Investing Amidst Renewed Superpower Tension and Geopolitical Rivalry

Amidst heightening tensions over Taiwan’s future, the latest reciprocal military operations of both Iran and Israel and the attacks and counterattacks by Ukraine and its allies on the one hand and Russia on the other, it appears undeniable to claim that we are, once again, living in an age of greater-power confrontation and contestation (Rand, 2023; CFR, 2025). It is, likewise, clear that geopolitical tensions following their temporary abatement at the close of the Cold War, are on the rise and that, accordingly, the landscape for successful investing is shifting. Great power competition, and the myriad challenges this poses, are very much making a comeback (Goddard, 2025). 

Political brinkmanship, economics nationalism and protectionism and the sporadic aberrations from the established norms of international relations in great power diplomacy, all suggest that investments should be even more carefully selected. We face an increasingly complex and often hostile geopolitical environment and this has significant repercussions for the investment strategies of individuals, firms and even states. However, the challenges brought on by such geopolitical realities also create opportunities and while these might be harder to discern at first glance, our analysis suggested the following: 

• We contend that investments in firms that operate or possess supply chains, across both ‘factions’ in a given geopolitical contest, should be avoided. By which we mean investments into businesses that have conjoined operations within two given states locked in geopolitical confrontation, principally China and the United States, are likely to be of elevated risk in light of reciprocal trade tariffs and other retaliatory foreign and economic policy measures. Investments into such companies run the risk of being subject to the deleterious impacts of such political machinations.

• Conversely, we would advocate for investment into assets or businesses whose supply chains and core operations are focused in states likely to remain on one ‘side’ of a given geopolitical rivalry. It is contended that investments into firms/assets in such jurisdictions are, in all probability a safer bet, though by no means completely risk free, in terms of their being impacted by protectionist and retaliatory policies of each ‘side’ in a superpower rivalry.

• Finally, we argue that investments into relatively non-aligned sates which, while carrying a degree of risk, are likely to be less fraught than those in more contentious localities. In addition, investments into pivotal ‘swing states’, that is to say those nations being actively ‘courted’ by both ‘sides’ in a geopolitical rivalry, such as Qatar and Singapore, are likely to represent increasingly prudent investment choices (Fontaine and McKinley, 2025; Cohen, 2023). 

While a veritable challenge, we are firmly convinced that there remains scope for successful long-term investing despite the turbulent international relations landscape and we anticipate that new opportunities will continue to emerge provided one is sufficiently diligent and detail oriented.