By Suhaib Farooq | Personal geopolitical analysis | 30 October 2026
When I think about the wars and military tensions around the world, I don’t believe every country is fighting for the same reason. Russia has its own concerns. China has its own goals. Iran and North Korea also have different interests. But what I notice is that all four face, in one way or another, a country or an alliance supported by the United States.
That makes me think their cooperation may come from mutual interest. They don’t have to share one ideology or follow one plan. They can benefit when American attention and military resources are divided across several regions.
One country, several different military commitments
Look at the map. In Europe, Ukraine receives military help from the United States and other NATO countries as it fights Russia. In East Asia, the United States has an important security relationship with South Korea and a strong relationship with Japan. Taiwan also receives American defense support. In the Middle East, Israel has long received support from the United States, while Iran has been in conflict with Israel and the US.
To me, this creates a basic question: if a major crisis occurs in all these regions around the same time, how much can one country do at once? Military equipment, ships, air defenses, money and attention are not unlimited.
Why Russia and North Korea cooperate
Russia is already engaged in a war in Ukraine. North Korea has its own confrontation with South Korea, as well as concerns about US military forces and alliances in East Asia. Both countries have reasons to value a partner that can give them political and military support.
I think North Korea may also see cooperation with Russia as an opportunity to gain something it could not easily gain on its own: a more dependable major-power relationship. Russia, in turn, has reasons to seek additional resources and partners when it faces sanctions and military pressure.
This relationship is more than my assumption. Russia and North Korea signed a treaty in 2024 containing mutual-defense commitments. But that does not mean North Korea has already decided to start a war on the Korean Peninsula.
China’s calculation may be different
China wants to increase its strength in its own region and has a long-standing claim over Taiwan. But a direct war involving the United States could bring enormous destruction and economic damage. I think that gives Beijing a reason to watch what happens in Europe and the Middle East very carefully.
If the United States is occupied elsewhere, China’s leaders might believe they have more room to apply pressure in the Taiwan Strait. But that is only a possible calculation, not proof that China has a timetable for war. China also depends on global trade and could suffer severely from international instability.
Iran and the Middle East
Iran has a different immediate concern: the security balance around Israel, the Persian Gulf and American military power. Cooperation with Russia and China may help Iran diplomatically, economically or militarily. At the same time, Russia and China may see value in Iran remaining capable of resisting pressure from the United States.
My argument is not that Russia controls Iran or China controls North Korea. It is that countries can support one another because their interests overlap for a period of time.
Does this prove a four-country alliance?
No. A formal military alliance is different from selective cooperation. Russia’s agreements with Iran, China and North Korea do not all create the same obligations. Research into their security ties finds significant bilateral and smaller-group cooperation, but not a single joint command connecting all four.
That difference matters. If all four were following an agreed military plan, the danger would be one kind of problem. If they are acting separately but reacting to the same American commitments, the danger is different: one country’s decision could change what another country believes is possible.
What worries me
I think the biggest risk is that every country makes a decision for its own advantage without fully understanding the consequences elsewhere. One government might test an opponent’s resolve. Another might interpret that as a moment to increase pressure. A third might fear being left behind and act more aggressively.
By the time everyone realizes the crises are connected, stopping the escalation could be much harder. That is why I believe we need to study the connections between these conflicts, not just look at them as separate news stories.
Reading and context: CSIS analysis of China, Russia, Iran and North Korea security ties; CSIS on the limits of a formal alliance; Carnegie on the Russia–Iran treaty.
Editorial note: This essay expresses the author’s own interpretation of strategic incentives. It is not evidence of a secret agreement or coordinated decision to initiate war.
More in this series
Browse all World Affairs & Civilizational Ideas essays.
Mindful Truth Hub publishes practical, research-informed guides on mental wellbeing, relationships, fitness, sleep and healthier everyday habits.