Gongsun Ce Column: Ukraine and Iran Wars Drag On — Is Sun Tzu’s 'The Art of War' Now 'Thanks for Watching'?

Given the protracted wars in Ukraine and Iran, Chinese state-affiliated media have introduced a new term: 'chronic warfare.' This concept suggests that war is no longer about quick victories or merely seizing territory and destroying enemy forces, but rather about regime change, reshaping geopolitical landscapes, and exhausting the opponent's comprehensive national strength. Under such a framework, Sun Tzu’s 'The Art of War,' revered for over two millennia, appears almost obsolete. Has 'The Art of War' truly become irrelevant in the face of such monumental change—has it effectively 'thanked us for watching'?

Upon deeper reflection, the answer is no. Simply put, the core of 'The Art of War' is victory. Whether a nation wages war to seize territory or to overthrow a regime, success can only be achieved through victory. From this perspective, Trump’s original goal in launching military action against Iran was to instigate internal regime change. However, he failed to achieve victory, which is precisely why he could not accomplish his objective.

Beyond tactics, 'The Art of War' emphasizes a core principle: 'benevolent intent.' Consider these passages from the text:

'No country has ever benefited from prolonged warfare. One who does not fully understand the dangers of military action cannot fully understand its benefits.'

'In war, to preserve a nation intact is best; to destroy a nation is second best. To preserve an army intact is best; to destroy an army is second best. To preserve a regiment, a company, or a squad intact is best; to destroy them is second best.'

'A sovereign must not raise an army in anger; a general must not engage in battle out of resentment. Move only when it is advantageous; stop when it is not. Anger can return to joy, resentment to satisfaction, but a destroyed nation cannot be restored, nor can the dead be brought back to life. Therefore, the wise ruler is cautious, the good general vigilant—this is the path to national security and military preservation.'

Applying these three passages to Trump’s actions in the Iran conflict reveals the following:

First, Trump clearly saw 'advantage' in attacking Iran, but he completely ignored or failed to understand the 'dangers of military action.' Had he foreseen the current dire situation, he might have calculated more carefully before launching the campaign.

Second, he certainly adhered to the principle of 'minimal U.S. military casualties,' thus satisfying the 'preservation of the army' and 'preservation of the squad' criteria. However, the damage inflicted by the Iran war on the United States and the global community—especially its impact on the world economy—may have already exceeded his capacity to manage.

Third, American lives are not the only lives that matter; Iranian lives matter too. Yet Trump’s mindset focused solely on 'our group,' with no regard for 'their group.' He had already experienced the consequences of this during his previous term, particularly during the BLM (Black Lives Matter) movement, yet he appears to have learned nothing. While his actions in Iran may have achieved 'preservation of the army,' they have utterly failed in 'preserving the nation.' This will likely manifest in public backlash during the November midterm elections.

I am not a strategic expert and do not intend to comment rashly on the concept of 'chronic warfare.' However, even if the goal is no longer to 'destroy enemy forces,' bullets, shells, and missiles do not discriminate. The longer a war drags on, the more people suffer, and the deeper the accumulated hatred becomes. Wise rulers—be cautious, cautious, and again, cautious!