Peter Zion: Why a Chinese attack on Taiwan "now" looks tempting but would be self-defeating

Peter Zion frames a Patreon question about whether China should attack Taiwan while the United States is distracted in Iran and finds the short‑term calculus ambiguous but the strategic reality decisive. He notes immediate indicators that make an attack seem attractive: "The Strait has been closed for weeks," global energy markets face "cavitating and cumulative failures" that will worsen into June and July, and the United States has concentrated naval forces in the Middle East rather than the Western Pacific. Tactically, Zion says the US is "out of the game" for precision long‑range strike because it "used up half roughly of its deployable long range munitions" and those stocks will take "five to ten years to reset".

However, Zion emphasizes an overriding strategic vulnerability: China relies on imports for energy — he gives two figures verbatim: China "imports about 80% of the crude that it uses" and "about 75% of that comes from the Persian Gulf." With the US Navy positioned in the region, Washington could interdict energy flows; Zion warns that doing so would produce catastrophic domestic collapse in China, even a "famine that kills half of their population." Thus, while a temporary tactical window exists, it does not change China’s fundamental exposure.

Zion closes by enumerating the only plausible route to Chinese success: the United States simply declines to intervene. He labels that choice "strategically idiotic," though he acknowledges the US has made comparably poor strategic choices this year. In short: short‑term operational advantages do not overcome the strategic lever the US holds over Chinese energy supplies, so an attack now would likely be self‑defeating unless the US voluntarily abandons Taiwan.