Follow us on social

Shangri-La Dialogue Hegseth

Hegseth: The US will remain an Indo-Pacific power

Secretary of Defense told the Shangri La Dialogue that America won't leave, but it won't provoke or wage ideological war either

Analysis | QiOSK

U.S. Secretary of defense Pete Hegseth's speech at this year’s Shangri La Dialogue, the biggest defense meeting in Asia, demonstrated major continuities in U.S. security policy in the Indo-Pacific, but also some significant shifts.

The former will not help de-escalate current tensions, but the latter will be welcomed by Asian states.

First, the good news. The Defense Secretary made it clear that the United States no longer subscribes to its past "moralistic, preachy approach" and will set aside ideology and culture as issues in the region. Notably he also spoke of President Trump as a man of peace and promised that the United States does not seek to encircle or change China, and will not act recklessly.

These will likely be welcomed by Asian states. Intruding into domestic politics and trying to rewire internal governance of other states has not worked well for the United States in the past. It will work even less well in a post-unipolar age that we are entering.

Hegseth also asserted the United States is an Indo-Pacific power and will not leave the region. This is a reality that China needs to accept — America counts one state and several territories in the Pacific and is an integral part of its political geography. Hegeseth's assertion that Europe should focus on Europe (so that the United States can focus more on Asia) was a positive departure from past U.S. policy, which has tried to create an international coalition to counter China. Such an expansive coalition feeds into China’s worst fears of the world ganging up against it.

But the Defense Secretary also clearly identified Beijing as the biggest threat in the Indo-Pacific, speaking of a “shield of deterrence” and telling assembled Asian defense leaders that “China seeks to intimidate you in your own waters.” He asserted a commitment of resolutely defending the first and second island chains (which include Taiwan) through an approach of preparing for war to ensure peace, and warned China that "any attempt to change the status quo by force or coercion" was "unacceptable."

This was very similar to the rhetoric of previous U.S. administrations. There was no mention of the possibilities of detente, nor of cooperation with China on de-escalating tensions or on solving global security problems such as piracy and organized crime. These remain under-explored opportunities, waiting for an administration willing to take that road.

A deterrence-heavy strategy has not worked so far in the Indo-Pacific. For example, as Washington has worked closely with Manila to focus almost exclusively on deterrence and ramped up the U.S. military footprint in the archipelagic nation, Chinese intrusive actions in the South China Sea have only become bolder.

Hegseth's implicit recommendation in his speech of a 5% of GDP target for Asian allies and partners on defense spending will find few takers in Southeast Asia. Though states such as Indonesia and the Philippines are pushing hard to modernize their militaries, these Global South states have urgent domestic needs of ending poverty and building infrastructure and industry that will typically override other demands.

While Hegseth properly paid glowing tributes to Singapore’s stunning success and the legacy of its founder-leader Lee Kuan Yew, Southeast Asian states would have noted that there was practically no reference to ASEAN in the speech. This regional organization which includes all Southeast Asian states has, for several decades, trailblazed an approach grounded in integration and cooperation. Singapore and other ASEAN member states strongly push the idea of “ASEAN centrality” in the region.

Almost all Southeast Asian states also see engagement rather than deterrence as the primary tool for solving regional challenges such as the rise of China.


Top photo credit: Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Vietnamese Minister of National Defense Gen. Phan Van Giang participate in a bilateral exchange at the 22nd Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, May 30, 2025. (DoD photo by U.S. Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Alexander Kubitza)
Analysis | QiOSK
Rand Paul Donald Trump
Top photo credit: Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) (Shutterstock/Mark Reinstein) and President Trump (White House/Molly Riley)

Rand Paul to Trump: Don't 'abandon' MAGA over Maduro regime change

Washington Politics

Sen. Rand Paul said on Friday that “all hell could break loose” within Donald Trump’s MAGA coalition if the president involves the U.S. further in Ukraine, and added that his supporters who voted for him after 20 years of regime change wars would "feel abandoned" if he went to war and tried to topple Nicolas Maduro, too.

President Trump has been getting criticism from some of his supporters for vowing to release the files of the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and then reneging on that promise. Paul said that the Epstein heat Trump is getting from MAGA will be nothing compared to if he refuses to live up to his “America First” foreign policy promises.

keep readingShow less
Trump ASEAN
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump looks at Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., next to Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim when posing for a family photo with leaders at the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 26, 2025. Vincent Thian/Pool via REUTERS

‘America First’ meets ‘ASEAN Way’ in Kuala Lumpur

Asia-Pacific

The 2025 ASEAN and East Asia Summits in Kuala Lumpur beginning today are set to be consequential multilateral gatherings — defining not only ASEAN’s internal cohesion but also the shape of U.S.–China relations in the Indo-Pacific.

President Donald Trump’s participation will be the first by a U.S. president in an ASEAN-led summit since 2022. President Biden skipped the last two such summits in 2023 and 2024, sending then-Vice President Harris instead.

keep readingShow less
iran, china, russia
Top photo credit: Top image credit: Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov and and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi shake hands as Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu looks on during their meet with reporters after their meeting at Diaoyutai State Guest House on March 14, 2025 in Beijing, China. Lintao Zhang/Pool via REUTERS

'Annulled'! Russia won't abide snapback sanctions on Iran

Middle East

“A raider attack on the U.N. Security Council.” This was the explosive accusation leveled by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov this week. His target was the U.N. Secretariat and Western powers, whom he blamed for what Russia sees as an illegitimate attempt to restore the nuclear-related international sanctions on Iran.

Beyond the fiery rhetoric, Ryabkov’s statement contained a message: Russia, he said, now considers all pre-2015 U.N. sanctions on Iran, snapped back by the European signatories of the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) — the United Kingdom, France, Germany — “annulled.” Moscow will deepen its military-technical cooperation with Tehran accordingly, according to Ryabkov.

This is more than a diplomatic spat; it is the formal announcement of a split in international legal reality. The world’s major powers are now operating under two irreconcilable interpretations of international law. On one side, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany assert that the sanctions snapback mechanism of the JCPOA was legitimately triggered for Iran’s alleged violations. On the other, Iran, Russia, and China reject this as an illegitimate procedural act.

This schism was not inevitable, and its origin reveals a profound incongruence. The Western powers that most frequently appeal to the sanctity of the "rules-based international order" and international law have, in this instance, taken an action whose effects fundamentally undermine it. By pushing through a legal maneuver that a significant part of the Security Council considers illegitimate, they have ushered the world into a new and more dangerous state. The predictable, if imperfect, framework of universally recognized Security Council decisions is being replaced by a system where legal facts are determined by political interests espoused by competing power blocs.

This rupture followed a deliberate Western choice to reject compromises in a stand-off with Iran. While Iran was in a technical violation of the provisions of the JCPOA — by, notably, amassing a stockpile of highly enriched uranium (up to 60% as opposed to the 3.67% for a civilian use permissible under the JCPOA), there was a chance to avert the crisis. In the critical weeks leading to the snapback, Iran had signaled concessions in talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Cairo, in terms of renewing cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog’s inspectors.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.