Yves here. Hopefully readers who are more expert on US military strategy will opine on this article. I am a bit puzzled, in that many commentators on the Iran war stated that the US and Israel were set up to conduct high-intensity, short-duration, airpower heavy conflicts, and that Iran well understood that propensity and set itself to be able to wage a long war of attrition. However, I did not follow US operations in Syria or Afghanistan, so perhaps wars against insurgents fit the pattern described below.
Douglas Macgregor has depicted the US failure in a completely different way, that the US has not adapted to the new ISR-driven way of war, which he foresaw in his 2003 book, Transformation Under Fire: Revolutionizing How America Fights.
By Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies, the authors of War In Ukraine: Making Sense of a Senseless Conflict now in a revised, updated 2nd edition. Medea Benjamin is the cofounder of CODEPINK for Peace, and the author of several books, including Inside Iran: The Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Nicolas J. S. Davies is an independent journalist, a researcher for CODEPINK and the author of Blood on Our Hands: The American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq
US-allied South African troops conduct search and destroy operation in Namibia in 1980s Photo: Wikipedia
The 60-day extension of the ceasefire between the United States and Iran may lead to lasting peace or it may be over within a week, doomed by the dysfunctional alliance between the US and Israel. If it holds, it could mark the beginning of a transition away from the doctrine of “low-intensity conflict” that has shaped U.S. foreign policy for decades.
Talks between the US, Iran, Pakistan and Qatar began in Switzerland on June 21st. But Iran was firm that it holds the United States responsible for Israel’s violations of the US-Iran memorandum and cannot move forward with other parts of the agreement until the US fulfills its part in Article 1, which requires an actual Israeli ceasefire and withdrawal from Lebanon.
If the memorandum agreed between Iran and the United States fails, the world will be left with vastly reduced oil and gas supplies and a regional war between Iran, Israel and the United States from Lebanon to the Persian Gulf.
This entire crisis is one more devastating result of the world community’s failure to tame Israel’s war crimes and genocide or end its illegal occupation of Palestine and attacks and invasions in neighboring countries – all of which the United States continues to enable and support through its military and diplomatic alliance and arming of the Israeli military.
Trump seems to understand the rapidly deteriorating position of the US and Israel, and to recognize that his own political future now depends on extricating the US from the war on Iran that he and Netanyahu cooked up. Voices of peace from around the world support the tentative ceasefire extension and oppose efforts to sabotage it by politicians in Washington and Tel Aviv.
But to understand the roots of this crisis in US foreign policy, we have to look back. Since the 1980s, aggressive US foreign policy has dragged the Middle East and much of the world into a state that US military planners call “low-intensity conflict” or “LIC.”
Under this doctrine, the United States, and now its protégé Israel, claim the freedom of action to use military force in flagrant and widespread violation of international law, while deterring the rest of the world from mustering the political will to enforce the law or hold them accountable.
The US doctrine of low-intensity conflict was a deliberate policy choice by the Reagan administration in the 1980s, after the US defeat in Vietnam. After Bush II and Cheney’s catastrophic full-scale US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, Obama, Trump and Biden reverted to low-intensity warfare, but globally expanded its scope.
This US choice to expand low-intensity warfare followed the example and the techniques of the British Empire in its final phase in the 1950s. From the Suez crisis to guerrilla war against communist revolutionaries in Malaya and Mau Mau torture camps in Kenya, the deliberate and deadly violence of Britain’s imperial policies was hidden from its own people and the world behind a tapestry of lies.
In 1989, Michael Klare and Peter Kornbluh edited a book titled Low-Intensity Warfare: How the USA Fights Wars Without Declaring Them.
They wrote that the official description of low-intensity warfare was deliberately broad and ambiguous, embracing drug interdiction in Bolivia, the occupation of Beirut, the invasion of Grenada, the airstrikes on Libya in 1986, as well as covert “special operations,” “special activities,” and “unconventional warfare.”
They concluded that low-intensity conflict was in fact “a strategic reorientation of the US military establishment, and renewed commitment to employ force in a global crusade against Third World revolutionary movements and governments.”
Today’s nominal but false ceasefires in Gaza, Lebanon and the Persian Gulf fit squarely within that doctrine. They allow the US and Israel to continue illegal uses of force while appearing to respond to international demands for negotiations and diplomacy.
But the US involvement in low-intensity conflict today is not limited to the Middle East. It also encompasses the proxy war on Russia centered in Ukraine; the savage, deadly siege of Cuba; US and western piracy on the high seas; the kidnapping of President Maduro of Venezuela and his wife; and economic and financial coercive measures or “sanctions” that impact about 40 countries.
Today’s low-intensity warfare also includes deploying US special operations forces in up to 140 countries. Since 2001, US special operations forces claim to have suffered 40% of all US military casualties, including many of the 8,492 American deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Concentrating such a large share of US war casualties in such a small force – about 70,000 men and women at any one time – helps to give most American families the illusion of living in peace, even as the United States projects military force across the world and kills thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands, of people abroad.
The doctrine of low-intensity warfare depends on a fundamental assumption: that the countries targeted by the United States and its allies will remain too weak, too isolated or too divided to effectively resist. But that assumption is increasingly being tested.
Iran has made great strides in developing effective military defenses and demonstrating to shocked US and Israeli officials that it can now defend itself. But the deadly results of false ceasefires in Gaza and Lebanon stand as concrete evidence that Israel and the United States still favor low-intensity warfare over real peace.
Even as Trump presents himself as a peacemaker, he remains committed to funding an enormous war machine that can ratchet the intensity of military and covert operations up and down in different parts of the world as it adjusts to new forms of resistance and responds to fluctuating international diplomatic pressures.
But the US-Israeli genocide in Gaza opened the eyes of a new generation of people all over the world to the reality of US imperialism. The official lies that undergird low-intensity warfare are wearing dangerously thin. People are no longer swallowing the false narratives of US and Western politicians and establishment media.
US political, military and business leaders face a crisis of credibility and legitimacy that only grows as they take off the gloves and ratchet up the intensity of these campaigns, from escalating the war on Russia and the brutal blockade of Cuba to murdering innocent fishermen and ferry passengers in the Caribbean and Pacific and threatening traditional allies like Canada and Denmark.
In the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran and the negotiations to end it, we are witnessing a serious effort by an attacked country to stand up to the bullies, redress the imbalance of power and uphold international law.
Whatever one thinks of the Iranian government, Iran’s pursuit of a durable peace based on sovereignty, security and international law deserves the support of governments and people around the world, including Americans.
This moment could become a critical turning point in reining in U.S. aggression and Israeli regional expansion. It could even give humanity a chance to end this cycle of endless war and begin working together to address the existential crises threatening the world in the 21st century.
As the people of the United States commemorate the 250th anniversary of its founding, and the violence of the US empire comes home to attack us and our neighbors in our own homes and streets, we should find common cause with, and learn from, our neighbors around the world who have been resisting US imperial violence for generations.
It is ultimately up to us to take our future in our own hands and begin the essential transition from empire to democracy.
That is why CODEPINK is calling for a Summer of Peace and Love, a time to reject fear, militarism and empire, and to organize our communities around the simple but radical demand that our country stop making war on the world and start investing in life.
Low-intensity warfare against both states and guerrillas has indeed been a constant tactic of the USA for quite a while.
There is an often-forgotten precedent: the low-intensity warfare waged by the USA (with assistance from others such as the UK) against Iraq from 1991 to 2003. The imposition of a no-fly zone entailed bombing runs from time to time, with some more intensive campaigns (e.g. in 1993, 1996, 1998). As a retrospective from the Canadian military states:
“Flight operations over Iraq’s southern skies were both costly (in political and economic terms) and dangerous. For the 11 years that the SNFZ was in existence, the coalition flew more than 30,000 sorties per year.”
When it comes to low-intensity warfare against insurgents, the other often-forgotten case is Somalia. For the past 20 years, the USA has been bombing (via airplanes and drones) and carrying out operations with special forces against insurgents there on an irregular rhythm, but on a permanent basis.
Of course, both in the case of Iraq and Somalia, those military operations accompanied economic and personal sanctions.
I believe these are the most characteristic examples of the low-intensity warfare alluded to in the article.
Indeed. The US military doesn’t have any one doctrine – it has multiple overlapping doctrines which is both a strength and a weakness. Given the sheer number of conflicts the US has been directly or indirectly involved in over the past century or so its very easy to overlook the many scenarios where it has used different means to achieve its assumed strategic ends (I say assumed strategic ends, as its difficult sometimes to really know whether there is a real strategy that goes much further beyond ‘winning’).
Historically, a winning strategy for a weaker side since at least the days of Roman legions wandering into Teutonic forests has been to try to provoke the stronger military into fighting the wrong battle in the wrong place. Most of the biggest failures of the US has been when it has lost patience and overestimated its capacity to use brute force to finish a job – we’ve just seen the results. This isn’t really a failure of doctrine, it is the age old problem of leaders failing to understand precisely how and when to use your military. Arguably, Iran was in dire straits economically and environmentally last year – a more patient opponent would have contented itself with ratcheting up the pressure. But even that strategy has its limitations (as Russia is currently finding out). The only certainty in geopolitical conflict is uncertainty.
This low-intensity concept is a euphemism for the best defense is a good offense coupled with how to insure that the MICC can continue to grow until it devours our entire economy, The apex of this is captured in Trump’s edict to change the Department of Defense to the Department of (low-intensity) War. This will stop when we run out of money, which DT is currently hastening. Wouldn’t it be something if Trump is ultimately seen as the one who bankrupted us and actually did end our endless wars.
It’s difficult to understand the article when oil is not discussed and is mentioned only once at a glance, “the world will be left with vastly reduced oil.”
Venezuela, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria (Bombed by Trump) are all core members of OPEC. Russia, Oman and Mexico collaborate with OPEC.
Oil is crucial to economic activity. Economist Steve Keen said, “Labor without energy is a corpse, Capital without energy is a sculpture.”
You can argue, “low-intensity conflict..has shaped U.S. foreign policy for decades.” It is a means but actual US foreign policy is to rein in oil producing countries under the control of the US Treasury and its largest financial institutions.
Mentioned is the British Empire and Suez. The Brits controlled Suez and made millions each year charging fees for roughly 75 years. In fact, the Suez Canal is not a canal because the Mediterranean and Red Sea are at the same level. Suez is a low maintenance dredged waterway that served the empires interests.
The US was not invaded; no US city was bombed. What the Iranians accomplished was defeating US hegemony by redefining the nature of warfare and making it nearly impossible for the US to project its power. Suddenly, US overseas basis are useless against waves of drones and missiles. This is a turning point. Iran might very well have ended the nature of US global power and possibly there will be far less violence in the region.
So OPEC is controlled by the US or are we merely collaborators? Here’s suggesting the “all about the oil” arguments of Chomsky and others are also too simplistic. US military power has big personal bennies for those managing it and all these low intensity conflicts are a make work mechanism to keep them sitting in the catbird seat. After Vietnam this branch of the Deep State decided small wars were the ticket to keep the gravy train rolling without provoking too much voter opposition. And when it comes to oil it’s not like we are getting it for free. In a few weeks boy are we not getting it for free.
yup. this has been ongoing since at least the spanish/american war…just got more sophisticated and rampant…and more hidden behind “classified” blck budget…after the National Security Act in 47.
in the late 70’s, early 80’s, i first became aware of all this “spreading democracy” from oblique references in the 76 encyclopaedia britannica macropaedia…couldnt understand it until dad gave me my 1st shortwave and i started listening to Fidel on Granma.
then it was the book sections in headshops..
Iran-Contra really blew the lid off of it, for me.
Dad worked for the DIA during LBJ’s last term, but never said a word about it until we watched The Good Shepherd together…and then it was just “yep, thats how it was…”.
Looking at the linked ‘Fundamentals Of Low Intensity Conflict’, there is a lot of definitional overlap between LIW and Full-Spectrum-Dominance/Unrestricted_Warfare. Recollecting Redleg‘s definitions:
> Tactics is getting troops in. Operations is keeping troops there. Strategy is getting troops out.
The main distinction for LIC is no strategic entanglements. You can use heavy equipment (bombers) as long as it’s fast_in/fast_out. Iran mucked that up by triggering the next military revolution, with drones & missiles keeping the expensive platforms at bay. They rejected the LIW, and ‘getting troops out’ looks like hanging the GCC and NATO out to dry.
Btw, Wiki has this noted:
> 2026 Ramadan War: the 2026 Iran war — a war between Iran, Israel, United States of America; starting on 28 February 2026 which ended on 15 June 2026
Good to know it’s over!
The native american wars/genocide were mostly low intensity, so CODE PINK is trying to portray the US as more noble than it has ever been (They know of the indian wars!). I do not see things changing without a major crash and collapse (and likely internal US civil war). Only a century ago, crowds gathered to have their picture taken during a picnic lunch at the weekly lynching with the strange fruit hanging from the trees. I pray it never reverts to that dark period, but many of the current leadership seem comfortable with a US economy and society based on the 1890s.
“The native american wars/genocide were mostly low intensity”
One could argue that these were not “low-intensity warfare”, but instead “small wars” typical of the colonial era: very high intensity (pitched battles, raids against productive assets, systematic destruction of living quarters, slaughter of civilian populations), usually limited geographically and in time. Think Gaza, but at a reduced scale.
Just in Links today the claim that 2.4 million Ukrainians have been killed as a result of demented Biden and his would be regime change scheme against Russia. While it’s true that millions of pre-Columbian Americans died from European diseases, here’s suggesting the death toll in the Indian Wars and the devastation of their buffalo food source was quite small compared to current day slaughter, low intensity or no.
And the same goes for the under the radar slaughters that took place under the British or the Belgians in the age of expansion and imperialism. Moral good guys versus bad guys theories of history have trouble identifying the good guys. The native Americans also warred against each other.
One line from a documentary that I never forget is this supposed exchange between a Lakota woman being sent to a reservation and a Crow scout for US cavalry escorting her tribesmen (paraphrased as best I can remember):
the woman: why are you doing this, helping the white men take away our lands?
Crow scout: because in our grandfathers’ time, the Black Hills belonged to the Crow.
There is something to the idea of “decolonization” as a tool for imperialism. There were British officials who mused about “decolonizing” China during the Opium War (that Qing Empire was founded by non-Han invaders from the North who had issues with the Southern Chinese made this idea attractive to some of them, but they eventually decided it was too much trouble.) There were some “liberationist” talk (and given Gladstone, with some degree of honesty, too) during British conquest of West Africa, ruled as it was by warlike seminomadic empires from inland who also practiced slavery extensively.) Of course, the idea of the 19th century British empire “decolonizing” locally dominant nations has the look of absurdist comedy.
I think a better example would be the non-wars that Smedley Butler said he participated in to serve the interests of US corporations, which were a little more like modern warfare. One of the hallmarks of low intensity conflicts is that they are mostly kept out of the press and minimally reported. Somalia is a good example from the last decade. “Oh, we bombed them again? For the 57th time this year so far? No kidding! But just bad guys getting their just deserts, yes. Can we get on to news about the latest Missing White Woman instead?”
Off Topic?
Western Sanctions have caused the deaths of over 28 MILLION people 1971 – 2021.
Not bombs. Not Low Intensity Conflict.
Good old fashioned Medieval Siege, now called “Sanctions”.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(25)00189-5/fulltext
The authors seem unreasonably determined to prove that they have no idea what they are talking about, which I suppose is why most of the text is a rant about Gaza, Lebanon, Iran etc. etc. and ignores the alleged subject.
The “Low Intensity” and “High Intensity” distinction is not new, and is well understood and taught in Staff Colleges all over the world. Both types of conflict happen, and, as PK says, national military doctrine (here we are talking at the operational, not strategic, level) will vary according to the type of conflict. Broadly speaking, High Intensity Conflicts (HICs) are characterised by large, organised forces, positional warfare, a rapid tempo of operations, and the use of heavy weapons. LICs are characterised by small, often low-capability forces, a much lower and discontinuous tempo of operations extending in most cases over years, control of terrain rather than positional warfare, and the use of often unsophisticated weapons. Think, very roughly, Ukraine vs Afghanistan.
The nature of the conflict depends on the forces that started it, and this has seldom if ever been the West. The British did not ‘”choose” LIC in Malaya: they had to respond to a guerilla-style hit-and-run campaign with the best tactics they could find. All campaigns in Afghanistan since the 1980s have been LICs, because the (broadly Islamic) opposition groups were tribal and village based, and could not conduct large-scale conventional operations: If they had ever tried to do so, they would have been destroyed by the firepower first of the Russians, then of the US. (Mind you, you could say the same thing abut the Spanish guerrilla forces that fought Napoleon’s armies.) And these things change; after the US left Vietnam in 19972, the Communists sidelined the Viet Cong and went over to a conventional, relatively high-intensity campaign involving armoured forces that led to the fall of Saigon in 1975.
So LIC is not some evil new doctrine practised by the US, therefore: indeed, the usual criticism, justified in my view, is that the US isn’t very good at it, and its forces are always trying to fight low-intensity wars with levels of of firepower and sophistication exceeding what is needed and useful, which is why they almost always lose. Obviously, it has nothing to do with seizing merchant ships.
The photo made me laugh. The troops are probably Angolan and Namibian mercenaries from 31 or 32 Battalion, who fought SWAPO in Namibia. They did not conduct “search and destroy” operations, which is an Americanism. And the US was not “allied” with South Africa. In the days of apartheid, it had a policy of so-called “constructive engagement” intended to lead to political change, but in the event largely useless. But the US never supplied any military aid to South Africa, unlike France and Israel. Still, I suppose the authors had to get the US into it somehow.
Can we talk about something else?
The South Africans got pretty good at 155mm artillery science, using long guns where US used helicopters. SA made 155 shells were good quality!
Yes, the G5 and G6, designed by Gerald Bull who died in mysterious circumstances. But they were used in Angola against the Cubans, where surprisingly high-intensity battles were fought.
‘…designed by Gerald Bull who died in mysterious circumstances…’
Now that’s a name I haven’t heard mentioned for many years. A fascinating character, probably most (in)famous for his work on a giant supergun for Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. A Canadian, Bull was considered by the USA to be so important to its military efforts that he was granted retroactive USA citizenship (to facilitate his security clearances, one assumes) by an act of Congress in 1972.
As for his death in Brussels in 1990, it was almost certainly at the hands of Mossad, as the Israelis respected his ability and were deeply concerned about his Iraqi supergun.
Someone ought to make a movie about him. Quite a life:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Bull
Early oughties I had a meeting with Afrikaners who worked on 155 mm shells, a few war stories over lunch. Other good shells are manufactured in Sweden.
On the side they spoke their unique Dutch dialect.
I’m not so sure the British “had to respond” to anything in Malaya, since – *checks map* – Malaya is quite a long way from Perfidious Albion. It seems to me that the British most definitely started it by imposing their empire on a people half way around the world who quite likely never asked for that particular favor. They could have simply packed up and left.
Can we talk about something else?
How about Western (Yes US) Sanctions causing over 28 Million deaths 1971 – 2021?
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(25)00189-5/fulltext
I came of age during the US’ war in Vietnam. The “green berets”, evolved SEALs, Search and Rescue specialists, a range of aerial weapons and transports, helicopter assault etc. All evolved to serve low intensity conflict (LIC).
US, like Russian, military theorists think in terms of correlation of forces and means (COFM). For US forces and means are always presumed paramount compared to the enemy. LIC is applied (hopefully) from a set of alternatives considering COFM. “Means” is logistics!
Correlation of Forces and Means. To me “means” was logistics, initial load and resupply, for the Forces. Forces, we would say order of battle aka list of assigned/deployed articles of combat capability aka “units”.
Vietnam was LIC until late spring 1965 when US (LBJ reversed campaign statements) introduced US’ large conventional units, supported by large airpower, two aircraft carriers and huge logistics.
US used LIC after the take overs in Afghanistan and continuing today in Iraq and Syria.
Trump in the past year entered a next level above LIC, a shock and awe air campaign, June 2025 and Feb 2026.
To me the LIC against Iran that evolved to “shock and awe” looks like Linebacker II. That air campaign over North Vietnam was very early in my career. I recall a little. US emergency supply of latest precision air munitions to IDF is another story I was involved.
I would compare Linebacker II to AIPAC Fury, ignoring that AIPAC Fury devolved out of the failed decapitation. A coup d’ main from US/IDF LIC.
AIPAC Fury was less force in terms of tonnage (precision is not weight!) than Linebacker II spread over almost 4 times the number of days of operations!
The US/IDF force did not match the object, which suggests stopping on 2 March. Iran is a far huger, more dug in nut than Hanoi and Haiphong! Tragically, Iran shot back and threw in economic force that US cannot match!
From Linebacker II US pulled out of the Vietnam war. AIPAC Fury should lead US to pull out of West Asia.
US shot a lot of its means which cannot be refitted soon.
US LIC against Iran will likely continue…. if Iran opens the strait.
Frank Kitson’s “Low Intensity Operations (1971)” is the earliest book I know of that details this doctrine. There may be earlier written material but I am not aware of it. Also “Gangs and Countergangs (1960)” is worth a look-see.
Kitson was a real piece of work. Here’s his wikipedia page
Iran has shown the way. The U.S. must be deterred everywhere, every time by whomever is able to deter it. Where it resorts to violence, it must be defeated, the more total the defeat, the better. It is one of the gravest threats humanity has ever faced.
The U.S. must finally be treated as Germany and Japan were treated after World War II, disarmed and demilitarized, its economic and political system dismantled, rehabilitated. and rebuilt.
This is the reality the U.S. alone has imposed upon the rest of the planet. There is no alternative but to fight fire with fire. The U.S; ruling elite, Democratic and Republican, has left the world with no other alternative.
“The U.S. must finally be treated as Germany and Japan were treated after World War II, disarmed and demilitarized, its economic and political system dismantled, rehabilitated. and rebuilt.”
I have qualms with the last two items in your list: “rehabilitated. and rebuilt.” I have not lived in Germany or Japan so I have no feeing about how the u.s rehabilitating and rebuilding was viewed by the people in either country. In both cases the rehabilitating and rebuilding resulted in societies that appeared remarkably similar to aspects of American society. I suppose “rehabilitated. and rebuilt” would be all right as long as I could interpret the meaning of these words to match how the words are defined in a dictionary. Treating the u.s. as the u.s. treated Germany and Japan may be fair and just, but I would prefer more understanding treatment than that.
We could plead the insanity of our Elites. It did not work before but maybe it will work this time[?}.
I got confused by the reference to MacGregor’s book and by the title of this post. The “Low Intensity” and “High Intensity” distinction may not be new, and may be well understood and taught in Staff Colleges all over the world but it must have come along after I retired from work as contractor with the Army. Based on the discussion in this post the notion a of high intensity versus low intensity conflict is vague at best. However well-defined and clear the concepts may be I remain skeptical that they can offer much insight into the ways warfare has changed as revealed by the Ramadan War with Iran and the warfare in the Ukraine. Both conflicts point to glaring deficiencies in u.s weaponry, procurement and logistics, as well as strategic and tactical doctrine.
I cannot parse the discussions leading to the post’s conclusion to arrive at: “It is ultimately up to us to take our future in our own hands and begin the essential transition from empire to democracy.” and “That is why CODEPINK is calling for a Summer of Peace and Love, a time to reject fear, militarism and empire, and to organize our communities around the simple but radical demand that our country stop making war on the world and start investing in life.” I suppose that’s a good idea but all this leads to CODEPINK and a Summer of Peace and Love? Should I wear a flower in my hair and a tie-dyed rainbow shirt with orange bell bottom pants?
I think the decline of this Empire, its causes and consequences deserves a much more serious analysis than this desultory promotion of CODEPINK.
Rereading this comment I spotted a possible issue with its wording. The phrase “promotion of CODEPINK” should be read in the sense of the preposition “of” being like “by” in denoting ownership. I certainly do not intend to suggest that this post is in any way promoting for CODEPINK.
I am naive and determinedly so, in being dismayed, perplexed, and disappointed in my fellow Americans’ willingness to participate in these actions. Viciousness and callous disregard for fellow humans are essential enablers both at the strategic and tactical levels. Yes, these are often “special forces,” but it’s clear that too many of us fail in some essential characteristics needed to act as members of human society. Not just among special forces either.