Nuclear weapons made wars of conquest between great powers unthinkable. After 1945, nuclear powers could still confront one another, but only indirectly, through proxy conflicts and peripheral crises. However bloody, these conflicts were not expected to approach the violence of the 20th century’s two world wars.

Presidents Xi and Trump should address the issue of nuclear weapons testing along with nuclear arms control to enhance strategic stability between China and the United States.

The U.S.-Iran conflict is increasing instability and straining U.S. resources while undermining Washington’s global credibility and leadership. At the same time, China is capitalizing on the situation by positioning itself as a neutral, stabilizing force and expanding its diplomatic influence at the United States’ expense.

The U.S.-Israel war on Iran has brought many lessons, foremost among them the shattering of the myth of unchallenged U.S. global might. More than a month into the U.S.-Israeli aggression, neither could the war change the regime in Iran – one of the illusions upon which U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu had waged the war – nor did Tehran concede to U.S. terms. Furthermore, on 2 March, Iran blocked the Strait of Hormuz, through which around one-fifth of the world’s oil supplies pass. This energy lifeline remained blocked despite Trump’s repeated ultimatums and desperate calls to allies and partners to send forces to reopen it. This resistance was particularly notable as Iran has been under crippling sanctions for decades.

Canada and the five Nordic countries have vowed to seek closer “middle power” cooperation, a strategic effort to preserve national sovereignty. The move exposes a rift in the U.S.-led alliance system, which faces multiple uncertainties, including internal coordination challenges and U.S. pressure.

After one month of hostilities and no exit plans, the lethal costs of the U.S.-Israel joint war against Iran are global. How will the crisis reverberate against the backdrop of elevated U.S.-China relations?

Merging combat commands and cutting 20 percent of active-duty four-star generals have angered many top military officers. Without the support of top military brass and state governments, can Trump 2.0’s ambitious military reform succeed? We shall see.

The organization, which is historically tied to the United States is facing new questions. Donald Trump’s rhetoric has offended America’s European allies, and several of them do not want to get involved in an unpopular war. Unless resolved, such frictions will reduce NATO from a unity platform to a contest of priorities.

The pretext for Trump’s aggression against Iran, in partnership with Israel, is flimsy. As the saying goes, even a gentle rabbit may bite when cornered. The current war is, in some respects, an extreme manifestation of hegemony. And the whole world is paying the price.

The contradictions between the Trump administration’s state strategies and outward actions highlight its new geopolitical interventionist mindset. It claims to oppose prolonged wars, yet it does not reject military means to pursue economic interests. Washington has exposed its hegemonic nature.