Rising competition is only likely to add impetus to China’s desire to cement its footprint in the region.

This will have long-term and significant implications for many countries in the region that might be
caught in the proverbial crossfire. It can be cited that the strategic importance of China to the Middle
East is being the primary source for its energy needs and also an overland and maritime route to
international markets. A key feature of this analysis is that American influence over these routes is a
major source of leverage in the current global contest for power even outside the very remote
possibility of a direct military confrontation.

The motivations behind these Chinese investments have been long recognized. As is the case with other
powers, Beijing’s investment policy has also been acknowledged as one of the important tools in its
strategic arsenal. However, the rationale behind the other primary areas of Chinese investment namely;
mining, energy and telecommunications, gains significantly less attention and could potentially be more
significant for both the US and the region. Regarding Chinese investments in the region’s mining sector,
the motivations appear two-fold: to ensure security of supply, and to gain leverage over the US.

On the other hand, the US worries about investments it believes could generate greater dependence on
China, with its concern being that, in the future they could act as a reason for the region’s leaders to
either take more favorable positions towards China in their disputes with the US, or at least dissuade
them from taking positions that are more aligned with American interests. Numerous US
administrations have sought to prevent allies from allowing Chinese investments in some industries.
Consequently, the US has been more successful in limiting Chinese investment in mining but that also
may be changing soon, especially as countries in the region enter the civilian nuclear energy market. For
their part, countries in the region appear largely indifferent that the motivations behind Chinese
investments are part of a grand strategy in its global contest of power and competition with the US.
Even for those countries that are more strategically aligned with the US and its interests, there may still
desire to cultivate the relationship with China and reap the potentially transformative benefits being
promised while at times underestimating or overlooking the consequences.

Therefore, I concur, war between the U.S. and China is not inevitable. This rivalry may still not be
significant enough to shape and dictate politics in the region as with other periods of superpower rivalry,
even though it could lead to further divisions in an already divided region, and undermine what little
regional co-operation already exists. The argument for the inevitability of direct or indirect conflict
between the US and China is not as strong as some suggest. Indeed, Thucydides would agree that
neither was war between Athens and Sparta. Read in context, it is clear that he meant his claim about
inevitability as hyperbole: exaggeration for the purpose of emphasis.
"Is war between China and the US inevitable?"

Rising competition is only probable to add impetus to China’s desire to cement its footprint in the
region. This will have incessant and relevant implications for many nations in the area that would
possibly be caught in the proverbial crossfire. Therefore, I concur, war between the U.S. and China
is not inevitable. This competition may still not be considerable enough to shape and dictate politics
in the region as with other periods of superpower rivalry, even though it could lead to further
divisions in an already divided region, and subvert what little regional co-operation already exists.
The argument for the inevitability of direct or indirect battle between the U.S. and China is not as
strong as some suggest. Clearly, Thucydides would sympathize that neither was battle between
Sparta and Athens. Read in context, it is clear that he supposed his stands about inevitability as
hyperbole which means exaggeration for the purpose of emphasis.

To further expound, it can be cited that the strategic significance of China to the Middle East is being
the principal source for its energy needs and also an maritime and overland route to the international
markets. Contrarily, the American influence over these routes is a predominant source of leverage in
the contemporary global contest for power even outside the very remote possibility of a direct
military confrontation.

The inducements behind these Chinese investments have been long recognized. As is the case with
other powers, Beijing’s investment policy has also been recognized as one of the essential tools in
its shrewd arsenal. However, the rationale behind the other primary areas of Chinese investment
namely; energy, mining and telecommunications, acquire notably less attention and could probably
be more significant for both the U.S. and the region. Regarding Chinese investments in the region’s
mining sector, the inducements appear two-fold: to ensure security of supply, and to obtain leverage
over the U.S.

On the other hand, the US agonizes about investments it believes could generate greater
dependence on China. With its concern being that, in the future they could act as a reason for the
region’s leaders to both take more favorable positions towards China in their disputes with the U.S.,
or at least discourage them from taking positions that are more aligned with American interests.
Numerous U.S. administrations have sought to forestall allies from allowing Chinese investments in
some industries. Consequently, the U.S. has been more profitable in limiting Chinese investment in
mining but that also may be altering soon, specifically as countries in the region enter the civilian
nuclear energy market. For their part, countries in the region appear mostly indifferent that the
motivations behind Chinese investments are part of a grand strategy in its global contest of power
and competition with the U.S. Even for those countries that are more strategically aligned with the
U.S. and its interests, there may nevertheless desire to cultivate the relationship with China and reap
the doubtlessly transformative advantages being promised while at times underestimating or
overlooking the consequences.