The U.S. may be the strongest state militarily, but it needs regional players like China, Iran, Russia and Pakistan to make success of its policy choices on Afghanistan. Operationally it needs to rely on Pakistani ports and road networks to resupply American troops in Afghanistan.

China tactically retreated in Doklam because, beyond declaring war on India, it was running out of options. But without the distraction of a looming party congress, China could seek revenge for Doklam at a time and place of its choosing. Next time, the PLA is unlikely to make the mistake of encroaching onto an area where India enjoys the military advantage.

It’s important to be clear about what the U.S. and China’s new communication framework isn’t – it isn’t a crisis resolution mechanism, something that nominally already exists. Rather, the framework will set up a dialogue between the two countries’ joint military staffs to complement existing bilateral dialogues. What this dynamic suggests is that it is the United States, as the initiator of these measures, is the country most concerned about “miscalculation” or crisis escalation.

Trump imagines that he can use trade threats against China as “bargaining chips” to secure its help in dealing with North Korea. If so, he is on the wrong track. The U.S. and South Korea should be prepared to pause the deployment of THAAD (the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system) as a short-term gesture in return for China enacting and enforcing full sanctions.

Beijing has struggled to hide signs of an about-face in sentiment towards North Korea following claims of a successful Hydrogen bomb test on last Sunday.

Although some have derided Trump’s Afghan strategy as being “old wine in a new bottle,” his policy actually contains quite a few new elements that are conducive to peace and stability in Afghanistan and the region.

President Donald Trump’s speech on August 21 lays out his new strategy for winning in Afghanistan.

Washington officials hope to preserve America’s military dominance everywhere on earth, with the ability to defeat any nation anywhere at any time. That’s an attractive vision for policymakers used to basking in the world’s deference but is not necessary to protect the U.S.—its people and their territory, liberties, and prosperity. To the contrary, the tendency to treat advancing even the most peripheral interest as warranting war today means that America is never at peace.

To follow a common security approach that recognizes the interrelations and interdependencies between countries, Washington must step back and reassess the moral and practical implications of its foreign-policy commandment “Do as I say, Not as I do” when it comes to nuclear weapons.

In many ways, the current nuclear standoff between North Korea and the U.S. can be traced back to the former’s inclusion into the UN in 1991. Establishing a geopolitically neutral “federation” among the Koreas would actually be a viable path of compromise.