Others’s thoughts
Two subscriber takes on actions and consequences
Two subscribers offer questions about where our policies are leading, one in response to me and the other as a general take. I offer them in the spirit of a dialogue.
A subscriber who served decades in the U.S. intelligence community addressed my column describing the POTUS’s scheduled visit to Beijing at the middle of this month. This is hardly a “softee” on China policy but someone with decades’s analysis who continues tracking details through a range of sources in his retirement from the USG.
“Cynthia -
I would have put this much more strongly. POTUS should not be going to Beijing any time soon. There is much to lose, little to gain. The atmospherics are bad, Beijing is in the midst of a power struggle. Xi is not his friend, and if there are benefits to his family’s business, it will bounce back to bite him domestically. I cannot imagine who is recommending that he go.”
The New York Times offered a op-ed over the weekend, from an American in Shanghai, similarly wondering what benefits the trip will reap.
At a time of upheaval in the energy sector in particular, this seems a valid question for the White House to address as they prepare us and themselves for the trip. I welcome your rebuttals as well.
Additionally, my long-time colleague and friend, a retired Colonel who served as a political appointee in the George W. Bush administration assessed the Iran conflict so far. Joe Collins did not write a screed but provided a step-by-step analysis of the points any strategist needs address in this type conflict. I cite the entire substack—which I highly recommend—entry below.
Joe raised one item I especially think got lost over the past nine weeks: regime change versus decapitation. Removing the individuals in charge of an odious government of five decades’s duration is decapitation but that doesn’t necessarily change everything to our liking.
It rarely, if ever, equates to regime transformation, which appears the assumption of some since the Supreme Leader’s eradication in early March.
We are probably the most impatient people in the world, hence we have too often expected a single change in personalities or regime’s declared stance to alter the relevant system fundamentally. Things don’t work that way following decades of rule by those who we see pursuing horrible policies.
We misjudged that in Iraq, definitely did so in Afghanistan, and countless other places over the years.
The crucial element of regime change, much less transformation, is durability which requires time. Transformation must allow for sustainability over challenges, unanticipated consequences of prior actions, and the global system.
Iran appears to show quite the opposite if our definition of change was a government more to our liking, much less one that will relinquish nuclear ambitions. What about the current leadership, based on POTUS’s dissatisfaction with their negotiation stances, is different in practice?
I welcome your thoughts on either of these subscriber responses or my additional musings. I don’t have a monopoly on answers but welcome discussion in any form.
Thank you for taking time to read this column. I especially appreciate the subscription support many of you offer for this work. An annual subscription is $55 (a hint over a dollar a week) or $8 on a monthly basis.
We visited dear friends this weekend, a charming place beginning to see spring’s bounty. This was some of the activity in the upper Midwest on a pretty morning.
Be well and be safe.
Joseph Collins, “Trump’s Biggest Failures in Iran”, Strategic Affairs 73, 3 May 2026, retrieved at
Jacob Dreyer, “Trump is Coming to a China that has Moved On”, NewYorkTimes.com, 3 May 2026.
Cynthia Watson, “Lay of the Land”, Cynthia Watson.substack.com, 29 April 2026, retrieved at