News & Briefings

This article examines an emerging U.S. “stability-first” approach through the lens of irregular warfare theory. Drawing on David Rapoport’s generational waves, Clausewitz’s concept of center of gravity, and Thomas Schelling’s coercive bargaining framework, it argues that Washington increasingly seeks to shape adversarial regimes rather than collapse them. Even where political rhetoric occasionally invokes regime change—most notably in the case of Iran—operational policy often appears focused on calibrated pressure designed to coerce behavioral change without triggering catastrophic implosion. Across Venezuela, Ukraine, the Arctic, and strategic competition with China, U.S. policy appears focused on calibrated pressure below implosion thresholds to avoid secondary instability effects such as mass migration, proxy escalation, and alliance fracture. The essay evaluates the operational logic, strategic risks, and human consequences of pursuing influence without catastrophic implosion. The powerful U.S.–Israeli strikes launched on February 28, 2026 illustrate how coercive pressure may escalate into controlled kinetic action while still operating within a broader strategy aimed at influence rather than systemic collapse.

Strategic counter-narratives function as purposeful reframings of identity and causality designed to shift audience behavior against an adversary’s frame. Effective implementation demands a plot that resonates with the target audience’s existing identity. Practitioners utilize these stories for sensemaking, de-escalation, and recruitment deterrence, yet success remains contingent on the alignment of words with visible deeds. The repetition paradox often causes these efforts to fail when they inadvertently grant salience to rival storylines by attempting to refute them. Furthermore, defensive lateness and credibility gaps occur when state voices lack the authenticity of in-group messengers.

By  Dr. Joseph Long  In the preceding analysis—the first installment of what has become a three-part series—I introduced the Guerrilla Leader Theory (GLT), a framework that provides a static taxonomy of leadership for the human domain. It posits that a leader’s effectiveness is a function of ...

Check out this latest article from The Modern War Institute! Jeremy Mushtare argues in “The Sisyphean Struggle for Influence Campaigning in Competition” that U.S. influence efforts fail because they lack prioritization, integration, and alignment with strategic objectives. He explains that combatant commands treat influence as fragmented, bottom-up activities rather than as coherent campaigns tied to theater priorities. The article emphasizes that effective influence campaigning requires deliberate focus on positional advantage, deterrence, and threats, while integrating physical and informational actions. Mushtare also highlights structural challenges such as interagency friction, embassy gatekeeping, and risk-averse decision-making that limit execution. He contends that success in competition depends on precision, targeted audiences, and disciplined campaign design rather than mass messaging. The article ultimately argues that influence must become a core operational function, directed at scale and aligned with clear priorities.