War-Fighting Versus War-Winning: Trump’s Emerging Decision on Whether To Intervene in Iran

Many in Washington are debating whether America should step in to help Israel finish eliminating the Iranian nuclear threat.I don’t know of any serious person who wants Iran to develop nuclear weapons, but there is much concern over the possibility of creating a new American forever war in the Middle East. Part of this debate stems from confusion about who President Trump is — and the huge difference between war fighting and war winning.Tragically, the American military has spent far more time thinking about, investing in, and practicing for war fighting than developing strategies and systems for war winning. This was an issue during the Vietnam War and most recently during the 20-year Afghanistan War.This problem has plagued nations for centuries.Some 500 years before the common era, the famed Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu wrote “The Art of War” as a guidebook to help statesmen direct their war leaders in war. It is not necessarily a military book in a narrow sense. It is a book which focuses on achieving victory with or without military action.I suspect Sun Tzu would have recognized the problem with our military’s misaligned focus. It is the opposite of his assertion that the greatest generals win bloodless victories. It also violates his principle that there are no good long wars.So, Sun Tzu would have likely agreed with Americans who oppose forever wars. However, he would not have endorsed a general condemnation of all use of power or conflict under certain circumstances.The fact is, Mr. Trump is more in Sun Tzu’s tradition.He has opposed risking young Americans and spending American money on forever wars since early 2016. This turned into a major theme in the 2016 South Carolina Republican primary. He was adamant that we suffered too many casualties and spent too much money in Iraq and Afghanistan.As history showed us, millions of Americans agreed with Mr. Trump’s analysis then. This argument specifically helped him defeat 16 other serious Republican candidates and ultimately win the White House.Mr. Trump proved in his first term that he could use American military power in targeted, surgical ways to achieve enormous breakthroughs — with limited risks and costs. Consider the elimination of the Islamic State leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Study the extraordinarily effective targeted killing of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard leader, General Qasem Soleimani. Remember that Mr. Trump supplied Ukraine with the vital tank-killing missiles to stop the initial Russian attack on Kyiv.In many ways, Mr. Trump’s first term was similar to President Reagan’s. Both combined military buildup with cautious and limited use of American combat forces.In his second term, Mr. Trump has focused on using economic power rather than the military to influence actions across the planet. He has also helped our Israeli allies with equipment and resources as they struggle against an extraordinary, multi-front explosion of violence in the region.Additionally, Mr. Trump has used intelligence sharing as a force multiplier. This has enormously helped Israel and Ukraine at virtually no risk to American lives.However, Mr. Trump has also been clear that Iran cannot acquire a nuclear weapon. His insistence comes from his belief that a nuclear-armed Iran will use the weapon on Israel, American forces in the region, and then the United States itself.While Mr. Trump’s negotiating strategy with Iran has exhibited a great deal of patience, he has never suggested there might be some gray zone à la Presidents Obama and Biden. There will be no wink-wink agreement in which the Iranians promise to be good and continue to develop strategic missiles and nuclear weapons.Mr. Trump’s clarity about a non-nuclear Iran is based on the belief that instead of endless wars we will run the risk of one final war in which Iranian missiles and nuclear warheads kill millions of people.Destroying the Iranian nuclear and missile systems can be done with airpower in an environment made safe by the Israeli destruction of the Iranians’ air defense systems.There is no excuse for American troops to be on the ground in Iran.When the war is over and a new government oversees Iran, Mr. Trump should call on the amazing number of successful Iranian Americans to invest in their homeland. Nation-building should be done by entrepreneurs on a profitable basis — not by government bureaucrats or the military.Getting to a non-nuclear Iran is a goal worth a limited war winning strategy.Yelling “no forever wars” and doing nothing runs the risk of a future catastrophic loss of life from one, terrifyingly short nuclear war.

War-Fighting Versus War-Winning: Trump’s Emerging Decision on Whether To Intervene in Iran

More from the New York Sun

Army Veteran Cait Conley Wins Democratic Primary To Take on Vulnerable Congressman Mike Lawler

Senate Republicans Brace for What Could Be Tense Meeting With Trump

California Deputies Use Drone To Disarm Suspect in ‘Nationwide First’

More from the New York Sun

Army Veteran Cait Conley Wins Democratic Primary To Take on Vulnerable Congressman Mike Lawler

Senate Republicans Brace for What Could Be Tense Meeting With Trump

California Deputies Use Drone To Disarm Suspect in ‘Nationwide First’

Mamdani Emerges as Kingmaker, Propelling Democratic Socialists to Congressional Primary Victories

Political Revolution Could Be Brewing as Americans — and Britons — Feel Unrepresented by Their Elected Legislators

Democrats, in Thrall to Teachers Unions, Escalate Opposition to School Choice

Low-Tech Longevity Investments Could Unlock $5.8 Trillion in Healthcare Savings, Report Finds

The Hemingway Shelf Rises