The article argues that modern conflicts are increasingly defined by attrition, driven by three strategic gaps: the difference between nominal military power and usable capacity; the difficulty of achieving breakthroughs in a technologically advanced battlefield; and the detachment of military means from clear political objectives. Evidence from Ukraine and the Middle East demonstrates that sustained logistics, rapid technological adaptation, and proxy networks are now more decisive than sheer military size. For policymakers, this implies a strategic shift away from seeking short, decisive victories toward preparing for prolonged, high-cost engagements, requiring a focus on sustainable supply chains and defining concrete, attainable political end-states.
Is Iran one crisis too many for Trump? Independent Thinking podcast
English Summary
President Trump's military campaign against Iran, now three weeks in, is failing to secure international support despite his appeals to NATO and other allies. The US administration faces reluctance from traditional partners to participate or be drawn into the conflict, driven by concerns about regional instability, economic disruption, and the risks of Tehran's retaliatory escalation. The muted European response and lukewarm Gulf state backing complicate the broader strategic objective of reopening the Strait of Hormuz. This diplomatic isolation raises questions about US credibility and alliance cohesion precisely when the administration is simultaneously managing crises in Ukraine, Cuba, and Venezuela.
中文摘要
川普總統針對伊朗的軍事行動已進行三週，儘管向北約及其他盟國呼籲，仍未能爭取到國際支持。美國政府面臨傳統盟國不願參與或被捲入衝突的局面，此乃源於對區域穩定、經濟衝擊及伊朗報復性升級風險的擔憂。歐洲反應不力及波灣國家支持有限，複雜化了重新開放荷木茲海峽這一更廣泛的戰略目標。此種外交孤立態勢引發對美國信譽與盟國凝聚力的質疑，特別是在政府同時應對烏克蘭、古巴及委內瑞拉危機的當下。
Related Entries
-
1.
-
2.
Congress has significantly expanded presidential tariff authority by passing the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026, allowing the executive to impose up to 100% tariffs on key buyers of Russian energy and sanctions enablers. The article argues that this legislation represents a dangerous abdication of Congress's Article I authority, as it grants the executive vast, discretionary power without specifying criteria for enforcement. Historically, the executive could claim tariffs were its own doing; however, by writing and passing this new authority, Congress now owns the resulting trade policy and its economic consequences. This shift implies that future tariffs will be viewed by the public as a direct legislative action, potentially undermining the administration's credibility and creating political vulnerability.
-
3.
Cuba is on a trajectory toward an accelerating state and economic collapse, risking a point of no return. The state is deteriorating into "authoritarian anarchy," retaining its capacity for political repression but losing the ability to provide basic public services like health and safety. Economically, while the private sector is growing, this expansion is highly unequal, fueling cronyism and widening class gaps between the elite and the poor. If the current trend continues, the country risks calcifying these defects into a dysfunctional baseline, severely diminishing the chances of a stable, democratic transition.
-
4.
The article analyzes Finland's agreement to coordinate its conventional forces with French nuclear capabilities, clarifying that no nuclear weapons will be stationed in Finland. The author argues that increased communication between nuclear powers, rather than the deployment of weapons, is beneficial for reducing the risk of miscalculation and inadvertent escalation, particularly near Russia. For Europe, the policy recommendation is a responsible middle course: strengthening non-nuclear military capabilities to deter Russia while simultaneously negotiating a stable system, such as non-aligned buffer states. This approach is presented as a diplomatic alternative to both aggressive military action and surrender.
-
5.
The analysis argues that contemporary warfare is marked by a return to great power competition, often fueled by strategic hubris and historical overconfidence. A key failure across modern conflicts is the 'short-war fallacy'—the assumption that overwhelming military force guarantees a quick, decisive victory. This mindset blinds policymakers to the need for sustained resource mobilization and complex political outcomes. Consequently, effective strategy requires linking military objectives with clear, comprehensive political goals, rather than pursuing rapid, decisive regime changes or military victories in isolation.