President Trump’s decision to lift sanctions on ZTE may have been due to China’s announcement of retaliatory tariffs on agricultural goods: tariffs that significantly impact the livelihoods of the U.S. farming community, one of Trump’s biggest supporters.

The trade war may well be an early skirmish in a much tougher battle, during which economics will ultimately trump Trump.

As the U.S. and China exchange their first barrage of tariffs, it's worth examining the flawed logic that led the U.S. to begin this trade war. The reality is that the U.S. is not the paragon of a free market economy it presents itself as, and China is not as exploitative in trade as the Trump administration would suggest.

How Trump’s unique approach drives US economic policy.

Chinese antitrust regulators have launched an investigation into potential price-fixing among foreign memory chip-making giants Hynix, Micron, and Samsung. In the contentious trade environment, speculation about the reasons behind this investigation may cast it in a more suspicious light than necessary. Despite the contentious U.S.-China tech rivalry, this Chinese price fixing investigation appears to be unrelated.

The concept of reciprocity on trade is lost in translation between Chinese and American negotiators. We cannot allow a mistranslation to jeopardize such an important relationship.

The producer-consumer relationship between China and the US underpins the current global trade landscape, and it is unlikely to change in the short run because of a trade war.

Although many interests in the U.S., China and around the world will be damaged if the world’s two largest economies engage in a trade war, it is likely that Trump would have to back down first, increasing China’s global power and influence.

Friction is inevitable, trade war is not.

China’s response – increasing imports and accelerating domestic structural reforms – will support high-quality long-term growth.