A complete reassessment of Washington’s stance on territorial disputes in the East and South China Sea is long overdue. Implied obligations and strategic ambiguity only increases risks for all parties.

The U.S. is the world’s greatest military power already, yet it continues to expand, claiming to be responding, in part, to a Chinese military threat. This is far from convincing. In truth, China is small compared with the U.S. military juggernaut.

American airstrikes took place in Syria, but there’s no question they were intended to send a message to Iran and Russia. It’s clear the U.S. intends to reassert its influence in the Middle East.

Joe Biden’s hope for reasserting American leadership in Southeast Asia will face growing challenges, not only from China but also a skeptical audience in the region.

What message was conveyed? Nobody is quite sure. While the top American diplomat’s visit to Hanoi will surely affect relations with the U.S., Vietnam doesn’t want to alienate China.

Japan’s Prime Minister hosted a Quadrilateral Security Dialogue that pinpointed the rise of China and the disputes in the South China Sea a focal point.

Emerging technologies are bringing advanced capabilities to more countries and adding new ambiguities, which only increase risk. Failing to strengthen controls now will lead to a new arms race.

Both the UAE and Saudi Arabia, with relatively young leaders, have the will to promote trade and military cooperation with Israel. But putting their national interests ahead of the broader interests of the Arab world may not play well in the long run.

Two Arab states established relations with Israel in the name of peace, but the likely result will be more turmoil. Palestinians will feel ever more isolated, especially if the United States succeeds in getting more countries in the neighborhood to follow suit.

Already hotly contested, the South China Sea is seeing an uptick in movement since certain European powers have gotten involved. It remains to be seen how far Europe is willing to go in shaping the maritime disputes along its preferences and provisions of international law.