[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6273516,"mediaKeyId","2999645-869e3e8cca290524ef990e419cdfca4f","parentId",2999645,"title","Panelists: China’s regional ambitions reshape Indo-Pacific strategy; Taiwan’s deterrence and alliances in focus","audioSeconds",1237,"startMs",816340,"endMs",2053535,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2999645-869e3e8cca290524ef990e419cdfca4f&start=816&end=2053","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2999645-869e3e8cca290524ef990e419cdfca4f/thumbnail_816340.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6273516/Utah/Panelists-Chinas-regional-ambitions-reshape-Indo-Pacific-strategy-Taiwans-deterrence-and-alliances-in-focus","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6273516-5de83a8d8dea4e77f69f8fa1ce24b935/orig.mp4?Expires=1770670867&Signature=IRmEolhoYnQwuErMkhyTF97z1npcbQ6zSgB5MDYkCQrr5F2BSiYXx-EYqxC90dRp0kswz4BqIDygx7GjJTxwc8x~L3OfYuuysOnxcJC5eGZ49E4BSQeX40WLF4jzF8EFbeC-5uasRS6HkkFY0fjdeJ-VXVRe9qtnV1gKTKUasibYPCDSie~hLlZAcfYjk3ZzZFvhYd96ILcJB80BJE-YsfxQ1lP3ZfkXeKeFxaSiXpNFLMH7xGYLaWTwavme3sHIeokoJTC6pUGii5Ztizv-fg9f~TOhgovM2WpgyvhCBwTeTLcVHeOpcIllQtlDFC33rocJlbbq8QlD8F~AHSV~Mg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-04-15T09:19:30Z","article","Panelists at the University of Utah’s Hinckley Forum said China’s expanding maritime and strategic footprint is reshaping Indo-Pacific security and prompting allies to reassess deterrence, investment and partnership strategies.

Ken Holland, chief of party, USAID (and adjunct professor at the University of Utah), framed the Indo-Pacific challenge around China’s status as a “revisionist” power that aims to supplant U.S. influence in the region. Holland outlined several indicators of Chinese ambition cited by analysts: the nine‑dash line claims in the South China Sea, militarization of disputed features, incursions into other states’ exclusive economic zones, and expansion of overseas logistics and port access.

Holland contrasted recent U.S. positions on Taiwan: he said President Joe Biden explicitly stated on record that the United States would come to Taiwan’s defense in the event of a Chinese invasion, while President Donald Trump made no comparable commitment and has emphasized burden-sharing and unilateral options. “President Biden was the first U.S. president to explicitly state that if China invaded Taiwan, the United States would come to Taiwan's defense,” Holland said; he added that Trump had “made no commitment whatsoever” to defend Taiwan.

Panelists noted allied responses. Taiwan and other regional partners seek to strengthen deterrence by building defensive resilience and making potential conquest more costly, a strategy sometimes compared to the “porcupine” approach discussed for Ukraine. Panelists also said major U.S. allies in the Indo-Pacific—Australia, Japan, South Korea and India—face a strategic tension: close economic ties with China combined with shared security concerns that drive cooperation with the United States.

Audience questions touched on China’s economic investments (the Belt and Road/China–Pakistan Economic Corridor), potential trilateral cooperation among Asian states, and whether middle powers will shift alignment if U.S. commitments change. Panelists emphasized uncertainty: economic interdependence complicates strategic choices, and states are balancing commercial ties with long-term security concerns.

No formal actions were taken at the forum; the discussion was framed as expert analysis and audience Q&A.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","04.14.25 | Security Challenges Facing Europe, the Middle East, and the Indo-Pacific","oneSentenceSummary","At the Hinckley Forum, panelists discussed China’s ambitions in the Indo-Pacific, maritime disputes in the South China Sea, and uncertainty over U.S. security guarantees to Taiwan under different U.S. administrations.","taxTitle","Hinckley Institute of Politics, Utah Lobbyist / NGO, Utah Legislative Branch, Utah","taxId",8361,"location","Utah","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6273521,"Panelists: October 7 attack altered Middle East balance; Iran’s network weakened but negotiations continue",229,588380,817640,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2999645-869e3e8cca290524ef990e419cdfca4f&start=588&end=817","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2999645-869e3e8cca290524ef990e419cdfca4f/thumbnail_588380.jpg","/articles/6273521/Utah/Panelists-October-7-attack-altered-Middle-East-balance-Irans-network-weakened-but-negotiations-continue","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6273521-45fb8e393af42c4e30399b54c787df15/orig.mp4?Expires=1770670867&Signature=MZUpt2NkgJnhu6pGdn7-auxz0S8W0pExVNMzC-o98-RnhDJPavWd~8ui773ahb3iI8jxdFQLVd9xkZOnRC8LqNHgSYma-w1TtAHatg-u9QLPjoD7rQsTuv3rPfCUhFxGOBBn6tUB8cAxHzXqMxt3vNts4SkPBxkZLuafwjuyLRtxOGTDbT770mt1OTvZTaFsalZoz1n46Ucc34y4jMlmEyDnzrChYy8PfDtEW29yZAUnLevcks9AJxQdp5sQlHtynjD5FKHCa3L6ghc9R7819eSn1t8p5S8aMtRJcTx8Mp1ROJy9~vRTtt4GHRw-0LfiyQ7ZFluvg1D8SBO5btR3yg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At a Hinckley Forum at the University of Utah, panelists described a changed strategic balance in the Middle East since October 7, 2023 and outlined the central issues that U.S. negotiators and regional states still face.

Aaron Pilkington, a U.S. Air Force analyst in Middle East affairs, summarized shifts he said were visible following the Israel–Hamas war that began October 7, 2023. “Iran is losing hard,” Pilkington said during the discussion, arguing that the campaign of strikes by Israel and retaliatory exchanges exposed weaknesses in elements of Iran’s regional network and in some Iranian air defenses. Pilkington attributed the shift to a sequence of targeted strikes and counterstrikes across the region and said those operations changed how state and nonstate actors calculate risk.

Pilkington identified three core negotiation topics that have historically separated Iran from the United States and Israel: Iran’s nuclear program and intentions, Iran’s theater ballistic missile capabilities, and Iran’s support for regional proxy groups. He said attempts to negotiate on all three topics together had occurred in limited windows of recent history but were uncommon; the most viable multilateral agreement in recent years, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), focused narrowly on the nuclear issue.

Panelists discussed how earlier U.S. policy choices shaped later negotiation stances. Pilkington said that after the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA in 2018, Iran’s posture and proxy activity escalated in ways that complicated later diplomacy. He also traced how the assassination of senior Iranian-linked security figures and subsequent missile and drone exchanges altered deterrence dynamics in the region.

On diplomacy, Pilkington noted ongoing U.S.-Iran negotiations and said Gulf states still consider normalization with Israel strategically attractive but cautious about timing given the regional security environment. Several audience questions focused on the prospects for Gaza reconstruction, normalization between Gulf states and Israel, and whether the weakening of certain actors creates an opening for negotiated outcomes; panelists said uncertainty remains and no firm peace plan emerged from the discussion.

No formal policy commitments or votes came out of the forum; the session was an expert discussion and audience Q&A.","Speakers at the Hinckley Forum said the October 7 attack and subsequent military actions reshaped regional power balances, weakening Iran’s influence in some theaters while accelerating U.S.-Iran negotiations. Analysts noted continued risks and a narrow set of negotiation issues: nuclear activity, ballistic missiles and proxy support.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6273525,"Panelists: Ukraine war, transatlantic ties and security architecture dominate Europe’s security debate",2726,390835,3117795,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2999645-869e3e8cca290524ef990e419cdfca4f&start=390&end=3117","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2999645-869e3e8cca290524ef990e419cdfca4f/thumbnail_390835.jpg","/articles/6273525/Utah/Panelists-Ukraine-war-transatlantic-ties-and-security-architecture-dominate-Europes-security-debate","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6273525-e21fd59de949128392a22d3ddfeb7578/orig.mp4?Expires=1770670867&Signature=V-YZP8D7Q59rieKOCPMBzBehiNrqpO57QrqCfTFyBVXhFcPgGNWAIZPkSM-dTu49TeGL2ZQPTvKdyKTg2gbsgXdrLXYG7drSXArLJKxxsToNtE7sMj8rT4sBvPU42yl9rEKYHoowOT6sLl9-jOdC1TE7g5FDG3R0KwaNLY1cyarFHAheKEYbCF6jfmUPQ1f21bJ1N4y8Un1caqDvMkMpT9sjyRmkjWjOfBZ68VA7LSSAV14VYAsDoYTIQlgkuqq~VhzkgOzE7g5ZtxsUANG0FRksFVNiXG0uDkWGd8Xdu2qEXJ-q5eGMOLc0O610fLvv-7gj~TxAMsI2paXiArpjdA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At a Hinckley Forum at the University of Utah, panelists said the war in Ukraine, strained transatlantic relations and disagreement over Europe’s security institutions are the primary security challenges confronting European states.

Stephen Lobel, professor of political science at the University of Utah and the panel moderator, introduced the discussion and asked panelists to outline the chief security concerns facing Europe. Anders Veil, professor of international relations at the Department of Political Science at the University of Copenhagen, identified three linked challenges: the war in Ukraine, fraying transatlantic ties and debate over which forums should organize European security.

Veil said the Ukraine war presents military, economic and political problems for European states and has already produced disruptions beyond the battlefield. “The Ukraine war was a security challenge for European states,” Veil said, and he pointed to possible spillovers such as instability in Moldova or pressure on Baltic states. He noted many European countries had low defense spending “between 1.5 and 2% of GDP until fairly recently” and argued budgets likely need to rise to the roughly 3–4% range over a short period to meet current threats.

Veil described a second challenge as transatlantic relations: most European states remain NATO members and Atlanticist in orientation, he said, but the exact shape and level of future U.S. engagement is uncertain. “There’s a lot of insecurity on what will be the extent of U.S. engagement in Europe,” he said. The third challenge, he said, is the European security architecture — which institutions will lead, whether France, a stronger European pillar within NATO or other coalitions will set policy, and whether European states can agree on the content of any peace settlement for Ukraine.

Panelists discussed likely institutional responses. Veil said he does not expect the European Union to replace NATO or to develop an EU command of armed forces; rather, he predicted a stronger European pillar inside NATO, paired with regional coalitions of “able and willing” states likely organized around geopolitical interests and strategic culture. He cited a rising security conversation among Nordic and Baltic states, Poland and the United Kingdom as one example of such a cluster.

On preparedness, the panel noted multiple constraints beyond headline spending figures: technological dependence, command-and-control practices shaped by decades of cooperation with the United States, and limits in domestic defense industries. Veil said many European countries agreed after 2014 to aim for defense spending at or above 2% of GDP but that most failed to meet that target.

The forum included audience Q&A that raised alliance credibility, Russia’s actions in peripheral theaters (including undersea infrastructure disruptions noted by Veil), and the limits of a purely European response without continued U.S. partnership. Lobel closed the session after a broadly held view that Europe must increase defense capacity while seeking predictable coordination with the United States.

Less critical details: Panelists framed these debates as ongoing and contingent; no formal recommendations or votes were taken at the event.","At a Hinckley Forum at the University of Utah, panelists said the war in Ukraine, uncertain U.S. engagement and competing ideas about Europe’s security architecture are the three dominant challenges facing European security, and they urged higher defense spending and deeper regional cooperation.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Panelists: China’s regional ambitions reshape Indo-Pacific strategy; Taiwan’s deterrence and alliances in focus

Panelists: October 7 attack altered Middle East balance; Iran’s network weakened but negotiations continue

Panelists: Ukraine war, transatlantic ties and security architecture dominate Europe’s security debate