideological extremism, but rather a pragmatic alliance forged from a shared opposition to U.S. influence and liberal democracy.
For Xi Jinping, these alliances serve several purposes. By supporting these authoritarian regimes, China strengthens its geopolitical hand without direct confrontation. However, there are significant risks: aligning with rogue states jeopardizes China’s global standing, particularly if these partners continue their destabilizing behaviors. Should Russia fail in Ukraine, for instance, or Iran face severe repercussions for its regional actions, China’s reputation could suffer, undermining its goal of becoming a global leader. In Hadley’s view, this scenario would expose Beijing as backing a network of “losers,” damaging Xi’s prestige both domestically and internationally.
A targeted approach to undermine the axis
Hadley proposes a strategic approach to countering this axis by addressing each member’s specific ambitions and vulnerabilities. Rather than attempting to dissuade these countries from cooperating with China, he argues for a series of targeted moves that would make these alliances costly and unsustainable.
1. Containing Russia in Ukraine
Russia’s war in Ukraine is the cornerstone of the axis’s military cooperation. According to Hadley, preventing Russia from achieving its objectives in Ukraine is essential to weakening the entire axis. To achieve this, the U.S. and its allies must sustain Ukraine’s defense through continued economic, military, and diplomatic support. If Russia fails to secure its ambitions in Ukraine, it will demonstrate the limitations of authoritarian alliances and signal to China the potential downsides of aligning with weaker, rogue states. By curtailing Russia’s influence in Ukraine, the U.S. could weaken Moscow’s standing with China and discourage future cooperative ventures between them.
2. Quelling Iran’s regional ambitions
Iran is a critical node in the axis, destabilizing the Middle East through its support for militant groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. Hadley argues that supporting Israel and allied Arab states in countering Iranian influence could help deter Iran’s ambitions. Strong deterrence in the Middle East would signal to Beijing that its support of Iran’s regime is a liability. Reducing Iran’s regional influence would not only secure U.S. interests in the Middle East but also send a message to China that Iran’s hegemonic goals are unachievable without provoking substantial pushback.
3. Isolating North Korea’s nuclear ambitions
Hadley suggests that demonstrating a united front among allies in the Indo-Pacific, including Japan, South Korea, and Australia, can reduce North Korea’s ability to use its nuclear program as leverage. By strengthening military and economic partnerships in the region, the U.S. can highlight the futility of North Korea’s provocations. Should Kim Jong-un realize that his nuclear ambitions are counterproductive, it could reduce Pyongyang’s value to China as a disruptive force in the region. This, in turn, might diminish China’s willingness to engage with North Korea and weaken the axis’s East Asian component.
More Affairs
A potential “China card”
Hadley argues that China’s dependency on international trade and its desire to avoid comprehensive economic sanctions provide leverage for the U.S. The aim is not to sever China’s ties with its axis partners but to highlight the risks Beijing incurs by associating with them. Hadley suggests that China’s leadership may be forced to reconsider its alliances if it faces sustained pressure from a coalition of Western powers and allies. China’s willingness to adjust its policies under pressure, as seen when it abruptly ended its zero-COVID policy, indicates that Beijing may be open to pragmatic course corrections.
In Hadley’s view, Xi’s priority is achieving China’s vision of becoming a “strong, democratic, civilized, harmonious, and modern socialist country” by 2049. However, he argues that Beijing’s alignment with rogue states ultimately undermines these ambitions. Should the U.S. successfully demonstrate the costs of China’s alignment with Russia, Iran, and North Korea, it might prompt Xi to reconsider his strategy and prioritize China’s economic and diplomatic interests over these controversial partnerships.
Balancing pressure with diplomacy
Hadley emphasizes that countering this axis should not escalate into direct conflict with China. Instead, the U.S. should reinforce multilateral cooperation, promoting stability in regions threatened by the axis members. By working with European allies to maintain support for Ukraine, collaborating with Middle Eastern partners to limit Iran’s influence, and strengthening alliances in the Indo-Pacific, the U.S. can undermine the axis without resorting to military confrontation with Beijing. This approach would position the U.S. as a stabilizing force, encouraging China to see the benefits of disengaging from its rogue partners.
However, Hadley also warns against overly aggressive measures that might push China closer to these regimes. Economic sanctions, for instance, could be applied selectively to limit China’s involvement with Russia’s military efforts without severing essential trade ties. By adopting a balanced approach that discourages Beijing’s support for rogue states without isolating it completely, the U.S. can work toward a more stable geopolitical environment without inflaming tensions further.
Conclusion
In the face of rising autocratic convergence, Hadley’s strategy offers a nuanced approach to counter China’s axis without triggering a larger conflict. By targeting the vulnerabilities of each axis member—Russia, Iran, and North Korea—the U.S. can weaken their alliances with China and highlight the costs of Beijing’s engagement with them. This pragmatic approach balances deterrence with engagement, applying pressure on China to reconsider its alliances without undermining broader diplomatic relations.
As the U.S. and its allies confront an evolving global threat, Hadley’s analysis underscores the importance of maintaining flexibility and focusing on long-term stability. Through carefully calibrated actions, Washington can address the challenges posed by this new axis of autocracies, reminding China that aligning with “losers” may ultimately impede its ambitions to lead on the world stage.
