Ruling Out a 'Three-Front War'

A strategy that might involve the U.S. in three simultaneous wars is a strategy in dire need of an overhaul.

Matthew Kroenig conjures up the specter of a “three-front war”:

Multipolar systems are unstable in part because each country must worry about multiple potential adversaries. Indeed, at present, the U.S. Defense Department frets about possible simultaneous conflicts with Russia in Europe and China in the Indo-Pacific. Moreover, U.S. President Joe Biden has stated that the use of military force remains on the table as a last resort to deal with Iran’s nuclear program. A three-front war is not out of the question.

The three-war scenario described here would not happen because of an emerging multipolar system, but would be the result of U.S. overcommitment in multiple regions. If the U.S. chose to initiate a war with Iran, for example, that would not be proof of an increasingly unstable multipolar world. It would just be more proof that our government is inclined to launch illegal wars against smaller states for bad reasons. In at least two of the three regions where the U.S. might fight a major war, it would not be fighting because the U.S. is obliged to go to war. In the event that China attacked Taiwan, the U.S. would have to choose to intervene when it is not required to, and in the Iranian case the choice for war would be entirely Washington’s. If a “three-front war is not out of the question,” it is because policymakers and pundits in Washington refuse to rule out that possibility.