The preservation doctrine applied to Iran: Can war be humanitarian?
The ongoing war in Iran has raised questions about the U.S. strategy of restraint in preserving the country's oil infrastructure. This approach is seen as a part of a 'Preservation Doctrine' aimed at ensuring the survival of the Iranian population post-conflict. Critics argue that this restraint may indicate indecision, but it is a calculated move to prevent future instability and radicalization.
- ▪The Iran war has been a significant national security issue for the past 11 weeks.
- ▪The U.S. strategy involves preserving Iran's oil infrastructure to support the civilian population after the regime falls.
- ▪Critics misinterpret the U.S. restraint as indecision, while it is actually a strategic choice to avoid creating a vacuum for future regimes.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
The Iran war is a national security issue that has dominated our attention for the past 11 weeks. By comparison, it is a short time compared to the years most wars consume, yet this one is different. Like everything else in our world, it began quickly and it’s anticipated to end just as rapidly. Yet, questions arise. If we have won, then why are we still there? Why preserve an enemy’s oil infrastructure? Why hold back when our overwhelming force clearly exists? In the high-stakes back rooms of global strategic planning, there is a dangerous tendency to mistake the lack of total destruction for a lack of progress. Critics see the administration’s restraint and conclude that the United States is paralyzed by indecision or concerned about optics. They are fundamentally misreading the board.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at Washington Examiner.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from Washington Examiner
