A recent opinion piece argues that the persistence of so-called “forever wars” stems from negotiated settlements that fail to produce definitive victories, leading to prolonged conflicts as parties continue to negotiate and fight indefinitely. The author asserts that genuine success in war requires one side to achieve unconditional surrender, citing World War II and the Vietnam War as examples where definitive outcomes were reached.
The article highlights the fall of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in World War II, where unconditional surrender was essential to ending their threats to global security. It then refers to the Vietnam War, which the author contends was won by the communist forces, resulting in a stable Vietnam today. According to the analysis, the success there was rooted in leadership genuinely concerned with national welfare and a later adoption of a hybrid economic model combining elements of socialism and capitalism.
Turning to contemporary conflicts, the writer specifically identifies Iran and its proxies—including Hamas and the Houthis—as significant threats comparable to those posed by Germany and Japan during World War II. The piece stresses Iran’s openly stated goal of “death to the United States” and warns that, if left unchecked, Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons could enable it to realize this ambition. The author argues that continuing the pattern of negotiated settlements with actors unwilling to engage in good faith negotiations is ineffective and that achieving unconditional surrender is necessary to prevent ongoing instability.
The opinion also calls for a stronger military approach, including deploying ground forces, as a necessary price to pay given the severity of the threat. It references former President Donald Trump’s statement about transforming Gaza into a prosperous region—likening it to postwar reconstruction efforts in Germany and Japan—as an example of envisioning long-term peacebuilding beyond conflict.
The author expresses disappointment with what is seen as a shift away from the strategy of total victory under Trump’s administration, criticizing current attempts to negotiate with opponents believed to be insincere. Observing that Iran has claimed gains in ongoing conflicts, the piece suggests that without decisive action, adversaries may continue to assert dominance.
While the opinion strongly advocates for unconditional surrender as the only reliable means to end certain conflicts, it reflects a broader debate on the efficacy of negotiated settlements versus military victories in achieving lasting peace.