menu_open Columnists
We use cookies to provide some features and experiences in QOSHE

More information  .  Close

Wars Do Not End the Way Trump Thinks They Do

53 0
yesterday

The demand is documented and can be stated precisely. In June 2025, during the twelve-day war in which American bombers struck three Iranian nuclear sites, Trump published a single line in capital letters on Truth Social: “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!”

In March of this year, at the opening of the current war and following the death of Iran’s supreme leader in the initial strikes, he restated the demand, specifying that the United States would not halt its military campaign under any other condition. The content of the demand was defined in May: Iran’s enriched uranium is to be transferred to the United States for destruction, or destroyed in place under international supervision, and the Strait of Hormuz is to be reopened without conditions. The consideration offered is sanctions relief.

The instrument selected to produce this outcome is economic. A naval blockade has operated since April, Iranian crude exports have fallen to approximately zero, and the economy is undergoing its deepest contraction in decades.4

The strategy therefore rests on a proposition that can be tested against the historical record: that sustained economic pressure, absent other conditions, induces a government to surrender an asset it defines as existential. The record available for testing consists of the interstate wars fought since 1900. Civil wars are excluded, since the bargaining structure between governments and internal insurgencies differs in kind. Classified by mode of termination, the cases sort into four categories.

Category one: termination without surrender. This is the largest category in the sample.

Korea, 1953. Armistice without treaty; the belligerents remain formally at war seventy-three years later. The outcome was nonetheless asymmetric: the northern war aim, unification by force, failed, while the American aim, containment, was achieved.

The Arab-Israeli wars of 1948, 1967 and 1973. Ceasefires in every case, surrender instruments in none. The asymmetry of objectives determined the reading of the result. The Arab coalitions required the elimination of a state to achieve their war aim; Israel, defending a coastal corridor fifteen kilometers wide at its narrowest point, required only its own continuation. Survival was the objective, and the ceasefires delivered it.

Iran-Iraq, 1980-88. Eight years, deaths on the........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)