Given the security risks attendant with continued dependence on China for many critical products, a smaller trade deficit should be accomplished mainly by erasing the $300 billion merchandise trade deficit with China. Mr. Bessent would like credible commitments from our trading partners to limit trade with and contain China, but that’s a tough ask, given its large internal market and threats to retaliate against nations that overtly cooperate. At minimum, we should expect credible, effective measures to stop the transshipment of Chinese goods through our trading partners. The United States can structure tariffs toward China in a manner that provides an incentive for other nations to erect limits on imports from the Middle Kingdom, too. China seeks to dominate the global stage through “brute force economics.” President Xi Jinping’s goal is to control vital industries such as shipbuilding and semiconductors and minimize China’s dependence on other countries while maximizing their dependence on Beijing. That limits the scope for constructive dialogue, and the United States should impose balanced bilateral trade in goods. In 2024, U.S. merchandise imports from China were $438 billion, about three times the size of U.S. exports. We can’t end that dependence in a single stroke, but we can work it down over the remainder of Mr. Trump’s second term. Specifically, require licenses to import goods from China and initially set the value of those to 2½ times the size of U.S. imports starting in July. Then reduce that ratio in steps to one over three years. That way, either our allies can limit their imports from China or we can help them do it.

Samuel Huntington’s classic “The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order,” first published in 1996, may be the most insightful book written about terrorism’s war on the West because it gets to the heart of the conflict. A Harvard professor for four decades, Mr. Huntington went from respected scholar to intellectual pariah for his controversial book. He wrote that after the Cold War, conflicts would be driven not by nation-states but rather by culture and religion. Mr. Huntington coined the expression “Islam’s bloody borders” to explain its inability to coexist with others. To suggest that Islam was something other than the religion of peace outraged the left. By “Islam’s bloody borders,” Mr. Huntington meant that wherever significant Muslim populations come into contact with “infidels,” conflict ensues. Almost 30 years after the publication of “The Clash of Civilizations,” our leaders are still unable or unwilling to connect the dots: to see the relationship between terrorism in Israel, strife in Britain, Europe’s growing Muslim population and the quaint customs it brings with it (such as raping infidel women), a mayoral race in New York, and Rome making obeisance to Mecca. In the 1930s, Adolf Hitler’s greatest strength was Europe’s inability to take him seriously. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union was aided by the inability of liberals to see a worldwide conspiracy. Mlitant Islam advances by the refusal of many in the West to see the big picture. It’s not just a terrorist attack. It’s also a blueprint for global conquest that originated on the Arabian Peninsula 1,500 years ago. Civilizations are clashing everywhere, and the West is losing.

China prevents its population from enjoying the standards of living that should be commensurate with its rising gross domestic product, China artificially drives down prices to gain overwhelming control over rare earth and critical mineral processing and other key markets. The Middle East trades more with China than the U.S. China established its first overseas base in Djibouti and negotiated strategic partnerships with Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Oman and Kuwait. Chinese companies in Oman, which has a free trade agreement with the U.S., flood the U.S. market with re-exports of high technology while evading U.S. tariffs and scrutiny. Nothing is more important for U.S. national security than a comprehensive strategy to defend, deter and counter Mr. Xi’s aggressive plan to build a new world order, where the Chinese Communist Party exterminates the principles of liberty, freedom and democracy enshrined in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. It all starts with the U.S. intelligence community, which is on the hook to steal Mr. Xi’s secrets, especially his plans and intentions to wield China’s military, economic and diplomatic power against us. We have no reason to go it alone. China’s coercive diplomacy,unfair trade practices and military aggression threaten a multitude of nations for which China’s state-sponsored tyranny is anathema. Our allies and partners can be powerful force multipliers so that the U.S. conducts its China policy more effectively. Mr. Xi wants China’s adversaries to be weak and divided because he knows that together we are stronger and better equipped to protect internationally recognized borders, freedom of navigation, and the free exchange of goods and services on which the U.S. and global economies rely.

For the first time, standing with Mr. Xi were Russian ruler Vladimir Putin, North Korean supreme leader Kim Jong-un and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian ? the Four Horsemen of this century’s axis of tyranny, which China is exploiting to boost its global influence in confrontation with the U.S. and its allies. Mr. Xi spewed anti-U.S. propaganda about “taking a stand against hegemonism and power politics” when, in fact, he is responsible for spawning this century’s Cold War. China has long claimed Taiwan to be its “breakaway province” to be reunited by force, if necessary, despite having never ruled it. Illegally annexing Taiwan would extend China’s reach into the East China Sea, threaten Japan and Guam, and enable China to subsume Taiwan’s high-tech industry, including its world-class semiconductor factories. Closely allied with Cuba and Venezuela, China is also actively encroaching on U.S. commercial and national security interests in the Western Hemisphere. At the turn of the century, China joined the World Trade Organization and then proceeded to break all the rules governing international trade. While blocking imports, China flooded overseas markets, especially in the U.S. and Western Europe, with comparatively cheaper goods. Implementing its state-run communist economic model, China spends hundreds of billions of dollars on industrial subsidies that have threatened the European Union’s clean energy strategy. This is especially true for solar panels, where China controls 80% of the world’s manufacturing capacity, and global electric vehicle sales, for which China has built a 60% share. That’s why Europe suffers a $500 billion trade deficit with China. China violates internationally recognized standards for labor.

During the Soviet era, Ukrainians were badly mistreated by Moscow. One example: the Holodomor, a famine engineered by Josef Stalin from 1932 to 1933. Mr. Putin is now erecting monuments to Stalin all around Russia. At the Yalta conference in 1945, Stalin out-negotiated President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, persuading them to accept his domination of the Eastern and Central European states, which soon became Soviet satellites. Mr. Putin likes to ramble on about Russian history, and in his often-inaccurate version, Ukraine is just a “little Russia,” By the way, it’s relevant to recall that President Reagan, elected in 1980, ended detente because of the Soviet invasion of Afganistan. The Rus’ principalities were ruled by Mongol from the mid-13th century to the late 15th century. The Mongol model of absolute authoritarianism influenced the Russian and Soviet empires that followed. That means negotiating with Mr. Putin is also like bargaining with Genghis Khan. Genghis was not keen on either peace or win-win outcomes. Given this background, it would be logical for us to do what we’ve done in the past: Achieve peace through strength, in this case by imposing harsh economic sanctions on the imperialist dictator in the Kremlin and providing Ukrainians with the long-range missiles they need to defend themselves from the invading hordes. The dictators in Beijing, Pyongyang and Tehran are all assisting Mr. Putin. The Ukrainians are not fighting one enemy but four: an “axis of aggressors” that are as much America’s adversaries as Ukraine’s.

Indeed, North Korea succeeded in getting Russia to accept its nuclear weapons status. Russia was a member of the six-party talks with North Korea and actively assisted the U.S., South Korea, Japan and China in demanding that North Korea denuclearize completely and verifiably. Russia is now saying North Korea should retain and enhance its nuclear weapons and is probably assisting North Korea with its nuclear weapons program. Hopefully, China continues to demand that North Korea denuclearize. Some say China is now the least committed it has ever been to North Korean denuclearization. North Korea’s goal is to have a normal relationship with the U.S. This is something Mr. Kim’s father, Kim Jong-il, and grandfather Kim Il-sung pursued since 1994. A relationship with the U.S. would give North Korea international credibility and access to international financial institutions for economic development purposes. It would also untether North Korea from China. It is no secret that historically, and even after Mr. Xi assumed power in China in 2013, the bilateral relationship between North Korea and China has been tense. Indeed, given North Korea’s experience in dealing with the former Soviet Union, it should be obvious to the nation that once the war in Ukraine is over, Russia’s need for continued North Korean assistance will end, and the relationship will likely be downgraded. This is the time for Mr. Trump to meet with Mr. Kim to talk about security assurances and a path to normal bilateral relations. The issue of North Korea’s nuclear status need not be the focal point for future discussions. It should, however, continue to be our goal, but at an appropriate time.

North Korean leader Kim Jong-un is ready to do business with President Trump. Over the past few years, Mr. Kim is well prepared for a fourth substantive meeting with Mr. Trump. Mr. Kim’s recent meetings with Russian President Vladimir Putin and the new mutual defense treaty with the Russian Federation have developed into an alliance of unexpected consequences. The consequences surprised many of the pundits who viewed North Korea as a distraction confined to the Korean Peninsula. Indeed, Mr. Kim’s presence in Beijing for the 80th anniversary of World War II Victory Day celebrations was testimony to China’s decision that North Korea cannot be ignored and a close alliance with North Korea is in China’s interest. Certainly, the recent parade and gala in Pyongyang, the 80th anniversary of the founding of the ruling Korean Workers’ Party, was an emboldened Mr. Kim announcing to the world that North Korea has arrived. In the presence of Chinese Premier Li Qiang, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, Vietnamese Communist Party Chief To Lam and others, Mr. Kim made it clear when he said North Korea “was a faithful member of socialist forces … and a bulwark for independence … against the West’s global hegemony.” It is also clear that Mr. Kim was serious when he said North Korea would enhance its nuclear capabilities. Recently, Mr. Kim said he was prepared to meet with Mr. Trump, on the condition that the U.S. would accept North Korea as a nuclear weapons state. At the United Nations on Sept. 29, after seven years of being a no-show, North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Kim Son-gyong said North Korea would never give up its nuclear weapons; to do so would be tantamount to giving up its sovereignty.

When French President Emmanuel Macron said he would formally recognize a Palestinian “state,” President Trump responded by saying, “What he says doesn’t matter. … I like him, but that statement doesn’t carry weight.” The French government, and probably the French people, felt insulted by Mr. Trump’s statement. Nations have psychologies just like people do, and the French are more sensitive than most others to any insult, but why are they so petulant when it comes to the United States? France probably has an inferiority complex because the U.S. had to bail it out of two world wars. The weakness of France is now being displayed by Mr. Macron’s unpopularity and apparent inability to hold a government together. Mr. Macron has no idea except to bow to the wishes of France’s most vocal minorities, as he did in recognizing the Palestinian “state.” Mr. Macron is trying to distract French voters from France’s massive economic problems. The French poverty rate is at its highest, 15.4%, since records of it began. Its public debt is over 114% of its gross domestic product. The debt keeps rising while Mr. Macron favors budget cuts entirely disfavored by the public. Mr. Macron faces the choice of resigning or dissolving the French Parliament. Calling new elections risks his resignation and a further-right government headed by someone such as Marine Le Pen. Mr. Macron is increasingly isolated in French politics. What ails France ails most of Europe. Aging populations and extreme debt are unsustainable for their quasi-socialist states.

If Ms. Takaichi has her way, Japan will no longer be nothing more than a supine, cooperative ally of the Americans. She may not totally get rid of Article 9, but she may at least bend it so Japanese planes and ships can operate far more aggressively than seen against the Chinese around the Senkaku Islands between China’s east coast and the southernmost Japanese prefecture of Okinawa. Certainly, Ms. Takaichi could also adopt a far more warlike policy toward North Korea, to which Japan responds with alarm and rage whenever its dictator, Mr. Kim, orders a missile test in Japan’s direction, but does nothing to counter. Similarly, she could order Japanese ships and planes to challenge periodic Chinese encirclement of Taiwan, the independent island province the Chinese ceaselessly claim as their own. Japan has a special affection for Taiwan, which it seized from China in 1895 and ruled until the end of World War II, 50 years later. The communists have never set foot on Taiwan. In the tinderbox of the periphery of China, Ms. Takaichi believes she can defy China and build up the Self-Defense Forces. Her voice may get even stronger if Mr. Trump shows signs of making a deal with Mr. Kim, compromising on America’s separate treaties with Japan and South Korea or pulling out or diminishing American strength in both countries. Given that scenario, Ms. Takaichi symbolizes her passion for Japan’s military revival by regularly visiting the Yasukuni Shrine, which memorializes Japan’s war dead. As the Americans’ grip on the region loosens, Ms. Takaichi aspires to nothing less than Japan’s renaissance as a military force as strong as China and Russia.

Sanae Takaichi will be the most hawkish figure to rule Japan since the war. Ms. Takaichi will not declare war on China, which Japan defeated in the contest for the Korean Peninsula and Manchuria in 1895, or Russia, whose fleet was sunk by the Japanese navy in the straits between Korea and Japan in 1905. Ms. Takaichi will not repeat the mistakes of those “war criminals,” but she leaves no doubt that she wants Japan to be able to stand up against its enemies if President Trump compromises with Chinese President Xi Jinping and North Korea’s Kim Jong-un, and leaves Japan exposed to them both. Judging from all Ms. Takaichi has said and done in 20 years in the Diet and in positions as economic security and internal affairs minister, her outlook is in the mold of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, with whom she was closely allied during his nearly eight years in office. Abe, assassinated in 2022, two years after stepping down, desperately wanted to get rid of the shackles of the famous Article 9 of the “peace constitution” imposed by the conquering U.S. Gen. Douglas MacArthur after World War II. Like Abe, Ms. Takaichi dreams of recovering lost glory. The words of Article 9 are stunningly simple. Renouncing “the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes,” it states, “the right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.” Japan decades ago built up its navy, air force and army ― all known by the euphemism Self-Defense Forces ― to show it is not about to wage wars of aggression beyond the homeland. Nor has it done much outside Japan other than join in exercises in the South China Sea and in what the maps call the Sea of Japan.