This is a fundamentally different argument from the moral or ideological justifications often invoked to support Taiwan. It is not rooted in sympathy for a vibrant democracy under threat. Nor is it framed as a matter of upholding “international norms.” Instead, Ms. Takaichi asserts that defending Taiwan is essential to defending Japan. The stakes are direct, material and unmistakably national. This reframing is significant for two reasons. First, it avoids getting trapped in Beijing’s preferred language of “China’s sovereignty,” or “reunification,” which functions as a rhetorical snare. Once foreign governments accept that the Taiwan issue is fundamentally about Chinese ownership, every argument afterward becomes defensive, hedged or constrained. Second, it offers a template for other democracies to articulate their own interests clearly and unapologetically. Washington, in particular, should pay attention. The long-standing U.S. approach to Taiwan has emphasized deterrence, democracy, and the preservation of peace and stability. These are worthy principles, but they do not fully express the concrete U.S. national interests at stake. Like Japan, the United States faces a dramatically altered strategic landscape if Taiwan falls under Beijing’s control. Besides the obvious loss of Taiwan’s global chipmaking preeminence to China, which would certainly cripple the U.S. economy, a People’s Liberation Army-controlled Taiwan would rupture the first island chain, allowing China to project military power unhindered into the Central Pacific. It would give China the last strategic chokepoint in the region and connect China’s East China Sea claims to its South China Sea ambitions.

Iran’s capital is now experiencing a massive and deepening water shortage. After months of drought and scorching heat, the five reservoirs feeding the city of more than 10 million are mostly empty. Local authorities have been forced to mandate water rationing, and the situation has become so dire that Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian recently warned that, unless the region experiences rainfall in the coming weeks, the city may need to be evacuated altogether. The crisis extends far beyond Iran’s capital. The Islamic republic is now weathering a national hydrological crisis of truly catastrophic proportions. Cumulatively, water mismanagement, prolonged drought, climate change, inefficient irrigation practices and the overextraction of groundwater now affect every aspect of Iranian life. Rivers and lakes are shrinking, undermining agriculture and deepening food insecurity. Iran’s urban areas face widespread water shortages, and infrastructure is increasingly strained. Communities throughout the country are exposed to rising health risks as a result of drying wetlands. Regional ecosystems have collapsed. The problem is hardly unexpected. More than a decade ago, Iranian officials were warning that chronic water mismanagement and misallocation represented a “major threat to the country.” By 2019, the World Resources Institute had classified Iran as one of the most “water-stressed” nations in the world. By 2021, Iranian officials were estimating that some 110 cities across the country were forced to implement water rationing or suffered disruptions as a result of summer drought conditions. The situation has only worsened since.

The number of wickedly complex threats to U.S. national security has proliferated. Among other things, the CIA is tracking the Hamas insurgency in the Gaza Strip; Russia’s war on Ukraine; China’s ubiquitous espionage, nuclear buildup and threats against Taiwan; North Korea’s growing supply of weapons of mass destruction; Iran’s ballistic missile production, nuclear program. By far the national security threat with the shortest fuse, which we must detect and preempt with the greatest alacrity, continues to be terrorism. The U.S. military and intelligence community have a presence in the Middle East and an impressive record of finding, fixing and finishing terrorist threats, often in coordination with our regional allies. Yet Afghanistan, a failed terrorist state full of ungoverned space and sanctuary for the Islamic State group and al Qaeda terrorists plotting against us, presents an altogether greater challenge. The Afghan Taliban, of course, eagerly welcomed Pakistan’s assistance and provision of sanctuary space inside Pakistan, which severely complicated and restricted the government of Afghanistan’s counterinsurgency strategy. The Afghan Taliban is providing sanctuary to the very terrorists who have Pakistan in their crosshairs, just as Pakistan once gave sanctuary to terrorists who conducted attacks on Afghan, U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda is reportedly operating training camps all over Afghanistan. Al Qaeda leader Sayf al-Adl, based in Iran, has called for the terrorist group’s members to travel to Afghanistan for tactical training to gain the experience necessary to launch terrorist attacks on Western targets.

AI has already shown its ability to automate routine and repetitive tasks, such as data entry, scheduling, and basic customer service interactions, reducing the time spent on mundane tasks while minimizing errors. AI and new technologies are significantly augmenting human capabilities. For example, AI can assist doctors by providing diagnostic suggestions based on a patient’s medical history and current symptoms. This augmentation allows professionals to make more informed decisions and improves the overall efficiency of their work. AI-driven robots perform precise and strenuous tasks that are dangerous for humans. Autonomous vehicles and drones are beginning to revolutionize transportation and delivery services by making them faster and more efficient. AI and robots are already increasing productivity and economic growth, but this is offset by nonproductive government spending. States like California are imposing huge increases in the minimum wage and other labor restrictions. These attacks on productive labor are causing businesses, such as fast-food operations, to more rapidly substitute robots for workers. Fewer workers mean lower tax collections and more welfare payments, adding to the debt problem rather than reducing it. Despite AI’s ability to increase productivity and economic growth, the political class is unlikely to enact the necessary policies to take advantage of the promise of debt reduction from productivity increases. Given the historical evidence, it is more likely that most countries will suffer misery from a government debt meltdown rather than taking the relatively painless way out that AI can provide.

Inflation tends to be a political loser, and as a result, the incumbent party most often gets thrown out during sustained inflation. Governments have sometimes been successful in increasing economic growth rates by abolishing destructive regulations, reducing trade barriers, and eliminating tax impediments where the tax rate or regulation is a net negative on growth. Some optimists argue that the oncoming rush in AI and robots will be sufficiently rapid to enhance productivity and thus create enough new wealth to enable the debt problem to fade away. But how likely is this? In the long run, it is almost certain that the new technologies will make future generations much wealthier. But history also teaches us there are often many glitches and technological and political delays on the journey. The electric car is a great success ? but for the slowness in battery improvement and the lack of charging stations. New-generation nuclear power will be a major energy source because it is more efficient, safer, and cheaper ? but it is just now getting off the starting block. Supersonic air travel is the future ? but new prototype aircraft are just now being built, three decades after the end of the Concorde. Space travel will be a reality ? but it has taken mankind more than half a century since the original moon landings to start building the new moon and Mars rockets. AI and new technologies will drive productivity growth by doing such things as automating routine tasks, augmenting human capabilities, optimizing processes and fostering innovation. But again, how quickly?

Elon Musk sees a future where no one works other than doing work as a hobby, and artificial intelligence and robots do all of the work, which would require universally high incomes. People could choose to work for reasons of personal esteem or just because they are interested in some activity. Already there are tens of millions of people around the globe who have sufficient net wealth where they can live well whether they choose to work or not. Are the ones who choose to work happier and more fulfilled than the ones who choose not to work- Unfortunately, rather than getting closer to this alleged utopia, most people are getting further from it because of the growth in government debt. If you are asked to prepare a balance sheet of your assets and liabilities, you are unlikely to include your share of government debt. As of May 1, each U.S. citizen’s federal government per capita debt was $102,984. This debt is rising rapidly, increasing 7.66% in the last year and an astounding increase of 2.38% in the last month. Last month, I participated in conferences in several European cities dealing with the global debt crisis (most major economies have debt-to-gross domestic product ratios exceeding 100% and growing - which is not sustainable). Among knowledgeable people, the fact that we are at the edge of the debt cliff is widely accepted - which means there will be a large drop in living standards or, at best, very little improvement. The correct policy solution is to cut government spending so that the debt-to-GDP ratio is falling at a meaningful rate. The other alternatives are to engage in and tolerate episodes of higher inflation (which reduce disposable income) or find ways to jack up income growth to swamp inflation.

This parallels history, as the British Empire faced a similar predicament before WWII. When Germany sought to build up its navy in the 1930s, Great Britain should have recognized the threat and increased the size of its own navy to confront an emerging Axis of Germany, Japan and Italy. It instead pursued appeasement and was ill-equipped to fight a world war, resulting in a stinging naval defeat with the sinking of key ships by Axis powers early in the war that essentially left Britain’s holdings in East Asia undefended. In the end, Britain won the war, but it lost its empire after exhausting its military trying to fight against German, Italian, and Japanese forces across the globe. The United States today may be similar to that of the British Empire of 1938. Indeed, in the event of war with China, Iran could decide to escalate in the Mediterranean and the Strait of Hormuz, meaning that the U.S. military may have to choose between trying to fight two adversaries in two different theaters simultaneously and risking battlefield defeat or prioritizing one theater while accepting risk in the other. Today, America’s Navy is plagued by cost and schedule overruns as it tries to replace and modernize its fleet from the 1980s and 1990s. Analysis strongly suggests that America needs a larger Navy. Congress has mandated a fleet of 355 ships, but The Heritage Foundation analysis has consistently stated that a manned fleet of no fewer than 400 warships is required. In short, America’s current Navy is underequipped to maintain a global presence in peacetime, let alone in the event of war with China or, worse, multiple powers at once.

Since the end of the Cold War, America has enjoyed an uncontested position at the top of the global hierarchy. However, the rise of China as a peer adversary backed by an unprecedented naval buildup is rapidly changing the post-Cold War correlation of power. And as America struggles with shipbuilding delays and an overstretched Navy, it risks being unprepared for the challenges ahead. China today possesses the world’s largest naval fleet and it is continuing to expand. It would be unwise to write off the threat of China’s navy just because its fleet is not as technologically advanced as that of the U.S. Navy. Victory at sea is a team effort, and rarely does a single warship decide the outcome of war. There are many examples of the battlefield advantages of a large number of relatively less advanced technologies. In World War II, the German Tiger was the most advanced tank on the battlefield, but its mechanical complexity and high price tag meant Germany built only a relatively small number of them. Ultimately, they were overwhelmed by the less complex and more vulnerable, but quantitatively superior, U.S. Shermans. Further, should the current conflicts in Europe and the Middle East expand and bring the United States in as direct combatants, the U.S. military would be hard pressed to fight both conflicts simultaneously while still deterring Chinese aggression. Should an additional war break out in the Pacific, the U.S. military might be so thinly stretched trying to address all contingencies simultaneously that it fails in one or even all three conflicts. Even if it succeeds in all three theaters, the U.S. military may be so depleted that it would take substantial time and resources to return to an acceptable readiness level, putting the nation in a prolonged period of vulnerability.

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.