In the Iran War, Trump’s Role Model Should Be Bismarck

President Trump has been criticized from both the Left and the Right for his conduct of the Iran War and his approach to ending that war. Andrew Miller on the Center for American Progress’ website calls it “Trump’s failed war,” and likens it to George W. Bush’s war against Iraq. Meanwhile, some GOP “hawks” argue that Trump should finish the job of ending the Iranian regime, while some America Firsters view the war as a repudiation of Trumpism. In reality, Trump is attempting to accomplish his geopolitical goals (an end to Iran’s nuclear weapons program and its effective support of international terrorism, and a more stable Middle East) by Bismarckian means.

The great British geopolitical thinker Sir Halford Mackinder, in his book (1919), wrote that “No statesman ever adjusted war to policy with nicer judgment than Bismarck.” Mackinder noted that in the 1860s and early 1870s, Bismarck fought three short wars and resolved those wars to Prussia’s benefit, ultimately creating the nation of Germany. “Once he achieved German unity,” Mackinder explained, “he waged no more wars.” Indeed, Bismarck helped prevent wider European wars at the Congress of Berlin in 1878 and diplomatically established a European balance of power that favored Germany but kept the peace for four decades. Henry Kissinger Bismarck with producing “a series of interlocking alliances, partially overlapping and partially competitive” that maintained order and peace in Europe. A.J.P. Taylor Bismarck’s statesmanship as “diplomatic mastery without parallel.”

Bismarck understood the need to blend military force and economic coercion with diplomacy to achieve geopolitical goals. In his memoirs, Bismarck explained his most important geopolitical goal that drove his diplomacy and war-making. “Our task,” he wrote, “was the establishment or initiation of a German national unity under the leadership of … Prussia.” To achieve that goal, Bismarck proceeded with caution and prudence in waging war and making peace. As he explained, “Every great state-commonwealth that loses the prudent and restraining influence … whether that influence rests on material or moral grounds, will always end by being rushed along at a speed which must shatter the coach of state.”