The Trump Doctrine, by Richard Fernandez.

When the U.S. launched cyberstrikes at Iran’s missile control systems in response to an Iranian shoot-down of a U.S. drone near the Gulf of Oman, it surprised pundits. Donald Trump was widely expected by the press to bomb something in return. The political left was unprepared for the possibility that Trump would not run true to their stereotype. …

That only robotic agents have perished so far does not mean the end of war, only a change of its forms. The effects of virtual conflict are real, the economic cost stupendous. A successful cyberattack inflicts considerable financial damage on the target, rendering vital equipment inoperable. …

The problem is that in contrast to the straightforward brutalities of old-school war, this approach may result in a stalemate. Indeed the real weakness of the new Trump Strategy is not that it lacks an exit but that it lacks an entry. As Tanya Goudsouzian pointed out in Le Monde, it has proved extremely difficult to effect regime change using “war by other means” alone. “Over the years, the preferred US weapon has been economic and financial sanctions. When used against North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and others, they succeeded only in punishing economies and people.”

So far hybrid warfare has proved capable of devastating their countries but not toppling their leaders. Despite ration lines in Cuba, a Venezuelan economy so bad even Russian arms dealers are wary of selling to them, a North Korea heading for another starvation winter, the brutal regimes in these countries rule in perfect safety, willing if necessary to stay in power to the death of their last wretched citizen. Reuters paints the haunting picture of towns in a socialist Venezuela reduced to a “primitive isolation” that may well be the eventual fate of Iran.