Get your free personalized podcast brief

We scan new podcasts and send you the top 5 insights daily.

Policymakers find it easier to implement offensive measures like sanctions because they appear decisive. In contrast, building domestic industrial resilience is a harder political sell, as it requires significant, long-term spending with no immediate, tangible benefit to voters until a crisis hits.

Related Insights

The act of lifting sanctions on Iran is sold as a clever tactic to "use their oil against them." In reality, it's a pragmatic move to control domestic gas prices, highlighting the gap between political rhetoric and the underlying economic drivers.

Naveen Krishnan proposes a dual mandate for economic security, similar to the Federal Reserve's. It balances a defensive goal (minimizing GDP exposure to adversary-controlled choke points) with an offensive one (ensuring the industrial base can surge production in a crisis).

China's key learning from the past year is not that the U.S. lacks economic leverage, but that it lacks the political will to use it. Beijing perceives an unwillingness in Washington to endure domestic consequences, like higher consumer prices during an election year, to win a trade war.

Politicians predictably declare initiatives for domestic production of critical goods like munitions or rare earths when dependencies are exposed. However, these declarations rarely translate into effective action, suggesting we must learn to manage economic entanglement as a form of mutual deterrence rather than wish it away.

A core challenge of industrial resilience is paying for idle but ready capacity—"warm factories" and trained staff. This is politically difficult because it's a costly insurance policy that looks like paying people and companies to do nothing during peacetime, making it a hard sell for policymakers.

In economic warfare, controlling an intermediate good like a microcontroller is more powerful than controlling a finished product like a car. Because intermediate goods are inputs to many different supply chains, disrupting their flow causes far broader and more cascading damage to an adversary's economy, creating greater geopolitical leverage.

Instead of pure defense, a proactive, alliance-based 'counter-coercion' strategy is needed. This involves sharing industrial intelligence to identify and hold an adversary's own economic choke points at risk, creating a credible threat of retaliation that deters them from using economic coercion in the first place.

The increasing use of economic tools like tariffs and investment controls for foreign policy goals—termed "economic statecraft"—means negative supply shocks are no longer random. They are now a structural feature of the global economy, making inflation more persistent.

Guy Ward-Jackson suggests a strategy where the U.S. maintains the industrial capability to rapidly scale production in critical sectors during a crisis, without maintaining full production in peacetime. This mirrors the concept of nuclear latency, where a country can build a bomb quickly without possessing one.

The U.S. government approaches economic foreign policy in a piecemeal fashion, with different factions advocating for trade, investment controls, or supply chain resilience separately. This lack of an integrated national economic security strategy leads to internal competition for resources and inconsistent policy application.