‘Forever Wars’
Herbert Wulf
October 15, 2026
Image: BlueRingMedia / Shutterstock
The war against Iran, which the US has been waging for eight months now with no end in sight, has sparked a debate in the US about ‘forever wars’.
President Donald Trump is under pressure to end the war soon. The war is unpopular, particularly among his own supporters, as Trump had promised the American people he would keep the country out of wars. After all, it was supposed to be merely a brief military operation—a short burst of “epic fury,” as the action was officially dubbed. The attack initiated on February 28 was presumably intended as another show of force by the US military, much like the bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities in June 2025 and the abduction of Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro in January. But the Iran war continues and negotiations with the Iranian leadership have stalled.
The respected quarterly journal Foreign Affairs speaks of the “new forever wars“. This term was originally introduced as a strategy during the Bush administration to describe the fight against terrorism following the attacks of September 11, 2001. Bush signalled to both terrorist groups and his own population that the war would continue indefinitely and without limits. However, Bush’s strategy was not popular for long; war weariness soon set in, and both Democrats and Republicans called for the troops to be brought home. Nonetheless, the deployment of US troops in Afghanistan lasted twenty years.
Many wars—especially those initiated by military superpowers—are planned as short military operations. But very few end quickly. President Vladimir Putin and his military strategists, too, had anticipated a successful ‘blitzkrieg’ in Ukraine. Now in its fifth year, the war shows no sign of ending.
There are at least three reasons why wars tend to be prolonged and often fail to achieve the anticipated objectives:
First, aggressors almost always plan without an exit strategy. An exit strategy entails ensuring, prior to the deployment of armed forces, how the operation is to be concluded. However, military planners generally prepare for short conflicts rather than protracted wars. There were two prominent attempts in the US to formulate such an exit strategy. Drawing on lessons from the Vietnam War, then-Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger pleaded in 1984 for criteria requiring clear political objectives and militarily achievable goals before putting boots on the ground. Colin Powell, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Second Gulf War, subsequently refined the Weinberger Doctrine in 1992. At its core, the doctrine demanded that military actions should not become open-ended political commitments. Yet, the US failed to adhere to these principles as early as the 2003 war against Iraq, which led to quickly ousting Saddam Hussein but a long-term US political commitment in Iraq, including US-troops.
The fact that wars often last longer than planned did not deter Trump from instigating a war with Iran without a Plan B or an exit strategy. The situation is now far more problematic than it was before the war. Iran is militarily weakened but not defeated. A stinging blow has been dealt to the world’s leading superpower and Iran exposed the vulnerabilities of the US. While Iran’s economy is in ruins, its nuclear program persists; the authoritarian government remains in power, and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz is having negative consequences for the global economy. Trump is desperately seeking a way out without a loss of face.
Great powers tend to overestimate their military potential. But the use of military force is far from capable of solving political problems. This is currently evident in the US war against Iran.
A second reason for the protracted nature of wars is the unwavering belief among strategists to achieve their objectives through military, economic, and political escalation. It’s the idea that if one simply escalates enough, the adversary will buckle. However, the conflict with Iran demonstrates that even militarily weaker countries can find effective countermeasures. Iran is escalating herself by attacking US bases and allies in the Gulf region and blocking the Strait of Hormuz—even though the costs involved are immense. The government in Tehran sees no reason to accede to the US administration’s demands at this time; the hardliners currently calling the shots in Tehran feel stronger than before the conflict.
Finally, political scientists argue that conflicting parties will only resolve their dispute through negotiation if no alternative means are available. According to this view, the conflict must be ‘ripe’ for negotiation. This occurs when the parties find themselves in a deadlock that is painful for both sides. Conflicting parties only seek a way out through negotiation when the stalemate is painful for both parties. Based on this concept, neither the war against Ukraine nor the war against Iran is seemingly ‘ripe’ for a negotiated settlement.
While there are indeed ongoing efforts to negotiate—including those involving third parties (such as the US in the Ukraine war, and Pakistan and Oman regarding Iran)—the aggressors believe that the war is ‘not lost’, even if they cannot win it momentarily. While negotiations with Iran were underway early in the year, Israel and the US carried out strikes against Iran. Positions in Tehran have therefore tended to harden. The Iranian leadership no longer has any confidence that the US administration is committed to serious negotiations and that they can be trusted. Instead, they are prepared to escalate further and attack regional infrastructure to weaken the global energy sector—and, by extension, the United States.
The conclusion means that the decision to start a war is often based on the notion of a brief conflict and a swift victory. Deciding to end a war, however, requires acknowledging the enormous human and economic costs of a protracted conflict, an assessment that the aggressors in a war are not readily prepared to make. Consequently, even in hopeless situations and lacking an exit strategy, the conflict is often allowed to escalate endlessly, while potential negotiations are either postponed or not pursued with genuine seriousness.
Related articles:
The Appeal and Futile Quest for Escalation Dominance (10-minute read)
Trump’s Escalation Trap with Iran (3-minute read)
The Arrogance of Power: Trump and Putin Could Learn a Lesson, If They Could Learn (3-minute read)
Endless Strife in Kashmir: Concepts on How Not to Resolve Conflict (10-minute read)
