Trump's Iran War Exposes the Emptiness Behind His "Flexible Realism" Doctrine

The Trump administration has built its foreign policy brand around a concept it calls "flexible realism" - a muscular approach rooted in the idea that might makes right. But the war with Iran has shattered whatever credibility that label carried, two former senior national security officials have argued.

Rebecca Lissner and Mira Rapp-Hooper, who served on the Biden National Security Council, wrote in Foreign Affairs that the administration's approach amounts to "a penchant for power, unmoored from strategy or a clear definition of the national interest," "Hvylya" reports.

The authors traced the evolution of Trump's foreign policy branding from "principled realism" in his first term - when he styled himself as an anti-interventionist pivoting toward great-power competition with China - to "flexible realism." The 2026 National Defense Strategy framed it with the declaration: "Out with utopian idealism, in with hardnosed realism."

Real realism, the scholars argued, counsels discipline and a laser focus on great-power competition. It warns against peripheral conflicts that drain resources. The Iran war does the opposite: it has drained significant military resources and diverted strategic assets away from regions where the United States faces peer competitors.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth attempted to justify the conflict in realist terms, saying "our ambitions are not utopian; they are realistic, scoped to our interests and the defense of our people and our allies." But Lissner and Rapp-Hooper countered that the administration has not explained how dropping bombs achieves its political goals - a fundamental requirement in realist thinking since Thucydides.

The conflict has spiraled into a destructive regional war, with economic shockwaves and growing American casualties. Trump may eventually declare mission accomplished, the authors wrote, but likely not because the United States has achieved its political goals in the country.

Also read: Carnegie scholars argued that Iran's proxy network turned from a shield into a fatal liability.