The ROK’s new president, Lee Jae-myung, is attempting to improve relations with Pyongyang. But if Seoul is serious, it will need to take steps that go beyond rhetoric. Conciliatory efforts may not guarantee Pyongyang’s engagement, but they could lower the temperature and create space for negotiation.

China’s approach to conflict mediation is characterized by what scholars call “quasi-mediation diplomacy,” in which Beijing emphasizes rhetoric and symbolic gestures while avoiding costly commitments. Recent cases show that China prefers strategic ambiguity and bureaucratic caution over assuming a high-profile mediator role.

As the endgame looms over the proxy war in Ukraine, the catastrophic costs of the unwarranted conflict continue to soar. There was an alternative future for Ukraine, based on development. But it was purposely denied.

The war in Ukraine grinds on into its fourth year, and yet peace seems elusive. American President Donald Trump recently met Russian President Vladimir Putin in Anchorage, Alaska. Some hailed this as a breakthrough; others derided it as Trump being “played.”

The logic underpinning the U.S. president’s approach to war and peace looks at international conflicts as being subject to transactional pricing mechanisms. In the short run, this strategy can yield results, but its long-term sustainability remains deeply uncertain.

The stated intentions of France, the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia may add to Israel’s growing international isolation and could prompt a reassessment — though not a fundamental shift — in support for Israel by the United States.

China declined an opportunity to join Iran in its June 2025 confrontation with the United States and Israel. Though Beijing enjoys good relations with the Iranian regime, competing alignments and other considerations convinced PRC policymakers to adopt a low profile during the twelve-day war.

Attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities showed the pragmatism of U.S. foreign policy. The airstrikes were neither purely isolationist nor ideologically preemptive. Instead, they were a calibrated, interest-driven move to neutralize a threat while avoiding overcommitment.

Since fall 2023, Israel has engaged in genocidal atrocities in Gaza. So, why hasn’t the Genocide Convention been used to preempt the violence? Why has the Convention proved ineffective since its creation? The West’s long struggle against the Genocide Convention is one of the central questions of Dan Steinbock’s new book, The Obliteration Doctrine.

The answer will depend on whom you ask. But one thing is certain, the attacks by Israel and the United States on Iran’s nuclear facilities did not advance the cause of peace in the Middle East. They only added to suspicions and made a resolution more difficult to attain