The activities of the last few weeks have been somewhat electrifying to watch. Specifically: the milestone events in a triumvirate international conflicts – starting with Syria, moving to Afghanistan, and then on to North East Asia and the Korean peninsula. There is no denying the ‘inter-connectedness of things’ in this case and is that inter-connectedness which, I think, gives me license to include few words about the Far East, in a blog ostensibly about the Middle East.

Each event underscored a return to missile diplomacy and fewer rules of engagement. At a macro-level it showed willingness to participate more forcefully in an international conflict on ethical grounds, but with less of a vested interest in the final outcome of that conflict. In other words: we don’t care what regime you have in place, as long as respect the international norms of warfare and state interaction.

At a tactical level, the cruise missile strike on the Syrian Regime airbase – within a hair’s-breadth of Russian forces – sent a message laden with risk tolerance, and red lines. The MOAB bomb-strike against embedded Isis militants in Afghanistan told a story about a possible future for the entrenched, North Korean artillery positions along the DMZ that are pointed at Seoul.

The crescendo reached its height in Korea. The immediate willingness of the U.S. administration to deploy its big guns to the Yellow Sea – which, aside from North Korea, lies off the Chinese coast – showed that the U.S. is prepared to risk further relationships in its insistence of enforcing a nuclear free peninsula.

And just like that… in a few short days, the narrative in which western supremacy meets its inevitable end against (variously): intractable conflict, international terrorism, and the inexorable rise of orient, began to be reshaped.

There is no denying the risks that lie ahead. Nevertheless, two guiding principles seem to indicate a path forward: (1) politics will be more ethical than it has been previously, and (2) allowing state-led nuclear belligerency to match with capability will not be tolerated. Despite the inevitable casualties in the short-term this is a far better paradigm to live under than a paradigm in which economic self-interest or regime power are the primary drivers of politics.