I’d like to tell you that Trump’s Operation Epic Fury is the beginning of a so-called “just war” for the United States (US), but that’s not entirely clear to me. When you look from a much broader perspective, however, this war fits well into another, much less popular criterion. It’s an action taken by the US without the utmost concern for morals or values. The decision to enter this conflict was cold and calculated realpolitik. It apparently necessitated Trump going against his whole MAGA approach. But he really isn’t abandoning MAGA like many people say he is. Here’s why.War with Iran is, of course, a potential quagmire. Despite already having assassinated the supreme leader of Iran, the 86-year-old cleric Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, it remains to be seen if Israel and the US will be able to claim any kind of long-term victory against Islamic theocracy. If history is any indicator, it’s unlikely. Nevertheless, many Iranian opposition groups that participated in an uprising beginning in December 2025 are hopeful they will be freed after 47 years under a totalitarian regime.With so many different opposition groups, looking for a “just war” begins to fall into the fallacy of moral relativism. Everyone’s going to have a different opinion, with the biggest difference in perspective lying between Shia Muslims on one side and Zionists on the other. I can already hear the clamour of radical Leftists protesting at university campuses across North America. Perhaps once the weather improves enough?But rather than evaluate whether this war is justifiable for the US, it’s prudent to ask why it serves to benefit Americans economically. This sounds like a rather cold and calculated exercise, but it’s nothing compared to the terrible strain of war, so it must be examined..Those who believe that Trump is motivated by the so-called “Monroe Doctrine” will see the US participation in the war with Iran as kowtowing to Israel. Under that “Doctrine,” Iran clearly sits outside America’s influence in the Western Hemisphere. There is no reason the US should involve itself in yet another Middle Eastern conflict, and that decision is direct evidence of Israel’s undue influence over the Trump administration. Guys like Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson, MGT, and other hardcore “America First” ideologues see this war as a betrayal of their country’s interests. They claim to be the authentic MAGA movement.But, as I explained in an article last summer, there is more than just the Monroe Doctrine driving Trump’s geopolitical decision-making. Instead of focusing exclusively on proximal threats, Trump occasionally dabbles in what is known as a “balance-of-power” approach to foreign policy, especially in the Middle East. This approach seeks to keep world peace through forceful means like war and economic coercion. It’s basically the “world police” approach that Trump openly promised to abandon.“I’m not going to start a war. I’m going to stop wars,” Trump told his supporters during his election night victory speech in November 2024.“We will measure our success not only by the battles we win but also by the wars that we end and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into,” Trump said in his inaugural address just two months later.The balance-of-power approach is in line with that used historically by the first Chancellor of the German Empire, Otto von Bismarck (1815–1898), which he called realpolitik. It was Bismarck who first made a global impression with his ruthless realpolitik, setting aside values and morals in the name of achieving practical results. We’d do well to remember that Bismarck’s realpolitik is thought to have prepared the ground for the World Wars by ratcheting global tension up to a level that proved impossible to resolve peacefully..So why is the war in Iran a balance-of-power, a realpolitik approach?Two reasons. In the clearest sense, one goal is to keep Israel in a balanced position amongst its Shia and Sunni Muslim neighbours.But for America, there is a less obvious goal: cutting China off at the knees. China is the top customer for Iranian crude, purchasing a discounted million-plus barrels per day. And this is not the first Chinese business partner Trump has gone after.Prior to the attack on Iran, the Trump administration took control of another Chinese source of crude in Venezuela by capturing Nicolas Maduro. After removing the socialist dictator, the US raised the price of Venezuelan crude by about $14 USD per barrel.For China, Venezuela’s top customer, this meant a significant increase in the cost of doing business. Now the same sort of thing could happen in Iran..These are legal avenues promoting China’s economic supremacy, and Trump is knocking them down to Make America Great Again. But what about China’s illegal trade, the type the CCP will never admit to?China’s criminal fentanyl network, which it has repeatedly promised to get under control, is another economic avenue the US is attempting to cut off. It directly affects Americans by destabilizing their society and killing their citizens. The chief US targets are the intermediaries of Mexico and (to a much lesser extent) Canada, where fentanyl precursors are processed into a final product.The US continues to support Mexico with intelligence-sharing as the government under Claudia Sheinbaum combats drug cartels to try and stop the China-sourced fentanyl trade. The Sinaloa and Jalisco New Generation Cartels are the primary purchasers and processors of China’s fentanyl precursors, and most of the final product is smuggled into the US. Trump has pushed for direct US military involvement in the escalating conflict with the cartels, but he’s so far been rebuffed by Sheinbaum. It doesn’t help one much to look at Trump’s MAGA as exclusively following the Monroe Doctrine or a balance-of-power approach. Instead, identifying the target of his decisions makes things clear. From the monumental war in Iran to the comparatively inconsequential pressure on Canada to tighten its borders, all of Trump’s choices come back to realpolitik focused on China.A new cold war is being waged subtly — largely economically — despite hopes that relations would thaw between the US and China. They’re not. They’re as cold as ever.
