2026-03-23 · markdown · shared
The Retreat Was the Plan: Trump's War and the Making of Fortress America
The conventional narrative of Operation Epic Fury is one of hubris overreaching itself — a television president blundering into a war without objectives, now trapped by its consequences. This narrative is wrong, or at least incomplete. There is a more coherent reading of events, one that explains not just what happened but why the pieces fit together with unusual consistency: the war was not an adventure into the Middle East. It was the permission structure for leaving it.
This is not speculation. It is documented policy, published in plain sight three months before the first strike.
The Doctrine Comes First
In December 2025, the Trump administration released its National Security Strategy — a thirty-three-page document that received less attention than it deserved, perhaps because its implications were too stark to absorb comfortably. The NSS explicitly called for reasserting the Monroe Doctrine to "restore American preeminence in the Western Hemisphere," announced a "Trump Corollary" denying extra-hemispheric powers the ability to "own or control strategically vital assets" in the Americas, and declared, in a sentence that should be read as the epitaph of the liberal international order: "the days of the United States propping up the entire world order like Atlas are over."
On the Middle East specifically, the same document called for abandoning "America's misguided experiment with hectoring" regional nations, framed Gulf states as "emerging as a place of partnership, friendship, and investment," and signaled a deliberate shift of focus away from the region as American energy independence made its oil less strategically necessary. Three months before Operation Epic Fury, the administration had formally published its intention to exit the Middle East and concentrate power in the Western Hemisphere.
In September 2025, the Pentagon reinforced the signal with its own draft National Defense Strategy, which — in an explicit break from prior strategic documents — prioritized domestic and regional missions over confronting Russia and China globally. Administration officials explained the strategy in terms of reasserting American dominance over the Americas. The doctrine was not improvised after the war. The war was launched into a doctrine already written.
Critics noted an apparent contradiction: a president with neo-isolationist instincts and a neo-imperialist practice, fighting wars in Iran, Venezuela, Yemen, Somalia, and Syria while claiming to withdraw from global management. The Council on Foreign Relations observed that Trump's NSS "contradicts its own call for a sharp strategic pullback" with conventional commitments to Taiwan deterrence and European defense balancing. The contradiction is real. But it dissolves once you understand the sequence. You do not exit the Middle East as policy. You exit it as consequence — the consequence of a decisive act that renders further presence unnecessary. The imperialism is the instrument of the isolationism. The violence purchases the withdrawal.
The Geographic Logic
Before the first strike on Iran, the Trump administration had pursued a remarkably consistent geographic vision, one that commentators treated as erratic but which follows clear territorial logic. Greenland, for its Arctic strategic depth and rare earth deposits. The Panama Canal, for control of the Western Hemisphere's primary maritime chokepoint. Canada, pressured through tariffs with the implicit suggestion that North American consolidation was the destination. Venezuela's Maduro captured in a night raid — a demonstration that the hemisphere's internal order would be enforced. The Gulf of Mexico, symbolically renamed — a declaration of hemispheric ownership.
These moves are not random. Taken together, they describe a fortress being built: the Western Hemisphere as a self-sufficient strategic unit, fortified behind two oceans, energy-independent, agriculturally surplus, free of entanglement in the civilizational quagmires of Eurasia. The NSS even provided the architectural name — the Donroe Doctrine — Trump's coinage for a Monroe Doctrine updated for the twenty-first century's geography of power.
The problem with implementing this doctrine was not strategic. It was political. You cannot simply withdraw from the Middle East after eighty years of imperial management without a reckoning. The bases, the alliances, the petrodollar architecture, the commitment to Israeli security — these form a web that cannot be exited quietly. Any president who attempted clean withdrawal would be destroyed by the foreign policy establishment, the defense industry, and the domestic coalition that has organized itself around American primacy.
Unless, that is, the exit is framed as victory.
Victory as Permission Structure
This is the key to understanding the war's logic. You cannot retreat from the Middle East as policy. You can declare the threat eliminated, announce that there is nothing left worth fighting for, and come home to a parade.
Operation Epic Fury accomplished this with brutal efficiency. The Supreme Leader is dead. The Iranian air force and navy are decimated. The nuclear program is set back by years, perhaps permanently. By any conventional metric of military success, the operation achieved what decades of sanctions and proxy conflict could not. Trump can stand before any audience and say, credibly: we won. The job is done.
The exit ramp was built into the operation's design. This is why the stated objective — control of the Strait of Hormuz, safe maritime navigation — is simultaneously maximalist in its ambition and minimalist in what it actually requires of the United States going forward. Declaring the strait open, providing naval escorts for a period, then handing the problem to regional actors and departing is entirely consistent with the original framing. Mission accomplished. The hegemon comes home.
The Hormuz Closure as Feature, Not Bug
The most powerful objection to this thesis is the Strait of Hormuz closure itself. Oil above a hundred dollars, the largest energy disruption since the 1970s, cascading economic pain for American allies — if this was a planned exit, the planners miscalculated badly.
This objection deserves serious engagement. But there is a response that is more than apologetics.
The insurance-driven closure — achieved not by naval blockade but by drone strikes that made underwriters unwilling to cover transits — was not widely anticipated. The White House appears to have been caught off guard by the mechanism. This is a real failure of intelligence and planning.
But consider what the closure accomplished politically. It imposed acute economic pain on every American ally in Europe and Asia. Germany, Japan, South Korea, France — the very countries that depend on Gulf energy and have criticized the war — are now experiencing gasoline shocks and LNG shortages. Their reluctance to join the coalition has a cost they are now paying. The economic argument for NATO and for American security guarantees — that they provide stability worth their price — is being tested in real time, and the result is clarifying: American security guarantees do not protect you from the consequences of American wars.
This is, perversely, ideal preparation for the argument that America's allies need to take care of themselves. The Hormuz crisis does not weaken the case for retreat. It makes the case. Let Europe and Asia manage their own energy security. The United States, producing its own oil, insulated by geography, has no such vulnerability. The pain falls elsewhere.
Whether this was calculated in advance or stumbled into does not change the political utility of the outcome.
Netanyahu as the Complication
The most genuine strain on the retreat thesis is Israel. Netanyahu's re-emergence to declare that the war must be won on the ground, not from the air, is not consistent with a clean American exit. Israel has maximalist objectives — the permanent degradation of Iranian power, the consolidation of regional hegemony, the elimination of proxy networks from Lebanon to Yemen — that require sustained American involvement. The client is pulling the patron toward deeper commitment.
Trump's relationship with Netanyahu is the variable that most threatens to derail the Fortress America logic. The domestic coalition that brought Trump to power includes constituencies — evangelical Christians, certain financial networks — for whom Israeli security is non-negotiable in ways that override strategic calculation. If Netanyahu can frame a ground operation as the completion of victory rather than its extension, Trump's exit narrative becomes harder to sustain.
This is the war within the war: between the Fortress America instinct, which wants to declare victory and leave, and the Greater Israel project, which needs America to stay. The outcome of that internal conflict is not determined. But the Fortress America logic has one powerful advantage: Trump's base, the America First constituency that gave him the presidency twice, does not want to send its sons to die in Iran's mountains. The political ceiling for ground commitment is low.
The Three Strategic Vulnerabilities as Design Constraints
Critics of American war-making have catalogued three structural vulnerabilities: insufficient political will, degraded manufacturing capacity, and fear of casualties. These are typically cited as evidence that America cannot win the war. But read against the NSS's declared intent to exit the Middle East, they are the conditions that make retreat not just possible but necessary — and therefore useful.
A president who wants to exit the region needs political cover. "We cannot sustain this commitment" is a losing argument domestically. "We won decisively, and sustaining further engagement would be a costly mistake" is a winning one. The three vulnerabilities, widely understood, provide the justification for limiting the war's scope. The manufacturing constraint on interceptor missiles, the low morale among deployed forces, the absence of public appetite for a ground war — these are not embarrassments to be hidden. They are the arguments for declaring the operation complete and coming home. The NSS had already provided the ideological scaffolding: America is no longer Atlas. The war provides the occasion to step down from the burden.
The asymmetry that the conflict has exposed — that Iran's cheap drones can threaten American carrier groups, that air defense systems have performed below expectations — serves the same rhetorical function. American weapons are expensive and fragile. The Middle East rewards persistence over firepower, and the United States is not built for persistence in that theater. The NSS had said as much in December. The war is confirming it in March.
The Endgame That Fits
A retreat-as-victory outcome is not merely possible. It is the only outcome consistent with Trump's domestic political position, his pre-war geographic moves, and the military realities on the ground.
The scenario: American naval escorts establish a corridor through the strait, allowing selective transit. Trump declares the mission accomplished — Iran's regime decapitated, military destroyed, nuclear program eliminated. CENTCOM footprint in the Gulf begins to draw down. The GCC states, now exposed and frightened, formalize security arrangements with Israel. Regional order rebalances around a Riyadh-Tel Aviv axis, with China playing honest broker to keep the energy lanes viable for its own supply chains. America exits stage right, into the Western Hemisphere, which it is now visibly fortifying.
This is not a happy scenario for the liberal international order. NATO fractures under the weight of the energy shock and American abandonment. European rearmament accelerates. The petrodollar loses further ground as Gulf oil is increasingly priced in arrangements that don't require American mediation. The unipolar moment, already fading, ends not with a managed transition but with an American withdrawal that everyone sees but no one formally acknowledges.
But it is a coherent scenario. And coherence, in Trump's political universe, is rarer and more intentional than it appears.
The Dog That Didn't Bark: China, Russia, and Tacit Coordination
There is a forensic test for the retreat thesis that has received almost no attention in mainstream analysis, and it is the most important test of all. If the Fortress America doctrine is legible — if it can be read from a published NSS, inferred from the geographic pattern of Trump's moves, and deduced from the structural logic of American overextension — then the two powers most interested in American withdrawal from the Middle East should know about it. And if they know about it, their behavior during the war tells us something.
China and Russia have not meaningfully intervened.
Russia has assets in Syria and long-standing relationships with Iranian leadership. It has not used them to complicate the American operation. China has 40 percent of its oil and 30 percent of its LNG transiting the Strait of Hormuz. It faces the largest energy disruption since the 1970s. It has issued public statements calling for the strait to be reopened, conducted quiet bilateral negotiations with Iran over tanker access, and done nothing that could be described as forceful leverage. Neither power has pulled a significant lever. The dog has not barked.
There are three possible explanations for this silence. The first is incompetence or paralysis. This is implausible for both powers, and especially implausible for China, whose strategic patience and institutional depth are precisely what distinguish it from the American decision-making style on display in this conflict. The second is watchful waiting — a calculation that intervention carries more risk than patience. More plausible, but it does not explain the absence of even low-cost proxy moves that would cost little and complicate much.
The third explanation is the most interesting: they want this outcome. American retreat from the Middle East, NATO fracture under energy stress, petrodollar erosion, European capitals facing $6 gasoline and deciding that Washington's security guarantees are a liability rather than an asset — these are gifts. You do not interrupt a gift. You let it complete itself.
The Trump-Putin dimension is not a secret. Their conversations are frequent and the warmth is documented. What is discussed is not public, but the rough strategic grammar is: America takes the Western Hemisphere, Russia consolidates Eurasia's western flank, spheres of influence replace the rules-based order. Both men have gestured toward this arrangement publicly for years. The NSS itself encodes it, framing European defense as Europe's problem and declining to name Russia as a primary threat in the way every prior strategy document had. If Putin knows America is heading for the exit — and the NSS is a public document; he knows — his optimal play is exactly what we are observing. Do not complicate the exit. Do not give NATO a reason to unify around a Russian threat. Let the Hormuz crisis do its work on European cohesion. Every week the war continues and Germany pays more for energy and questions the value of its American alliance is a week the Atlantic architecture frays further toward the world Putin has been building toward for two decades.
China's calculus is more complex but points in the same direction. A prolonged Hormuz closure is genuinely costly for Beijing. But a short crisis that ends with American withdrawal and a new regional order is net positive — it repositions China as the indispensable stabilizer of the energy system that powers its economy and most of its trading partners. China's preference is not for American military victory in the Gulf. Its preference is for American exit from the Gulf, under whatever narrative makes that exit politically sustainable in Washington. Its public calls to reopen the strait are genuine. But its preferred mechanism is American withdrawal, not American triumph. The bilateral tanker negotiations with Iran are not a workaround. They are the new order, being quietly assembled while the American operation burns through its political capital.
The crucial point is that none of this requires explicit coordination. You do not need a secret meeting — in Basel, in Helsinki, in Mar-a-Lago — for three great powers to understand each other's interests and act accordingly. The coordination can be entirely tacit. Each actor reads the situation, identifies their optimal move, and those moves turn out to be mutually non-interfering because the underlying interests converge on a single outcome: the end of American management of the Eastern Hemisphere.
This is what great power politics looks like when it is functioning. Not dramatic confrontation but parallel restraint, each power acting within its own logic in ways that happen to clear the path for a shared destination none of them would put in a joint communiqué. Trump retreats to the fortress. Russia consolidates the steppe. China inherits the sea lanes. The liberal international order does not end with a bang. It ends with three men separately deciding, in their own languages and for their own reasons, that they are done pretending it was ever anything other than American power with multilateral branding.
Jiang's instinct — that Trump and Putin are "plotting in the shadows" — was closer to something real than his conspiratorial framing allowed. The shadows are not a secret meeting room. They are simply the space where great power interests align without needing to be spoken aloud. The silence of China and Russia during this war is not absence of agency. It is agency, expressed as patience. They are waiting for the retreat they can already read in the Federal Register.
The Most Destabilizing Question: Is Iran Clued In?
There is a question the essay has been circling without stating directly, and it is the one that, once asked, reframes everything that precedes it. China and Russia's silence is explicable as great power patience. But what about Iran — the nominal adversary, the target of the operation, the power whose supreme leader was killed in the opening hours? Is Iran simply fighting for survival? Or does Iran also understand what this war is for?
The behavioral evidence is striking once you look for it.
Consider the selective Hormuz access. Iran did not close the strait universally. It closed it to American-aligned shipping while quietly negotiating passage for India, Turkey, Pakistan, and China. This is not the behavior of a power trying to maximize economic devastation. A regime fighting purely for survival would weaponize every available lever indiscriminately. Instead, Iran has been surgical — isolating the American alliance system from the strait's access while leaving open the bilateral channels that constitute the emerging post-American order. The closure is not a weapon of mass destruction. It is a scalpel, cutting precisely along the fault lines of American alliance politics.
Consider the targeting choices. Iran has struck Gulf state infrastructure — Bahrain's water desalination, Qatar's LNG capacity, UAE ports — but with calibration. The strikes signal capability without triggering full GCC mobilization. Qatar lost seventeen percent of its LNG capacity in a single blow, a demonstration of what total Iranian escalation would look like. But Iran stopped there. It is punishing the alliance system's periphery, not dismembering it. That is coercive diplomacy with a specific interlocutor in mind — not the GCC, not Israel, but Washington. The message is: we can make this much worse. The implicit offer is: or we can stop.
Consider, above all, the negotiating posture. Iran's foreign minister appeared on American television to lay out explicit terms: American forces withdraw from the strait, Iran reopens it. This is not the behavior of a regime fighting for its life. Regimes fighting for survival do not give carefully structured closing offers on CBS. They fight. What Iran is doing instead is negotiating — using the war as the medium, but negotiating nonetheless. The terms it has named are precisely the terms that give Trump what he needs domestically: a deal. Not a defeat. A deal he can hold up. A deal with his name on it.
Iran has been reading American strategic documents since 1979. Its analysts are not unsophisticated. These are the people who survived Saddam Hussein, absorbed decades of sanctions, endured a twelve-day air campaign in 2025, and rebuilt their deterrent capability each time. The NSS was public in December. The Donroe Doctrine was in the newspapers. The Greenland moves, the Venezuela operation, the Panama Canal pressure — the geographic logic of Fortress America was available to anyone paying attention. The idea that Iranian strategic planners looked at this pattern and failed to conclude that America was engineering its exit from the Eastern Hemisphere requires believing they are the only sophisticated actors in the system who missed what everyone else could see.
They did not miss it. And if they understood it, their optimal strategy is exactly what we are observing. Make the war costly enough that American public appetite for continuation evaporates, but not so costly that you unify the alliance system into genuine coalition response. Keep the strait as the primary lever — it is the one asset that gives you negotiating power over not just America but China, Europe, and every energy-dependent economy simultaneously. And critically: do not destroy Trump's ability to claim victory. An American president who cannot declare success cannot make a deal. An American president who can declare success can come home. Iran needs Trump to be able to come home. The CBS interview is a closing offer dressed as a precondition, carefully worded to give the counterparty what it needs to say yes.
The truly vertiginous implication — the one that makes the ground shift beneath the entire essay — is this: the war may not be a war in any conventional sense. It may be a negotiation conducted through violence. A process by which all the major parties, including the nominal adversaries, are navigating toward an outcome each has independently calculated serves its interests. America exits the Eastern Hemisphere with a victory narrative intact. Iran acquires sovereign leverage over the strait and a path toward the regional power status it has sought for forty years. Russia gets NATO fracture and European realignment. China gets the energy lanes under a new management structure it can work with. The GCC gets Israeli security guarantees and a new patron less likely to lecture them about democracy. Everyone gets something.
The people who do not get something are the ones who never got a seat at the table where nothing was said. The architects of the liberal international order. The smaller states whose security depended on the guarantee system. The populations absorbing the bombs and the energy shock and the famine downstream as the transaction costs of the transition.
This is not a conspiracy. It requires no secret room. It requires only that sophisticated actors, operating with access to the same public documents and the same structural logic, independently calculate that the old order is dissolving and begin acting on the world that comes after it. When interests converge deeply enough, coordination is unnecessary. The convergence does the work.
Jiang sensed this. His instinct — that the visible conflict was the surface of something more organized — was not wrong. His error was to reach for a conspiracy when convergence was sufficient, to populate the shadows with scheming figures when the shadows are simply the space where great power interests resolve without needing to be spoken. The war is the last scene of the old order, being performed by a cast that has already read the next script.
The Hormuz Lesson Applied: Why Greenland Now Makes Sense
The Strait of Hormuz has done something no strategic briefing paper could: it has educated the American public in the geopolitics of chokepoints. Before February 28, the case for Greenland required explaining the GIUK gap — the Greenland-Iceland-UK passage that controls North Atlantic submarine and commercial transit — to an audience with no frame of reference for why a narrow waterway translates into economic and military leverage. That explanation is no longer necessary. Everyone now understands what happens when a hostile power sits on a narrows and decides to close it. Oil goes from sixty-five dollars to a hundred and twenty-six. The global economy seizes. Allies panic. The hegemon improvises.
Greenland is the GIUK gap made territorial. Whoever controls the island controls the primary passage between the North Atlantic and the Arctic, the route through which Russian submarines must transit to threaten Atlantic shipping, and increasingly, as Arctic ice retreats, one of the most significant commercial corridors of the coming century. The structural parallel to Hormuz is precise: a narrow maritime passage, commanding leverage over trade and military movement, currently outside the direct control of the power most exposed to its closure.
The critic will note the disanalogy: Iran is an active adversary weaponizing Hormuz today, whereas no peer power currently controls the GIUK gap. But this objection inverts the lesson. The Hormuz crisis is the argument for acting before the crisis, not during it. The United States did not secure alternative arrangements for Gulf energy transit before the war; it is improvising escorts and insurance schemes under fire. The cost of that improvisation — in oil prices, in alliance strain, in economic disruption — is precisely what the Fortress America doctrine is designed to avoid in the hemisphere that actually matters to American survival.
Greenland, in this reading, is not an act of imperial appetite. It is the application of the Hormuz lesson to the theater where American power is being deliberately concentrated. You do not wait for a hostile power to sit on your narrows and start flying drones. You own the narrows first. The Iran war, whatever its chaos and costs, has made this argument not just intellectually available but viscerally obvious to any American paying four dollars a gallon at the pump. Trump, whatever his deficiencies as a strategist, has a talent for timing. The case for Greenland has never been easier to make than in the aftermath of Hormuz.
The Deeper Logic: Fortress America in an Age of Cascading Disorder
There is a longer argument beneath the strategic one, and it is the argument that makes the retreat not merely tactical but civilizationally coherent. It has nothing to do with Iran, or with Netanyahu, or with the petrodollar. It has to do with climate — and with the recognition, available to anyone willing to read the projections honestly, that the next fifty years will render large portions of the earth's surface ungovernable in ways that no amount of American military power can arrest.
The zones of maximum climate stress map almost perfectly onto the zones of maximum American imperial investment. The Middle East loses its agricultural viability as wet-bulb temperatures exceed human tolerance across the Tigris-Euphrates basin. The Sahel, already a corridor of state failure, becomes a corridor of civilizational collapse as the rains fail and the soils exhaust. South Asia faces water crisis as Himalayan glaciers retreat, threatening the river systems that sustain a billion people. Coastal Southeast Asia — the manufacturing heart of the global supply chain — confronts inundation on a timeline that is no longer speculative. These are not worst-case projections. They are median outcomes given current trajectories.
American foreign policy has spent eighty years treating these regions as problems to be managed, stabilized, modernized. The implicit promise of liberal internationalism was that engagement, institutions, and development could bring them inside the order — that the arc of history bends toward something resembling Kansas. Climate dissolves that promise. You cannot institution-build your way out of a world three degrees warmer. You cannot stabilize states whose resource base is disappearing. The entropy is not political. It is physical. And it compounds.
Against this backdrop, the Fortress America doctrine is not a retreat from responsibility. It is a recognition that the responsible question is no longer how to manage the periphery but how to preserve something on the terrain where preservation is still possible.
North America's climate position, assessed coldly, is the strongest of any major landmass. The agricultural heartland expands northward as Canadian permafrost yields to tillable soil — a grim bounty, but a bounty. Freshwater, while stressed in the Southwest, is more abundant than anywhere in the Middle East or North Africa. Energy independence is achieved. The coasts take damage, but the interior is deep and defensible. The GIUK gap, as Arctic ice retreats, opens into a commercial corridor of increasing importance. Greenland is not just a military asset. It is a claim on the geography of the warming world.
The uncomfortable implication must be stated rather than elided, because the essay that does not state it is not honest. Fortress America under climate stress is not merely consolidation. It is a decision about who is inside the walls and who is not. The hundreds of millions displaced by heat stress, water scarcity, and crop failure in the regions America is withdrawing from do not disappear because America withdraws. They move. The Fortress America doctrine, carried to its logical conclusion, requires not just military withdrawal from the Middle East and Africa but active defense of the hemisphere against the human consequences of the disorder that withdrawal accelerates. The walls are not metaphorical. The naval presence in the Caribbean, the hardened southern border, the restriction of immigration from climate-stressed regions — these are the other side of the same doctrine, and any account of the strategy that omits them is sanitizing a position that deserves to be seen clearly.
This does not make the position incoherent. You cannot stabilize a destabilizing world. The attempt to do so — the liberal internationalist project — has produced eighty years of war, debt, and institutional decay without arresting the underlying trends. There is a serious argument that concentrated power on defensible terrain, honestly held and honestly defended, produces less total suffering than the alternative: an exhausted hegemon hemorrhaging resources into entropy management, arriving too late and leaving too soon, generating resentment without producing order.
But serious is not the same as comfortable. The retreat doctrine asks the civilization that built the liberal international order — that wrote the refugee conventions, that founded the institutions premised on the proposition that every human crisis is everyone's problem — to acknowledge that it is abandoning that project. Not because the project was wrong in its values, but because the physics of the coming century have made it impossible to execute.
There is a word for the recognition that something you valued and perhaps believed in can no longer be sustained by will alone — that the conditions for it have passed. It is not cynicism. It is something closer to grief, rationalized into policy.
Trump does not grieve. He does not have the conceptual vocabulary for this argument, and he would not use it if he did. But the argument exists beneath his instincts, which have always been geographic and mercantilist rather than ideological — always about what America has and what it can hold, rather than what it owes and what it should build. The climate century, brutal and clarifying, may prove those instincts more durable than the institutions they are currently dismantling.
Fortress America is not a vision of the good. It is a wager on the possible. In a world of cascading disorder, the wager may be the most honest position available — not because it is kind, but because the alternative is the pretense of a kindness that the physics of the century will not allow.
Conclusion: The Cunning of the Retreat
History rarely produces clean intentionality. The argument here is not that every consequence of the Iran war was planned, or that the architects foresaw every move. The insurance-driven Hormuz closure was a surprise. Netanyahu's obstinacy was anticipated but not controlled. The scale of the economic disruption exceeded projections.
But the argument does not require clean intentionality. It requires only that the war be read against the doctrine that preceded it — and the doctrine is a matter of public record. Three months before the first strike on Iran, the Trump administration published a National Security Strategy declaring the Western Hemisphere America's central strategic priority, signaling exit from Middle Eastern management, and announcing that the Atlas posture was over. Three months before the war, the Pentagon published a defense strategy reorienting away from global commitments toward regional dominance. The doctrine came first. The war followed.
The argument is this: that Operation Epic Fury was structured to enable an exit that the doctrine had already declared necessary, that the exit serves a coherent strategic vision of hemispheric consolidation documented in writing before a single bomb fell, and that Trump — whatever his deficiencies as a strategist — has a political instinct for permission structures that the NSS had already supplied the architecture for. He does not think in doctrines. He thinks in deals. The deal was this: buy America's freedom from Eurasian entanglement with one decisive act of violence, then come home to build the hemisphere the doctrine had already claimed.
The puppets, as Jiang almost noticed, may have been pulling their own strings all along — and filing the paperwork in December.
The question is whether the war's momentum — Netanyahu's maximalism, the ground commitment, the casualties yet to come — will sever those strings before the retreat can be executed.
If it does, the plan will have failed. But the plan will have existed. In writing. In the Federal Register. Three months before the war.
conversation
Comments
Select any passage above to comment on it inline.
Sign in to join the conversation.
Loading comments…