The question now is whether the Board of Aldermen will find his proposal “just right.”

“Our duty is to protect them by bringing balance to city spending, living within our means, and making sure the needs of the city, the school district, and every household are weighed fairly,” Ruais said Thursday during his official budget address. “If we remain disciplined, creative, and united, we will emerge from this budget season stronger, more efficient, and better positioned to deliver the services that our residents deserve.”

Part of Ruais’ strategy is to share revenue and spread the budget pain by proposing across-the-board cuts for city agencies. Specifically, his budget cuts FY26 departmental allocations by 2 percent across all departments, excluding contractual commitments.

There are some exceptions: the Fire Department was cut by 1.5 percent, the Department of Public Works was cut by just 1 percent, and there was no reduction for the Manchester Police Department.

Ruais’ $200 million city proposal and $234 million school proposal keep overall spending within the city’s tax cap while funding key services. The total tax increase under Ruais’ plan is 3 percent.

“In a time of continued economic pressure, our families, residents, and businesses deserve a city government that lives within its means. At the end of every line item in our budget is an individual or family thinking about filling up their car, putting money away for their future, or paying their mortgage,” Ruais said.

“Manchester residents also expect their city to deliver for them. They expect our employees to educate our kids, answer emergency calls, repair roads, maintain parks, and clear our streets and sidewalks during the winter. We have to strike a balance.”

The Manchester School District budget proposal Ruais supports is $500,000 less than the district’s own tax cap-compliant total. However, even with that reduction, it is still $3 million more than last year’s budget.

In fact, Ruais has repeatedly pointed out that school spending has increased by $14 million since he took office, while coming in nearly $13 million below requested levels during that time.

Although Ruais’s efforts to limit education funding increases drew fire from his Democratic opponent in last year’s mayoral race, he has remained on message. He’s increased spending as part of his commitment to education, but not as much as Democrats want, as part of his commitment to taxpayers.

A key part of achieving Ruais’ balance is the work of the city’s independent auditor, a position that had been unfilled since 2018. Thanks to the auditor’s review of city operations, Manchester is operating more efficiently and cost-effectively, Ruais said.

“We are making necessary and foundational reforms to city government that will improve oversight, efficiency, and save money, while ensuring our taxpayer dollars are spent responsibly.”

That includes new centralized purchasing and payroll divisions to strengthen internal auditing, consolidate services, and reduce long-term costs. The city is also moving the Parking Division under the Police Department as another cost-saving measure.

Ruais said the city continues to invest in vital road and infrastructure improvements, as well as necessary purchases for first responders, including vehicles and a radio system upgrade. Manchester is also investing in recruiting and retaining first responders.

“I am committing dollars, consistent with the cost of implementing the compensation study, to the budget to help address recruitment and retention challenges,” Ruais said.

An alcoholic in recovery himself, Ruais has made addressing homelessness and opioid abuse a priority since taking office, saying his budget provides the services required to help those in need.

“We have responsibly reduced shelter capacity while focusing on the most vulnerable — veterans, the elderly and infirm, and now families and children— with this proposal. We are investing our federal dollars across the full continuum of care, from emergency shelter and outreach to transitional housing and permanent solutions, to make homelessness rare, brief, and one-time,” Ruais said.

Ruais’s budget proposal now moves to the Board of Aldermen for consideration.

The post Cuts, Caps and a 3% Increase: Inside Ruais’ Manchester Budget Proposal appeared first on NH Journal.

“It’s not designed to increase spending,” Volinsky told the NHJournal podcast.

He was less clear, however, on how it would stop property taxes from rising after an income tax was in place, potentially leading to a Connecticut-style situation in which New Hampshire has both an income tax and some of the highest property taxes in the nation.

Volinsky, a former executive councilor and Democratic candidate for governor, is part of an organization promoting the “3-3 Tax Savings Plan”: a 3 percent income tax and a $3 true state property tax with large deductions and a homestead exemption for homeowners and renters “to make the plan as progressive as possible to protect working class and middle class taxpayers,” as Volinsky puts it.

He argues the current system relies on an outdated measure of wealth.

“There was a time when property ownership was a fair estimate of your wealth… wealth is different now,” Volinsky said.

Asked about critics’ warnings that adding an income tax to lower property taxes would eventually lead to two taxes that are both too high, Volinsky did not offer a direct solution. Instead, he pointed to the problems facing New Hampshire due to high property taxes.

“First, how’s the current system working for you? We have over-reliance on the property tax such that people either can’t get into the housing market,” Volinsky said.

“Number two, I think we need to look up. And by that, I mean, look up at people with higher incomes. Are they contributing a similar share of their income through property or income taxes as you are?”

According to the Tax Foundation, New Hampshire has the fifth-highest effective property tax rate in the nation, and the issue is a top concern of Granite State voters. Republicans have attempted to address it by capping local governments’ ability to increase spending, but Volinsky rejects that approach.

“In the past couple of sessions, the Free State leadership in the legislature has tried harder and harder to cap local budgets for schools. Those efforts have been rejected at town meetings and SB 2 meetings, not because school administrators are demanding more money, but because people value their local schools.”

But if local town meetings can raise unlimited amounts through property taxes — on top of an income tax — doesn’t that mean higher taxes overall?

“If you want locals to be in charge despite money coming from the state, why would you tell them they can’t raise local money in addition?” Volinsky asked.

Volinsky acknowledged that his income tax proposal has not received a warm welcome inside his own party.

“I put forward an income tax. You may not agree (with it), but it’s a policy proposal,” Volinsky said.

“I think the leadership of both parties is failing us in all sorts of ways, but in particular by not being willing to have this discussion. If you ask Alexis Simpson, the highest-ranking Democrat in the House, her answer isn’t to have this discussion. Her answer is no,” he added.

“And the second-highest (ranking) person in the House, Laura Telerski, quoted (House GOP Leader) Jason Osborne when she said no. So they’re off the table as far as being open to a discussion of what fair taxation and equitable funding should be.”

Democratic gubernatorial front-runner Cinde Warmington has done the same, publicly rejecting any talk of an income tax. So would Volinsky consider entering the race, if only to give his “3-3” income tax plan a public hearing?

“To run for governor is a major undertaking that requires a level of commitment and walking away from other parts of your life. And at this point in my life, it’s not the right time to do that.”

The post Income Tax ‘Shift’ or Tax Hike 2.0? Volinsky Makes His Case appeared first on NH Journal.

Then GOP strategist Jim Merrill and longtime political reporter James Pindell jump in the ring for a round of “Rank Punditry,” talking the N.H. Senate race, the state of progressives in the N.H. Democratic Party and why Hillary Clinton’s upcoming appearance at the Dems’ upcoming fundraising dinner is problematic for the FITN primary.

Here’s the website Andy is touting: NHTaxSavingsCalculator.com.

Sponsored by Perfect Smiles of Nashua.

(With a cameo appearance by Slightly Crooked Pies.)

The post PODCAST: Andy Volinsky Wants an Income Tax And He’s Here to Tell You Why. appeared first on NH Journal.

“It’s great to see another business opening downtown,” Ruais said. “Congratulations to Lauren, Drew, and their family on the launch of Slightly Crooked Pies. What began as a home baking endeavor has grown into a successful business, and their delicious pies are a welcome addition to our city’s vibrant downtown.”

Drew Cline is president of the Josiah Bartlett Center and a regular contributor to NHJournal.

The shelves were quickly emptied as customers jostled to grab cherry, chocolate cream and blueberry lavender pies — mini pies, hand pies and full sized — along with gourmet coffee and specialty ice cream.

The business started as “a little hobby” in Cline’s kitchen, but it quickly grew as word spread. In fact, Slightly Crooked Pies was named #1 in the 2025 WMUR Viewers’ Choice poll.

Spotted in the crowd was Executive Councilor John Stephen, who is leading efforts to promote CPR training in the wake of a serious cardiac event he suffered in November. Should double-crust fruit pies be on his diet?

“I have special permission from my doctor,” Stephen told NHJournal.

The post Easy As Pie: Ruais Cuts Ribbon at ‘Slightly Crooked Pies’ in Manchester appeared first on NH Journal.

Addison became New Hampshire’s only death row inmate for the 2006 murder of Manchester Police Officer Michael Briggs. He argues the state’s 2019 death penalty repeal should apply to him. When the law was passed, lawmakers specifically stipulated the repeal would not extend to Addison.

This execution carve-out for one man is a prime example that New Hampshire’s now-defunct death penalty is being applied unfairly, according to Addison’s attorney, Michael Wiseman. The fact the 2019 repeal was crafted to leave Addison on death row shows lawmakers wanted retribution against Addison even as they acknowledged the death penalty needed to end, Wiseman said.

But the court seemed reluctant to adopt Wiseman’s legal position during Thursday’s oral arguments. Senior Associate Justice Patrick Donovan asked why the court should overturn the plain text of the repeal law, which is presumed to represent the will of the people.

“Do you acknowledge that the legislature explicitly decided to apply the repeal retroactively?” Donovan asked.

Wiseman pointed to statements made during the 2019 debate, including by then-Attorney General Gordon MacDonald, who said the repeal should apply retroactively.

“As current Chief Justice, and former Attorney General, at the time, [Gordon] MacDonald said in his memo to the Senate Judiciary Committee with respect to the predecessor bill, which was identical to the bill before this court, he said, ‘the death penalty repeal signals that society is determined that the death penalty no longer comports to contemporary standards, is no longer necessary, and no longer serves any legitimate purpose, i.e., it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, and therefore the complete and immediate prohibition against executions is required,’” Wiseman said.

MacDonald was not at Thursday morning’s hearing, having been disqualified from the case. The court’s newest member, Associate Justice Daniel Will — the former state solicitor general — is also disqualified.

Assistant Attorney General Audriana Mekula told the justices the appeal runs counter to the repeal law. Addison already had his death sentence reviewed by the Supreme Court, which upheld it in 2015.

“When you look at [the law], it says that when the death penalty is imposed, the judgment of both the conviction and the sentence shall be subject to automatic review. It doesn’t say an automatic review. It doesn’t say multiple automatic reviews. It contemplates one automatic review to happen within 60 days or within a very quick amount of time,” Mekula said.

While Wiseman argued that, because of the 2019 repeal, any person convicted in the future of killing a police officer would not face the death penalty Addison is awaiting, Mekula said that is not necessarily true. The legislature could reinstate the death penalty at any time, and there were several unsuccessful attempts this year to do so.

“It’s entirely possible next year we will have another death penalty,” Mekula said.

Gov. Kelly Ayotte, who prosecuted Addison and secured his death sentence in 2008, is pushing to reinstate the penalty.

Addison was in the middle of a violent crime spree when he shot and killed Briggs, according to court records. He took part in two armed robberies with his partner, Antoine Bell-Rogers, and the pair was linked to a shooting outside a Manchester apartment building the day before Briggs’ murder.

Manchester police obtained arrest warrants for Addison and Bell-Rogers, and the two men were preparing to leave the state. In the hours before Officer Briggs was killed, Addison was reportedly anticipating a confrontation.

“A friend warned the men that the police were nearby looking for them; [Addison] and Bell-Rogers responded by declaring that they were ‘out for blood,’” a police report filed in court states.

Briggs left behind a wife and two young sons.

The post Addison Death Penalty Appeal Gets Skeptical Reception from NH Supreme Court appeared first on NH Journal.

“To me, there’s a conflict of interest,” Stephen told NHJournal.

Stephen voted against contracts for the health care portion of the program, even though he thinks the GO-NORTH approach is the right one.

“At the end of the day, I strongly believe in the governor’s vision,” Stephen said.

GO-NORTH is funded by $204 million annually in federal grants, part of President Donald Trump’s signature One Big Beautiful Bill Act. GO-NORTH is meant to strengthen rural health providers and hospitals, expand the health care workforce, and improve access to care for everyone in rural New Hampshire communities.

During her 2026 State of the State address, Ayotte highlighted GO-NORTH as a “lifeline” for every corner of the state, saying it would help rural residents access high-quality care without the need to travel long distances to major medical centers.

Structurally, GO-NORTH is set up as a new executive agency under Ayotte’s control, but embedded inside the Department of Health and Human Services and staffed by outside consultants.

While Stephen applauds Ayotte for GO-NORTH, he’s less thrilled about the $18 million over five years going to consultants to manage the behavioral health aspect of the program.

Currently, the only consultant hired is Roland Lamy with the Concord-based consulting firm Helms & Co. The problem for Stephen is that Lamy is also the executive director of the New Hampshire Community Behavioral Health Association, a health care trade group, and one of the vendors getting more than $100 million through GO-NORTH. The consulting contracts should have at least gone out to bid, he said.

“All I want is a competitive market to get the best value here,” Stephen said.

Ayotte defended the sole-source consulting contract, saying during Wednesday’s debate that’s the fastest way to get GO-NORTH up and running.

“We have an existing organization that can execute this contract right now,” Ayotte said.

Stephen inspired some raised eyebrows when he based part of his objection on “the appearance of a conflict of interest.”

Stephen operates his own health care management consulting firm, The Stephen Group.

Stephen says his company last had a state contract eight years ago, and he has sworn off any work with a state agency while in office. “As an elected official, I refuse to do business with the State of New Hampshire.”

At the same time, vendors who sell services covered by these health care contracts do business in many states, including where The Stephen Group operates.

Stephen said taxpayers need to know if the program is getting properly managed, and the best way to do that is through a standard competitive bidding process. He’d also rather that the people running GO-NORTH are not private contractors, but state employees accountable to the public.

“Why can’t we take the consultants and turn them into state employees?” Stephen asked.

Executive Councilor David Wheeler (R-District 5) also voted no on the program, but that left Ayotte with a majority to push through her plan.

“Our community mental health centers are critical to ensuring that all Granite Staters have access to quality mental health care in New Hampshire, and our GO-NORTH team worked hand-in-hand with them to put together a plan to make the system stronger, more sustainable, and more accessible,” Ayotte said in a statement.

The post GO-NORTH Clears Executive Council on 3-2 Vote Amid Conflict Concerns appeared first on NH Journal.

On Wednesday, Stephen brought them to Concord to say thank you and to urge Granite Staters to get the same lifesaving training.

“My two guardian angels saved my life,” Stephen said of the Batias during a ceremony at the beginning of the Executive Council meeting.

Gov. Kelly Ayotte also thanked the Batias, presenting them with a commendation for their “quick thinking, calm action, and willingness to help a stranger in a moment of crisis.”

“Abbie and Mark Batia helped sustain Councilor Stephen until advanced medical care could take over, ultimately contributing to his survival and recovery.”

In an interview with NHJournal in December, Mark said he “immediately knew something was wrong” when he and Abbie saw Stephen on the sidewalk, fighting for breath.

“Sometimes you see people lying on the ground, stretching, or even resting. Not this time. He was clearly in trouble. I called 911 and ran right to him.”

“He gasped really loud, and then he stopped breathing. My wife said, ‘Oh, gosh, he died. He just died!’ So I started CPR.”

Stephen told NHJournal he didn’t remember anything until he woke up in the hospital days later.

“Both my daughters were standing over me, and they were praying. That’s when I knew something really bad had happened.”

On Wednesday, Mark Batia shrugged off any “hero” talk.

“We’re just two people that are here to serve a neighbor and hopefully do what someone would do for you, if you were in that same position.”

CPR training was the focus of the day Wednesday, beginning with the morning’s breakfast meeting, an informal session of the governor and Executive Council before their official state house meeting.

Gathered at the New Hampshire Fire Academy, EMS professionals from the academy and from AMR Ambulance provided hands-on demonstrations for the governor and Executive Councilors, proving that the lifesaving technique can be mastered in roughly two hours.

Stephen is also spearheading a weeklong CPR challenge for the Executive Council, where he aims to get 1,000 Granite Staters quickly trained in the compression CPR technique that saved his life.

Justin Romanello, Chief of the Bureau of EMS, underscored the life-or-death stakes of bystander action with sobering statistics.

10 Minutes: The time it takes for cardiac arrest to result in certain death without resuscitation.

7 Minutes: The average response time for New Hampshire EMS.

14 percent: New Hampshire’s survival rate for public cardiac emergencies—higher than the 10 percent national average, but still leaving significant room for improvement.

Ayotte wrapped up the morning with a commendation presentation to Bill Wood, who recently retired after 42 years working in New Hampshire emergency services.

Bill and his wife, Ann, were longtime members of what is today the Wolfeboro Fire Rescue Department, and he holds the record for having the longest-tenured national certification from the National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians (52 years).

“He’s probably saved more lives than anyone else in this room,” Ayotte said.

Wood said the state deserved credit for using its purchasing power on contracts to get savings on automated external defibrillators for local communities and agencies.

“I strongly recommend, shock early and shock often,” Wood told the gathering.

Department of Safety Commissioner Robert Quinn was on hand to thank the Batias and Wood and to make a confession.

“At that moment, when you were on your knees doing compressions, I was not certified,” Quinn told the Batias.

“So I made sure I came in and got certified. As someone said, we can all be first responders. You don’t need a uniform.”

Jeffrey Hastings contributed to this report.

The post Councilor Stephen’s Sidewalk Rescue Inspires CPR Push at State House appeared first on NH Journal.

U.S. Attorney Erin Creegan announced the indictment last week, saying Jacques, 52, faces up to 20 years in prison if convicted. At the time of his 2024 arrest, Jacques had already been convicted in a separate federal child sexual abuse material (CSAM) case but had not yet begun serving his five-year sentence.

Jacques’ path through the criminal justice system has been anything but typical.

After pleading guilty in March 2024 to a CSAM charge, Jacques was allowed to remain free pending sentencing. When he was sentenced that September, he was given until Dec. 2, 2024, to report to prison.

According to court records, however, Jacques allegedly continued downloading graphic CSAM while awaiting sentencing — conduct that formed the basis of the new indictment.

While on release, Jacques was permitted to use a work laptop, personal laptop, and a cellphone under the supervision of federal probation officers. Monitoring software was installed on those devices.

But records indicate the monitoring system went unchecked for weeks.

Investigators say Jacques downloaded illegal material in August and September 2024, yet his probation officer did not review the tracking data until Oct. 16, a day after the U.S. Attorney’s Office made inquiries about his case.

Those inquiries came after local residents raised concerns that Jacques was attending Kearsarge Regional High School girls’ soccer games unsupervised.

Jacques’ child, Maelle Jacques, was a controversial player on the girls’ team, drawing objections from some parents over transgender participation in female sports. Those concerns intensified when it became widely known that Marc Jacques — present at games — had pleaded guilty in a CSAM case.

In court filings, Jacques cited his child’s situation in seeking leniency, arguing he should remain free through the end of the soccer season to provide support.

Jacques was arrested Oct. 18, 2024, after authorities say his probation officer discovered he was storing CSAM on an unauthorized flash drive.

“Jacques admitted to the probation officer that he possessed an unauthorized flash drive and that he knew of the sexually explicit content on the flash drive. Jacques denied that the flash drive contained any illegal images,” according to a search warrant affidavit.

Investigators described the material in court filings as involving graphic sexual abuse of prepubescent children.

The aftermath of that arrest raises additional unanswered questions.

Authorities obtained warrants for devices at Jacques’ Newbury home, but those devices were no longer there. According to court records, a family member removed a laptop, cellphone, and an iPad from the home and took them to another location following Jacques’ arrest.

Investigators seized the devices five days later, on Oct. 23. When they were examined in November, no CSAM was found. It remains unclear what occurred during the intervening period.

Jacques began serving his five-year sentence shortly after his October arrest. Prosecutors filed new charges in December 2024 tied to the alleged August and September downloads.

Then the case stalled.

Jacques filed multiple motions seeking delays while negotiating a potential plea agreement, stretching the process out for months before last week’s indictment.

In another unusual development, every judge in the U.S. District Court in New Hampshire recused themselves from the case. It is now being handled by U.S. District Court Judge Amy Moses of Rhode Island.

The court docket does not explain the recusals, and neither the court nor the U.S. Attorney’s Office has responded to NHJournal’s requests for comment.

The post ‘Soccer Dad’ to Defendant Again: Marc Jacques Indicted in New Child Porn Charges appeared first on NH Journal.

The United States and Israel are devastating the parasitic Islamic regime that has squandered the wealth of Iran for decades and exported terror across the Middle East. Understanding the biggest losers in this war is just as important as any battle damage assessment on the rubble of government buildings in Tehran.

The third Gulf War is very bad news for America’s enemies.

By far the biggest loser in this conflict is the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), America’s arch-enemy in the Middle East and the primary military and ideological guardian of the regime. The IRGC brutalizes the Iranian people while exporting violence around the region, including attacks on American troops and civilians in Iraq.

In three weeks, the United States and Israel have achieved what decades of diplomacy and sanctions could not: the systematic “housecleaning” of a terrorist group with the largest missile arsenal in the region and a global arms proliferator.

The IRGC is lobotomized and without a command structure and has been reduced to a set of rogue, discombobulated members. Preventing its reconstitution should be a priority for the United States.

A close second on the list of losers is the network of terrorist subsidiaries Iran has funded and armed for decades. This includes entrenched brutes like Hezbollah and Hamas. While Israel systematically dismantles what remains of Hezbollah in Lebanon, a defunded Hamas has become surprisingly open to negotiating the most important part of a peace plan: surrendering its heavy weapons.

Disorganized and cut off from their patron, these groups are effectively orphaned.

The next loser is Russia’s Vladimir Putin and his grand vision of creating a globe-spanning, multipolar world order, including North Korea, to challenge the United States. That vision is disintegrating in real-time. When the U.S. toppled Kremlin allies such as Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and dispatched Iran’s terrorist leadership to the afterlife, Moscow offered condolences but little more.

Talk is cheap, and Putin’s bold rhetoric about resisting American hegemony now looks astonishingly weak. When the chips were down, Russia was entirely unable to assist its friends, keep them alive, or keep them out of U.S. custody.

This staggering failure will significantly harm Putin’s credibility the next time he calls for nations to rally around his anti-American “axis of resistance.” Other world leaders will ask: Why join a losing side?

Finally, there is China. While the United States has historically insisted that Beijing is a competitor rather than an enemy, the war for Iran has imposed new costs on Xi Jinping’s economic machine. Half of China’s crude oil imports cross the Strait of Hormuz. With that vital maritime checkpoint severely disrupted, China has been forced to burn through portions of its vast oil stockpiles to ride out the storm. It is a short-term fix rather than a long-term solution.

In a future crisis over Taiwan, Beijing’s bluster and aggressive military posture should be viewed in a context of potential vulnerabilities. Washington and Beijing are increasingly aware that the fight over Hormuz may have profound implications for a future fight over the Taiwan Strait.

Naysayers long claimed that an armed confrontation with Iran would trigger World War III and a spiral into a global catastrophe. As dust settles on the first weeks of this war, a very different set of outcomes is emerging.

By striking at the heart of the “Axis of Resistance,” the United States has begun to dismantle a regional menace and the largest factory of terror in the Middle East. And more than humiliating Putin’s multipolar ambitions, Beijing’s vulnerability is on full display.

Perhaps the biggest lesson for America’s enemies? Never awaken the American giant unless you wish to pay the consequences.

The post Point: Add Russia and China to the List of Losers in U.S. War on Iran appeared first on NH Journal.

President Trump’s disastrous war on Iran is weakening the United States, while presenting America’s principal adversaries, China and Russia, with a strategic opportunity to expand their global influence.

The war in Iran is already diverting U.S. attention and resources from Ukraine and East Asia at an alarming level, giving China and Russia a freer hand to pursue their anti-America agendas.

According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Trump administration spent $16.5 billion on the war in its first 12 days. The Center for American Progress estimates that costs increase by more than $1 billion daily.

As part of the massive buildup of U.S. military assets in the Middle East, Trump deployed the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier strike group, one of five currently operational, from the South China Sea, where it had been deterring Chinese threats, to the Arabian Sea to support Operation Epic Fury. Our largest aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald Ford, is now undergoing maintenance in Greece after it was ordered to the Middle East despite having exceeded its service hours, potentially leaving it out of commission longer than would normally be the case.

Even more alarming, the deployment of additional U.S. missile-defense assets and the transfer of scarce Patriot batteries and interceptors to the Middle East risk exposing U.S. forces and allies to more advanced threats from China and Russia.

At least one, and perhaps as many as three, of eight Terminal High Altitude Area Defense radars — our most advanced anti-ballistic missile defense system — was destroyed by Iranian attacks. U.S. Gulf partners are now requesting more interceptors, the missiles used to destroy incoming projectiles, in response to the Iranian onslaught, and Israel is reportedly conserving its own interceptor stocks to slow the depletion rate.

With slow production timelines, the United States will have fewer systems to protect troops and civilians from aerial attacks, while Ukraine and Taiwan will find it even harder to maintain adequate stocks to defend against Russia and China, respectively. The longer the war in Iran continues, the more vulnerable it will leave the U.S. and our allies.

Given the substantial toll on the U.S. military, this war could only be justified from a great-power competition perspective if the defeat of Iran would constitute an enormous loss for Russia and China. However, or all the cooperation among the three countries, Iran is ultimately expendable to Beijing and Moscow. China and Russia’s relationships with Iran are a “nice-to-have,” not a necessity. For Russian President Vladimir Putin, he has already got what he wanted from Iran: advanced drone technology that Russia is now mass-producing and selling back to Tehran.

Yes, China’s ability to purchase discounted oil from Iran is beneficial to the Chinese economy, but Beijing is better positioned than most countries to absorb energy shocks due to its thorough planning — China has 1.4 billion barrels of oil stockpiled, which is sufficient for the next six months — and extensive efforts to diversify its energy portfolio to include renewables.

Ironically, Russia and China are among the beneficiaries of the sharp spike in oil and gas prices caused by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

President Trump’s decision to lift sanctions on Russian and Iranian oil to combat rising energy prices for the American consumer has generated a windfall for oil-producing Russia and mitigated risk for China in procuring Iranian oil.

Even under a best-case scenario in which the United States ousts the Iranian regime in favor of a more cooperative government, this would not be a catastrophic blow to either China or Russia. In the far more likely scenario that the Islamic Republic survives, the regime’s survival would be interpreted as a victory not just for the Islamic Republic but also for China and Russia in return for what has been a minimal investment on their part.

Put simply, the war in Iran is a lose-lose proposition for the United States and the Trump administration.

Once again, Russia and China are watching with satisfaction as the United States pursues another foolhardy war in the Middle East. Every time the United States allows itself to become bogged down militarily in the Middle East by anything less than an imminent threat is an opportunity for our adversaries to remake their neighborhoods and eventually the world in their own image. The United States can ultimately prevail, but only if our government stops shooting itself in the foot.

The post Counterpoint: Trump’s Iran War Has Done Russia and China a Service appeared first on NH Journal.