We live in peaceful times. But it certainly doesn’t feel that way. With war tearing up Syria and Yemen, US tensions heating up with North Korea and Iran, and conflicts over handling Venezuela, it seems the prospect of war looms again. How do we stop it? By overhauling the US’s foreign policy doctrine.

First, revamp deterrence policies. Deterrence should be rooted in denial strategies intended to dissuade specific actions by rival powers through making them infeasible or too risky, as data show these strategies to be more effective than punishment forms of deterrence. In the case of Venezuela, the US should cooperate with anti-Venezuelan allies, such as members of the Lima Group, to deter the regime from launching military action or continuing to oppress its people. The US itself should not send troops to Venezuela—that would only allow Maduro, Venezuela’s de facto dictator, to paint the US as imperialist—but instead, it should convince Venezuela’s neighbors to send troops to corner the nation. Colombia and Brazil, two of Venezuela’s neighbors and members of the Lima group, could do just that. Colombian and Brazilian troops at the country’s borders force Maduro to stretch his forces thin, reducing their capacity to suppress protests; they may also prompt senior Venezuelan military officials, the key to Maduro’s rule, to switch sides. Such policies force Maduro to abandon his iron-grip on the nation, as it becomes impossible to maintain.

Second, America should push for more multilateralism to neutralize aggressive regimes. There are two reasons. Firstly, denial strategies are far more effective with alliances. To stop China’s abusive intellectual property laws and the manipulation of its currency, the US should have reached out to its allies, such as the EU, instead of ratcheting up tariffs on their goods. Together they could have reinforced economic ties—in this case, the Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement, or TAFTA—moving American commercial transactions with China towards the EU. The US could have done the same with its Asian partners, such as Japan and South Korea. This, in turn, would have prompted China not to continue its abusive policies out of fear of being cornered out of major world markets. Secondly, reinvigorating multilateral institutions such as the United Nations (UN) shields the world against anarchic international relations. Countries do not look out solely for themselves, and through cooperation, reach a desirable end goal for all parties. The need for war or conflict to reach international policy goals is replaced by civilized, cooperative diplomacy.

Third, America must compel nations to revisit nuclear weapons and support denuclearization. Nuclear weapons are a constant reminder of how one heated conflict can morph into a humanitarian catastrophe. Furthermore, nuclear deterrence, a punishment form of deterrence, is doomed to fail in modern times. With eight world powers possessing nuclear weapons, no more can the US frighten fellow actors into modifying their policies with the threat of atomic bombs: the other countries can do the same, as they now have these weapons as well. As mentioned before, the US should seek denial forms of deterrence and push towards denuclearization. This requires time. The USA cannot expect North Korea, for example, to denuclearize in a matter of months: the weapons are North Korea’s only political leverage and are therefore paramount to the regime’s survival. But it is still possible—and a goal worth pursuing. Concessions must be made—the US can withdraw some troops from North Korea’s pro-American neighbors, such as Japan, for North Korea in return opening up its nuclear facilities to UN inspectors. Through such diplomacy, the lofty dream of denuclearization may become a reality.

Global peace is at risk, and America faces a daunting task as the world’s sheriff. Policing the world is harder than it used to be. But by updating foreign policy, fostering multilateralism and pushing denuclearization, peace and prosperity may live on.