Summits demonstrate leaders' personal conduct of foreign relations. They also tend to entail unrealistic expectations and a global media ready with scorecards to mark who "wins" and "loses."  Yet, the ideal summit is one in which both sides win, as appears to be the case in Beijing. Some media portray it as a Chinese "victory" because America treated China as an equal. This ahistorical view neglects the fact that the United States has treated China as a significant player since 1972.

The Middle East offers a good example of modestly positive results. Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s behavior contrasted with that of key Western European allies, whose record-level unpopularity seems to drive them into emotional diatribes about President Trump and Washington and paralysis when their own critical interests should compel them to help reestablish freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz.

Instead, the Chinese refrained from gratuitous attacks and repeated their four-point proposal and support for mediation by their close ally, Pakistan, which has as its basis an exchange of a ceasefire for a reopened strait.  That's consistent with US policy as far as it goes. 

The question now is not whether but at what point will China’s economic interests related to the strait prompt Beijing to apply pressure on Tehran, combined with the mounting direct costs to Iran. Both China and Iran take long views and are ruled by autocrats who are not especially susceptible to popular opinion. But multifaceted American pressure on Tehran will prevail so long as it is persistently applied. 

Trump's quiet diplomacy on Iran during the summit, focus on areas of agreement, and ability to stay on his own course was ideal summitry.