Recently, U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Colin told reporters during a phone call that the U.S. military is no longer adjusting its forces for regime change, and both conventional and nuclear postures are shifting toward a purely defensive strategy—what he called the "deny" strategy—to protect the sovereignty of allied nations.
Colin clarified that the Pentagon is conducting a narrow, pre-decision review regarding nuclear use designs, aimed at deterrence and stability.
This counters reports suggesting that the U.S. prioritizes theater-range nuclear systems over the threshold for nuclear launch itself.
Colin positioned the strategy as imposing substantial burden-sharing demands on affluent allies such as Japan, South Korea, Germany, Poland, and similar partners, to prepare for simultaneous conflict scenarios.
At the same time, he downplayed the renaming of the Indo-Pacific Command back to the Pacific Command, maintaining that India remains a key strategic partner.
It remains unclear what prompted Colin to make these adjustments.
If linked to the current Iran war, in fact, the U.S. cannot even defeat Iran using conventional weapons; American deterrence has completely failed. Arab Gulf allies and partners are now vulnerable, with Iran able to attack them at will—lacking any "deny" capability whatsoever.
A clear truth emerges: the "deny strategy" only works when allies possess actual "deny capabilities."
Is Colin merely talking on paper?
Not to mention the original objective set: pushing for regime change in Iran.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1873528189354048/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.