By Suhaib Farooq | Personal geopolitical analysis | 30 October 2026
There is one question that keeps coming back to me when I look at world politics: what would happen if the United States stopped supporting its partners abroad and focused only on itself? And what would happen if it did the opposite—if it continued supporting them across every region at the same time?
I think both choices carry serious consequences. That does not mean there are only two possible outcomes, peace or world war. But it does mean American decisions can change how other governments calculate risks.
China, Taiwan and the problem of American support
China claims Taiwan and has much greater military resources than the island. My concern is that China’s leaders could see US support as the main barrier to forcing a change in Taiwan’s status. If American support became weaker, Beijing might feel it had more room to increase pressure.
I have thought about the possibility of Taiwan being isolated from outside supplies or coming under heavy military pressure before any attempt to take control. That possibility worries me because it would put civilians and the economy at extraordinary risk. It also could involve the United States and other regional powers, turning a local confrontation into something wider.
But I do not think China can simply obtain an automatic victory because it has nuclear weapons. Taiwan has its own armed forces, and operations across a strait are difficult. Nuclear power increases the danger of escalation; it does not remove every practical obstacle or guarantee success.
North Korea and South Korea: why I keep noticing missile tests
On the Korean Peninsula, North Korea has nuclear weapons, while South Korea has major conventional military capabilities and a US security alliance. I have wondered whether North Korea is waiting for a moment when it believes American support will become weaker. That is a possibility I worry about, not something I can prove is the government’s hidden intention.
When North Korea launches missiles toward its eastern waters, I ask why it feels the need to demonstrate its capability repeatedly. Some tests can strengthen its weapons programs, some can warn opponents, and some may be intended to improve its position in future negotiations. We should not assume every test means an invasion has already been decided.
North Korea also changed its stated position on reunification. It no longer presents peaceful unification with the South as its current constitutional goal. That is important because the conflict should be discussed based on its present policies, not only its historical ambitions.
What about India and Pakistan?
I also think about Kashmir when considering regional conflicts. India and Pakistan have a long-running dispute over the region, and both countries possess nuclear weapons. India administers one part and Pakistan another, while China also controls territory claimed in the broader dispute.
The reason I include Kashmir is not that it is the same situation as Taiwan or Korea. Its history and political issues are different. I include it because it shows that even a dispute between neighboring countries can involve nuclear deterrence, competing territorial claims and serious consequences for ordinary people.
For me, the lives of civilians matter more than treating borders as points on a game board. A confrontation can create enormous human suffering even if it never becomes a world war.
What if the United States withdraws?
My fear is that some regional powers might read an American withdrawal as an opportunity. China might increase pressure on Taiwan. North Korea might test South Korea’s defenses. Israel might face new security challenges without the same American backing. European governments might have to take on more responsibility in responding to Russia.
But I do not mean that these countries would automatically be defeated. South Korea, Taiwan, Israel and European countries all have their own capabilities, and some have other international relationships. A change in American support would change calculations, not settle every conflict overnight.
And what if the United States stays involved everywhere?
The opposite outcome could also be dangerous. If the United States maintains commitments in Europe, East Asia and the Middle East at once, it must divide attention, money and military equipment among different crises. Other governments might conclude that American resources are stretched and try to pressure one region while a conflict is happening elsewhere.
On the other hand, continued US involvement could also persuade leaders that attacking a neighbor would be too costly. This is the strange part of deterrence: military strength can help prevent a war, but preparations on both sides can also increase mistrust.
Why nuclear weapons change my thinking
I cannot ignore the fact that several of these countries possess nuclear weapons. To me, that makes any mistake more frightening. If leaders misjudge what another country is prepared to do, a confrontation that began with limited goals might become much more destructive.
Still, I do not believe the existence of nuclear weapons means everyone would automatically die in a war. The consequences would depend on whether they were used, how many were used, where they struck and how the wider world responded. Even without extinction, the humanitarian and environmental consequences of a large nuclear war could be catastrophic.
My final thought
I don’t see the world as one side preparing one coordinated attack against another. I see countries with different interests, all watching what the others do. What worries me is that a decision in one region might encourage a decision somewhere else. Then another government responds, and a chain begins that nobody fully controls.
That is why I believe the important question is not simply ‘Will World War III happen?’ It is how we prevent separate conflicts from becoming connected in a way that cannot be reversed.
Sources and context: Congressional Research Service: Taiwan and US relations; UK House of Commons Library: North Korea in 2026; United Nations Military Observer Group: Kashmir and the Line of Control; Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: Doomsday Clock.
Editorial note: These are personal scenarios and questions, not predictions. This article does not advocate war, assert that nuclear superiority guarantees victory, or claim that a worldwide war is inevitable.
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.