### Intel's High-Stakes Strategy: A Geopolitical and Economic Gamble

Intel's journey under the leadership of CEO Pat Gelsinger isn't merely a tale of a declining tech giant; it’s a gripping saga of strategic gambles with profound global implications. Contrary to the narrative of a steadily sinking ship, Intel's path involves high risks and ambitious plans that could reshape both the company and the broader semiconductor industry.

Upon assuming leadership, Gelsinger initiated an aggressive and costly strategy aimed at reclaiming Intel's position at the forefront of global chip manufacturing. Recognizing that this turnaround would span several years, Gelsinger brokered a deal with ASML, the sole producer of advanced chip-making machines, securing Intel the first of these next-generation tools. He further funneled billions into capital investments, a move that's currently draining Intel's finances by nearly $16 billion annually without immediate returns.

Despite criticism, layoffs of 15,000 employees, and rumored acquisition interests from Qualcomm, the core of Intel’s strategy goes beyond internal restructuring. The semiconductor sector is of strategic importance for national security in the United States and China. Only three companies—Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), South Korea’s Samsung, and Intel—are capable of producing cutting-edge chips. This geopolitical importance led to the 2022 CHIPS and Science Act, under which Intel received a substantial portion of the subsidies, amounting to around $20 billion in funding and loans for new facilities in Arizona and Ohio.

The broader picture involves significant political and economic complexities. By 2025, Intel aims to commence production of leading-edge chips in at least one of its new fabs. Yet, Gelsinger projects that Intel's full financial recuperation could extend beyond 2030. Meanwhile, TSMC is also planning to kick off production in its U.S. plants by next year but will delay leading-edge chip production there until 2027 or 2028, continuing earlier production in Taiwan.

In this environment, the stakes are high not just for Intel but for U.S. national security policy and global tech leadership. China's President Xi Jinping has outlined plans for his country to achieve self-sufficiency in semiconductor production, including leading-edge chips, by 2027—a timeline that coincides suspiciously with a proposed military plan to invade Taiwan, raising questions about the future control of TSMC.

The evolving scenario poses intriguing questions: Could a Chinese takeover of Taiwan and, by extension, TSMC, force U.S. policymakers to reconsider their stance on foreign-owned semiconductor operations on American soil? Would Intel gain or lose from such geopolitical maneuvering? Alternatively, if TSMC and Samsung’s U.S. operations outperform Intel's, would Washington extend additional financial support to bolster the only American contender in this critical industry?

Today’s Intel exemplifies a trend described by Lazard CEO Peter Orszag, where corporations are becoming key geopolitical actors rather than mere commercial entities. In this high-stakes landscape, Intel is not just a technology company but a crucial instrument of national and international policy.