핵심분석

본 기사는 제한된 전쟁의 역사적 사례를 통해, 군사적 행동의 결과가 정치적 목표 달성 및 전략적 성공에 미치는 영향을 분석하며, 특히 행동의 제약과 외교적 틀의 중요성을 강조합니다. 이는 현재의 미국-이스라엘-이란 갈등과 같은 복잡한 지정학적 상황에 중요한 시사점을 제공합니다.

1. 데이터 해석: 자제와 전략적 비용 (1991년 걸프 전쟁)
1991년 걸프 전쟁에서 조지 H.W. 부시 행정부가 보인 자제는 군사적 성공이 곧 정치적 목표 달성을 의미하지 않음을 보여주는 핵심 사례입니다. 기사는 전쟁이 '운영 기회'가 '전략적 부담'이 되는 것을 피하는 데 중점을 두었습니다. 이는 군사적 목표를 달성하기 위해 확장된 전쟁이 '수용 가능한 비용'과 '지속 가능한 법적·외교적 틀' 내에서 이루어져야 한다는 점을 강조합니다. 즉, 군사적 이점 추구보다 행동의 정당성과 지속 가능성이 더 중요하며, 이는 전략적 성공의 필수 조건임을 의미합니다.

2. 인과관계 분석: 기회와 의무의 구분
기사는 이란의 내부 불안정 및 대리 세력 약화가 미국에게 지역 패러다임을 변경할 '기회'를 제공했음을 지적합니다. 그러나 기회는 의무가 아니라는 점을 명확히 구분합니다. 이는 군사적 개입이 반드시 정치적 목표 달성을 보장하지 않으며, 오히려 외교적·법적 틀 내에서 행동해야만 그 결과가 정당성을 얻는다는 점을 의미합니다. 이 분석은 현재의 갈등이 단순한 군사적 충돌을 넘어, 국제적 규범과 법적 틀을 존중하는지에 따라 장기적인 전략적 안정성이 결정될 것임을 시사합니다.

3. 전략적 함의: 행동의 정당성과 장기적 안정성
제한된 전쟁의 교훈은 현재의 복잡한 지정학적 환경에서 더욱 중요합니다. 행동의 성공 여부는 단기적인 군사적 승패뿐만 아니라, 국제 사회의 규범과 법적 틀을 얼마나 존중하는지에 달려 있습니다. 만약 현재의 행동이 외교적 합의 없이 이루어진다면, 이는 장기적인 지역 안정성에 부정적인 영향을 미칠 수 있습니다. 따라서 투자 관점에서 볼 때, 단기적인 군사적 이점 추구보다는 장기적인 전략적 안정성과 국제적 정당성을 확보하는 것이 더 높은 가치를 창출할 수 있습니다. 향후 이 지역의 역학 관계 변화를 면밀히 관찰하며, 행동의 결과가 법적·외교적 정당성을 확보하는 데 중점을 두어야 할 것입니다. 이는 예측 불가능한 환경 속에서 전략적 인내심과 외교적 접근이 필수적임을 강조합니다.

4. 투자 관점의 시사점
이러한 분석은 지정학적 리스크가 금융 시장에 미치는 영향을 고려해야 함을 시사합니다. 군사적 긴장이 고조될 때, 예측 불가능한 행동은 시장 변동성을 증가시키고 장기적인 투자 환경에 불확실성을 더합니다. 따라서 투자자들은 특정 지역의 갈등이 외교적 합의와 법적 틀 내에서 관리되는지 여부를 평가하여, 잠재적인 리스크와 기회를 식별해야 합니다. 이는 단순한 단기적인 이벤트 분석을 넘어, 행동의 근본적인 동기와 장기적인 전략적 결과를 예측하는 데 필수적입니다. 결론적으로, 제한된 전쟁의 교훈은 모든 전략적 결정이 윤리적, 법적, 외교적 프레임워크 내에서 이루어져야 한다는 점을 강조하며, 이는 장기적인 성공과 안정성을 위한 기반이 됩니다.

---

원문 링크: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMivAFBVV95cUxOVVltWXM5b2FPWm9VUnBpLU95OWVlT2VGZzNWYWF1aVAxX01xQjVLblR6NkRIcVB1SE9yQkgxcFJTY0loMjNRTlo1bjJnTmd2VXVhd3kxTXY3OGN1UGF0d1ltUWRkaXB2WWhRMGtmcU15ZXYzcVdET1RHWWlNcjNRNlYtbTNxT0JBd0dEZWZKelZuTUF2VmlQZ0hkRzJsbHVzdnZlUS1MTnlnTU1nNzQ0X2JiTGM5Wkc2RVpIcw?oc=5

Limited War, Strategic Success: Bush’s Gulf War Restraint and the Current Iran War - Small Wars Journal

The 1991 Gulf War remains useful to historians and policymakers. Its circumstances cannot be mechanically reproduced, but the George H.W. Bush administration’s approach to military success as a means to secure a limited political end was a rare, invaluable source of understanding of limited war. The U.S. expelled Iraq from Kuwait, preserved the coalition built for that purpose, and stopped operations before operational opportunity became strategic liability. That restraint did not solve the United States’ Iraq woes, nor its wider concerns in the Gulf. Furthermore, Thomas Mahnken is right to argue that Saddam Hussein’s survival created serious postwar difficulties. Yet the central question is not whether a more ambitious war might have produced some additional advantage. The question with modern relevance is whether expanding the war would have served the political purpose for which the coalition had been assembled. Would this have come at an acceptable cost, under a durable legal and diplomatic framework? Argued here, the answers are no. The restraint demonstrated by the H. W. Bush Administration, therefore, serves as a useful lesson to the Trump administration amidst current attempts to exploit perceived “opportunities.”

The current U.S.-Israel-Iran war illustrates the danger that Bush was wise to avoid. The United States and Israel began strikes against Iran on February 28, 2026, with stated aims including everything from inducing regime change to targeting Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs. Only the threat of nuclear arms acquisition remained under active discussion . Those strikes followed a period of internal and regional instability for Iran, including extensive protests in early 2026 and the degradation of Iranian proxies . That context created a perceived opportunity for the Trump administration to alter the regional paradigm.

Opportunity is not obligation, however. The H.W. Bush administration’s success lay in resisting the pressure to inflate battlefield advantage into a wider political project. The current administration’s headache is that it appears to have done the reverse: it treated Iranian vulnerability as an opening for expanded coercion, then struggled to control the termination logic of the resultant war, the limited coalition it had joined, and the theater-wide fallout of the military action.

Ultimately, the success of the Gulf War demonstrates that limited war succeeds when military opportunity is subordinated to political purpose. The current U.S.-Israel-Iran conflict shows where limited war begins to fail: when opportunity becomes obligation; coalition management gives way to partner autonomy; and temporary military action creates enduring security commitments.

The Bush administration entered the Gulf War with clear and limited objectives: remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait, restore Kuwait’s legitimate government, protect U.S. citizens, and uphold an international norm, established since 1945, that borders are not changed by force. United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 678 authorized member states to use “all necessary means” to implement prior resolutions demanding Iraq’s withdrawal from Kuwait. That authorization drew a line in the sand at defending Kuwait, not at conquering Iraq or remaking its regime. Bush’s restraint, therefore, flowed from the relationship between political purpose and military action. Once the coalition had liberated Kuwait and destroyed enough Iraqi combat capability to secure that political outcome, further advance would have changed the war’s character and risked its international legitimacy by violating its UNSC mandate.

This point is often overlooked in arguments that the United States “stopped too soon.” Mahnken contends that Washington squandered leverage by failing to compel Saddam to accept a more decisive postwar settlement. That critique is a war-termination argument: Saddam’s survival preserved a hostile regime and made later enforcement problems likely. While this is somewhat valid, Bush’s answer was more strategically coherent at the time. A coalition march on Baghdad or a coercive occupation of Iraqi territory would not merely have strained the legitimacy of the coalition and the United Nations mandate; it would have replaced the war’s limited objective with an open-ended question of how to manage the Iraqi political order. Mahnken’s suggestion is all very well on paper, but as Bush and Brent Scowcroft later argued, occupying Iraq may have shattered the coalition, incurred high costs, and left the United States responsible for governing a fractured country.

The current administration faced a different but recognizable temptation. Iran’s domestic turmoil made entering a strategic quagmire more tempting. Iran was arguably at its weakest point in years in early 2026. The regime faced widespread protests, a faltering economy, infrastructure strains, and splintered regional allies, all prior to Israeli and American air strikes, which would greatly damage Iran’s defenses and nuclear program. The late-2025 and early-2026 protests were widespread and, in the eyes of the authorities, necessitated violent suppression . These facts support a narrow conclusion: Iran was vulnerable. The U.S. may have taken this vulnerability to mean opportunity. But this opportunity was by no means an obligation, and did not by itself prove that regime change was feasible, legitimate, or worth the costs of war.

Here the contrast to the 1991 Gulf War is sharp. Bush recognized that Saddam’s vulnerability after the liberation of Kuwait did not necessitate an attempt to remove him. The current administration appears to have treated Iran’s vulnerability as a means to foster regime change, the declared object of the war. Trump and Netanyahu urged Iranians to topple their leaders after U.S.-Israeli strikes killed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Regional analysts noted that the U.S. and Israel initially used possible strikes as leverage for a nuclear deal, but later shifted toward explicit regime-change messaging. Even if regime collapse seemed possible, the relevant question, as Clausewitz considers, was whether the political value of that objective justified the scale and duration of the war required to secure it. The political objectives of a war may change as it develops . Should the U.S. have proceeded because Iran seemed weakened? The Gulf War suggests that the answer should not be assumed merely because an adversary is weak or does not appear resilient.

Bush’s second achievement was the discipline with which he managed his coalition. The stability of the UNSC coalition during the Gulf War rested on a narrow legal and political foundation: reverse Iraqi aggression against Kuwait. That clarity made it possible for Arab states, European allies, and other partners to support U.S.-led military action without appearing to endorse an occupation or partition of Iraq. Coalition unity was not incidental; it was part of the strategy. Limited aims made broad participation possible, and broad participation reinforced the legitimacy of the limited aims.

The current war shows how quickly that logic can break down when partners’ objectives diverge. The United States and Israel may have been militarily aligned at the outset, but alignment in targeting does not guarantee alignment in war termination. U.S. and Israeli forces may have together inflicted significant damage on Iran’s military and leadership, but by April 2026, their strategic priorities were already beginning to diverge. Israel favored more maximalist outcomes, including Iranian regime collapse, while the United States was more constrained by global economic risks and domestic politics. That divergence is a core coalition-management problem. An autonomous partner seeking an adversary’s collapse can push the war beyond the point at which a coalition leader seeking a negotiated off-ramp would ideally stop.

Bush faced allied and domestic pressures as well, but he kept the coalition tied to the mandate. In 1991, the United States did not allow the coalition’s operational success to redefine the coalition’s political purpose. In the current case, the United States has had difficulty imposing a comparable limit. Israel’s unilateral strikes have obliged the U.S., seeking to maintain a bilateral partnership in the prosecution of the war, to alienate its other coalition allies. Many NATO members have declined to participate in a Strait of Hormuz mission because any such operation would require political approval from all thirty-two members, several of whom are wholly opposed to the war in the first place. European governments have also expressed resentment at being drawn into a war launched without their consent. France and Britain have attempted to organize a narrower coalition to ensure safe transit of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz after stabilization or conflict resolution, but this no longer seems sufficient to satisfy U.S.-Israeli objectives.

A practical consequence of coalition mismanagement can be seen clearly: the United States can initiate or support a high-end military campaign with one partner but still fail to maintain the broader coalition required to manage the second-order effects stemming from military action. In 1991, the coalition was assembled before the major offensive and held together by a limited purpose. In 2026, the United States and Israel have together struck Iran, but the U.S. has had to seek allies’ assistance in managing a maritime crisis, which allies resent as the consequence of a war they did not authorize, design, or politically own. This is not simply a diplomatic inconvenience. It means the United States may bear the costs of escalation while receiving less allied support for termination, maritime security, and post-conflict stabilization.

The Gulf War is a textbook case of avoiding strategic overextension. In 1991, the United States did not occupy Baghdad, assume responsibility for Iraq’s internal reconstruction, or transform a war of expulsion into a war of governance. American experiences in Iraq after 2003 do not necessarily prove a continuation of the 1991 campaign would have failed in the same way. They do, however, demonstrate the kind of commitment Bush sought to avoid : regime change created obligations for security, governance, political reconstruction, and legitimacy that combat success alone could not satisfy .

The current Iran war has produced a maritime parallel to the post-2003 morass. The administration may seek to define the air campaign as limited, but the Strait of Hormuz has become a continuing strategic burden. Iran’s continual blockade of the critical Gulf has pushed up oil prices, shipping costs, and raw-material pressures. NATO has remained divided over a formal Hormuz role, while France and Britain may yet take the lead on a possible safe-transit coalition only after the situation stabilizes or the conflict is resolved. Strategically overextending itself, the United States has created a problem that is now difficult to internationalize.

An international waterway cannot be occupied as the U.S. occupied Iraq. But the United States can still become trapped in an indefinite enabling mission after the apparent main operation has ended. In 2003 Iraq, the dismantlement of the Ba’athist state generated governance and security obligations. In Hormuz, strikes against Iran generated a maritime-security obligation: protect commerce, reassure markets, manage escalation, and restore freedom of navigation without triggering a wider regional war. Those obligations can persist even if the original strike objectives are declared complete. Limited war does not end when the United States stops bombing; it may end when the political conditions requiring force have been settled or—more likely—when all parties have agreed to resume a sustainable status quo .

Recent U.S. actions suggest that the war’s termination logic remains unsettled. On May 19, 2026, the Trump administration imposed new sanctions on an Iranian exchange house, front companies, and nineteen vessels linked to Iranian petroleum and petrochemical shipping, even as Iran presented a peace proposal involving an end to hostilities, U.S. withdrawal from areas near Iran, sanctions relief, and reparations. On the same day, the U.S. Senate advanced a war-powers resolution seeking to curb further military action absent congressional authorization. This reflects concern that the conflict has become prolonged without a clear strategy or authorization framework. The U.S. has now resumed strikes on an Iranian naval base. These are signs of strategic overextension: the United States is paying continuing military, diplomatic, economic, and domestic-political costs for a war, the end state of which is far from settled.

The Gulf War’s central lesson is not that restraint is always morally sound or that adversaries should never be pressured after battlefield defeat. It is that limited war requires discipline at three moments: defining the objective, managing the coalition, and terminating the mission before tactical success creates new obligations and thus strategic overextension. Bush did not confuse the opportunity created by Iraqi defeat with an obligation to transform Iraq. He did not let coalition partners or domestic critics redefine the mandate. He did not accept the burden of occupying Baghdad for the uncertain promise of peace.

The current administration’s shortcomings are instructive because they have fallen into each of these traps. The U.S. appears to have treated Iranian weakness and countrywide unrest as a vulnerability to expanded coercion. That vulnerability did not guarantee collapse or compliance. The United States fought beside Israel while struggling to restrain Israeli preferences for more maximalist outcomes. The United States then found itself mired in the responsibility of managing the Strait of Hormuz, where restoring commercial flows requires coalition support an advantage increasingly difficult to secure, the longer the U.S. and Israel continue their strikes. The result is not yet truly comparable to Iraq after 2003, but the warning signs are similar. A limited war becomes strategically costly when the United States confuses opportunity with obligation, mismanages its coalition, and becomes strategically overextended. The success of the 1991 Gulf War was not the United States achieving everything possible. It was achieving something approaching strategic sustainability.

Jacob Rudy is a major in the United States Marine Corps, currently assigned as a student to Command & Staff College in Quantico, Virginia. He is a distinguished graduate of the Command & Staff Distance Education Program and has served as a Marine for 14 years. He served on deployments to the Black Sea Rotational Force in 2017 and to NATO Joint Task Force-504 in October of 2023. He holds an undergraduate degree from Elon University.

Unlock exclusive members-only ad-free content, members discussion, content, and updates directly from the SWJ Team, for only $10/yr .

" * " indicates required fields

Source: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMivAFBVV95cUxOVVltWXM5b2FPWm9VUnBpLU95OWVlT2VGZzNWYWF1aVAxX01xQjVLblR6NkRIcVB1SE9yQkgxcFJTY0loMjNRTlo1bjJnTmd2VXVhd3kxTXY3OGN1UGF0d1ltUWRkaXB2WWhRMGtmcU15ZXYzcVdET1RHWWlNcjNRNlYtbTNxT0JBd0dEZWZKelZuTUF2VmlQZ0hkRzJsbHVzdnZlUS1MTnlnTU1nNzQ0X2JiTGM5Wkc2RVpIcw?oc=5