China Wiretapping the U.S.: A Strategic Game of Leverage and Long-Term Thinking

The recent revelations about China’s wiretapping activities in the United States have reignited debates about global security, technological dominance, and the future of geopolitical tensions. While this kind of espionage might feel like a page out of a Cold War-era spy novel, the implications are distinctly modern—and deeply strategic.

America’s Instigative Power Play

The U.S. has long been a global hegemon, not just in military and economic might but in its ability to influence and destabilize potential adversaries. It’s not hard to imagine that America, like a confident fighter, might welcome some level of provocation. Why? A well-timed conflict could achieve multiple strategic objectives: weakening an adversary while strengthening its own leverage.

If China were to take overtly aggressive action—such as invading Taiwan—it could create an excuse for the U.S. to cripple the Chinese economy and military capabilities, setting the region back decades. But timing matters. The CHIPS Act, designed to bolster America’s semiconductor industry, is a prime example of this patient strategy. Once America secures its semiconductor supply chains, its leverage in a potential conflict will only increase.

Fighting now risks global collapse—an interdependent world economy doesn’t allow for a single major power to fall without dragging others down. But delaying the fight until strategic foundations are secure could isolate the collapse to specific regions. This delay could be catastrophic for China if it finds itself economically and diplomatically boxed in.

Counterargument: Is America Really That Calculated?

Critics argue that this perspective overestimates America’s strategic cohesion. While the U.S. has a history of leveraging conflicts for geopolitical gain, internal political divisions and short-term decision-making often derail long-term strategies. The CHIPS Act, for instance, may strengthen the semiconductor industry, but the larger issue of fragmented policy implementation and inconsistent global alliances could weaken the U.S. position. If a conflict were to erupt, there’s no guarantee that America’s fractured political system could sustain a unified response.

Moreover, the notion that the U.S. could collapse specific regions without affecting the entire global system may underestimate the ripple effects of modern economic interdependence. A conflict involving China would likely still destabilize supply chains, markets, and currencies worldwide, hurting even the U.S.

China’s Inverse Strategy: Knowledge as Power

The kicker, however, is that China knows this. Through wiretapping and cyber-espionage, they’ve gained insights into U.S. systems, strategies, and vulnerabilities. This knowledge equips them with the tools to counteract U.S. plans in ways that go beyond military confrontation. If America is playing the instigator, China might just be setting the trap. By understanding U.S. intentions and strategies, they could invert the narrative, playing the long game while exploiting political and societal vulnerabilities within the U.S.

Counterargument: Can China Truly Leverage U.S. Systems?

While China’s cyber-espionage successes are concerning, some argue they might not be as strategically impactful as they appear. Having access to U.S. systems does not automatically translate into actionable leverage. The U.S. has robust cybersecurity measures, and as vulnerabilities are uncovered, they are likely to be patched. Furthermore, exploiting these systems without triggering a response is a delicate balance—one misstep could expose their operations and strengthen U.S. defenses. Espionage might yield short-term advantages, but its long-term utility is far less certain.

The Taiwan Dilemma

While the focus of U.S.-China tensions often lands on Taiwan, it’s unlikely that China’s endgame involves a traditional war. A military invasion could result in catastrophic losses, both economically and diplomatically. Instead, China is leveraging psychological operations (psyops), financial investments, and political corruption to steadily pull Taiwan closer.

This strategy aligns with China’s historical approach to conflict: win without fighting. By deepening economic and political ties, China can exert influence over Taiwan while avoiding the global backlash of outright invasion. Meanwhile, structures in the South China Sea serve as a defensive barrier, a way to solidify control over their sphere of influence and protect their long-term vision of a unified Chinese system.

Counterargument: The Risks of Patience

However, this patient approach has its risks. Taiwan’s growing international support, particularly from the U.S., Japan, and European nations, could counterbalance China’s influence. Psyops and investments alone might not be enough if Taiwan continues to solidify its identity as a democratic and sovereign entity. The more time passes, the more entrenched Taiwan’s global allies may become, raising the stakes for China’s strategic goals.

Debt Diplomacy in Southeast Asia

Beyond Taiwan, China is playing the long game across Southeast Asia. Through debt diplomacy, they are creating dependencies in countries like Thailand, Laos, and Cambodia. Massive infrastructure projects funded by Chinese loans often come with strings attached, pulling these nations into a web of economic reliance. This strategy is designed to reinforce China’s influence over the region while countering U.S. alliances and initiatives.

Counterargument: The Limits of Debt Diplomacy

Critics of China’s debt diplomacy strategy highlight its limitations. While loans may create economic dependency, they can also spark resentment and resistance. Countries burdened by unmanageable debt often push back, renegotiating terms or even rejecting further Chinese involvement. For example, Sri Lanka’s Hambantota Port deal led to significant backlash and served as a cautionary tale for other nations. The strategy might win influence in the short term, but it risks alienating potential allies in the long run.

A Future of Strategic Stalemates

The tug-of-war between the U.S. and China is unlikely to erupt into a full-scale war anytime soon. Instead, it’s a battle of leverage, influence, and long-term planning. America’s CHIPS Act and strategic military positioning indicate its readiness for a future confrontation, but China’s espionage and psychological tactics show that they, too, are thinking decades ahead.

Still, the notion of a perfectly calculated chess game might be too simplistic. Both nations face significant domestic and international challenges that could disrupt even the best-laid plans. For now, the world watches as these two giants prepare for a clash that may redefine the global order—or perhaps collapse under the weight of their own complexities.