Washington’s ‘De-risking’ Strategy

Semiconductors or microchips are a critical technology for the United States (US) as well as the entire world because they power nearly everything – be it cars, smartphones, MRI scanners, airliners, industrial robots, data centres, autonomous vehicles, Artificial Intelligence or advanced weapon systems. These minuscule-sized chips have been directly accredited with an estimated USD 3 trillion in global GDP in a span of 20 years (1995-2015) and have indirectly contributed USD 11 trillion due to their widespread use in associated industries. Within this context, this article will explore Washington’s strategic moves to address its vulnerabilities in this market, fortify its technological leadership, and the potential ripple effects on the global stage.

The US has, over the years, recognised its susceptibility to disruptions in the semiconductor supply landscape. Although it leads in R&D activities, manufacturing is a weakness. The Semiconductor Industry Association’s 2021 report noted that 100% of the most advanced logic semiconductors (below 10nm) were produced outside the US in 2019. Taiwan accounted for 92% and South Korea, the remaining 8% in global logic process technology. Even American tech firms rely on Taiwan’s contract manufacturers to build 90% of their chips. Consequently, Washington may consider it paramount to prioritise continuity of supply in strained circumstances to safeguard its national interests.

The global semiconductor shortage amid the COVID-19 Pandemic initially exposed this vulnerability. As a critical technology, the ripples of disruption in this market can hinder defence, national security and economic development. In 2021, the shortage cost the US USD 240 billion in GDP and the auto industry resultantly produced 7.7 million fewer cars. 

Recent geopolitical developments in the Taiwan Strait have the potential to impact semiconductor supply. The prevailing tensions might be indicative of China’s aspirations concerning Taiwan, often referred to by Beijing as its ‘inalienable part.’ The implications of potential Chinese assertiveness, combined with the ramifications of any US response, could introduce volatility into the semiconductor supply chain. Recognising this intricate geopolitical backdrop, the US Commerce Secretary commented on US dependence being ‘untenable and unsafe.’ Similarly, a former US Treasury Secretary drew parallels, suggesting that reliance on Taiwanese semiconductors could render the US as vulnerable as Germany was on Russian gas during the Ukraine conflict.

In recognition of these pressing concerns, Washington’s ‘de-risking’ strategy is a two-pronged approach to diversify and thereby secure its semiconductor supply. The first prong is internal with aggressive investment in domestic chip-making capacity to shift production to home soil. To that end, Washington passed the Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors (CHIPS) and Science Act in August 2022, under which USD 280 billion has been earmarked spent over the next ten years to ‘bolster US semiconductor capacity, catalyze R&D, and create regional high-tech hubs and a bigger, more inclusive STEM workforce.’ Among other things, the CHIPS Act offers ‘25% in tax credits for capital expenses for manufacturing of semiconductors and related equipment.’ The US import of chip-making machinery from Taiwan has also surged. Moreover, Taiwanese Semiconductor Manufacturing and Co plans to build another factory in Phoenix, Arizona, and thus help advance American leadership in the chip sector.

The second prong extends outwards, as Washington attempts to strengthen supply from within the Western Hemisphere or from ‘reliable’ partners. Harnessing the overall collective production capacity could lead to the creation of a North American Semiconductor Corridor (NASC) with Canada and Mexico. The US-EU Trade and Technology Council also identifies securing semiconductor supply chains as an area of cooperation. Other examples include partnerships with India. A Chips 4 Alliance including the US, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan was also rumoured but the success of this policy remains to be seen. 

Such initiatives could increase the US’ resilience in case of supply chain disruptions. The national security logic dictates that even if diversification is costly, the supply would at least be safe. Investment may also create jobs on the domestic front, as well as bolster the country’s leadership status in this critical technology – though ‘major shifts in semiconductor sourcing patterns will take time’

Bakhtawar Iftikhar is a Research Assistant at the Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies (CASS), Islamabad, Pakistan. The article was first published in The News International. She can be reached at [email protected].

Design Credit: Mysha Dua Salman


Share this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Recent Publications

Browse through the list of recent publications.

How the Nature of Warfare Affects the AI Optimism

Since the advent of Artificial Intelligence (AI), a pressing question is being asked: Is Clausewitz still relevant? The game-changing potential of AI and the idea of human-machine teaming (centaur systems) have led many to doubt the seemingly unchanged nature of war. Apparently, it has given rise to the belief that AI-powered systems will replace humans (generals) in the command loop. However, this view is detached from the complex nature of warfare, which remains fundamentally a human endeavour guided by violence, chance and friction.

Just like other social institutions, war is generally an interpretivist paradigm rooted in complex human nature. It is a non-linear phenomenon whose conduct and outcomes cannot be determined by analytical predictions or algorithmic patterns. In other words, war usually does not proceed on pre-determined rules of engagement, prescriptive manuals, established patterns and predictive modelling. Instead, it is fought on judgment, adaptation to changing realities, commander’s intuition and paying attention to the unfolding of the unknown. 

Read More »

Two Faces of the Atom: India’s Nuclear Exceptionalism

ew examples capture the inconsistencies of the nuclear world order more starkly than the events of 2 March 2026: as Prime Ministers’ Mark Carney and Narendra Modi signed a landmark 1.9 billion USD uranium supply deal for India’s civil nuclear sector, Iran was subjected to the third day of indiscriminate airstrikes by the US and Israel under the banner of nuclear non-proliferation, despite Iran agreeing to zero stockpiling of enriched uranium just days prior. This event, unfortunately, was not an isolated one, rather it reflects a pattern of nuclear exceptionalism where certain states such as India, continue to be rewarded for non-compliance with international regulations, while others such as Iran, are censured and even subjected to military action based on hypothetical realities.

The latest deal would see Canada sell close to 22 million pounds of uranium concentrate to India over 8 years, starting in 2027, a sale more than ten times the last Canada-India uranium agreement of 2015, which supplied 7 million pounds of concentrate over 5 years.

Read More »

Data Centres as the New Military Targets in Modern Conflicts

The character of warfare has evolved in tandem with the changing nature of military targets. In early March 2026, Iran bypassed traditional military targets and struck the physical part of the digital infrastructure at Amazon Web Services (AWS) data centres in the UAE and Bahrain. Until now data centres had been considered an unassuming target, as they did not house any military equipment or hardware. However, the US-Israel war on Iran, has transformed these billion dollar sites into high-value targets because of their ability to act as server farms on which adversaries’ websites, apps, AI systems and the entire digital infrastructure run.

Data centres are digital ecosystems where the delivery of cloud services depends on the integrity of physical infrastructure. Disruption in any one part of the shared infrastructure does not remain isolated and risks triggering widespread systemic failure. In the case at hand, Amazon operated multiple availability zones within each region in the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. Iran struck two of the three availability zones in the UAE, while in Bahrain, a zone was damaged by drone debris causing an extended power outage and connectivity problems that further disrupted service across the Gulf.

Read More »