For the United States and China, the very concept of a rules-based international order, once a topic of agreement, has turned into disagreement. That is the current distorted reality in their relationship. It is not only power that is at stake but the meaning of order itself.

The ongoing conflict involving the United States, Israel, and Iran represents one of the most significant geopolitical crises of 2026. It began in late February when U.S. and Israeli forces launched large-scale strikes on Iranian military and nuclear infrastructure, escalating long-standing tensions over Iran’s nuclear program and regional influence. Iran responded with missile and drone attacks across the Middle East, targeting U.S. bases and allied interests, turning the confrontation into a broader regional war. The conflict has disrupted global energy markets, intensified regional instability, and triggered fragile ceasefire efforts, highlighting the risk of prolonged confrontation and wider international consequences.

The multi-centered geographical distribution of UN agencies has been a reality, yet there is no comprehensive UN hub in East Asia. A two-step approach—pilot first, followed by institutional integration—could be adopted to leverage the region’s strengths in innovation and market, thereby building a new node of international governance.

Middle powers on the continent have a real motivation to cooperate. Constrained by structural factors such as their defense systems, however, the so-called transatlantic shared heritage and the scale of the U.S. market, their cooperation is seen mostly in policy coordination and diplomatic statements.

Donald Trump has not destroyed a legitimate rules-based international order; rather, his actions have exposed the long-standing hypocrisy of a system in which the United States and its allies have frequently ignored international law while enforcing it selectively against their adversaries.

Even as the United States attempts to nudge its allies toward taking a tougher line on China, Washington is increasingly seen as an unreliable partner. Its pressure no longer brings automatic alignment. Other Western nations are choosing their own course.

The Munich Security Conference reveals a shift in transatlantic ties as AI security becomes central to global debate. Europe is increasingly linking AI policy to technological autonomy, seeking to balance cooperation with the United States while strengthening its own strategic capabilities.

Reaffirming legal limits is not an act of idealism. It is one of prudence. Strategic stability is not self-sustaining. It must be actively maintained. And in the nuclear age, maintenance begins not only with capability but with responsibility.

The old international order is being dismantled, even as a new one gradually comes into view. The interplay of major-powers, regional cooperation and global practices will continue to reshape that order as the parties attempt to stop the bleeding.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio stood before the Munich Security Conference on 14 February 2026 and delivered a speech that will be remembered less for its