The dangerous fallacy of enforcing peace through strength is wasting money and goodwill.

The attack on Iran and other actions by the Trump Administration in 2026 have a clear message to the world: the United States will flex its muscles to protect and expand its interests and bring order in the world through intimidation. President Trump’s team tried to defend and normalise U.S. actions to the public. But before being talked into subsidising the most expensive “peacemaking” options – like using force to achieve temporary ceasefires – taxpayers should know that there have always been more humane and cost-effective routes to protecting our security interests.

Stephen Miller, Deputy White House Chief of Staff, was clear and direct about the administration’s bellicose intentions. He spoke on CNN with Jake Tapper on January 5 saying, “[W]e live in a world in which you can talk all you want about international niceties and everything else, but we live in a world, […] that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world that have existed since the beginning of time.”

During a press conference following the attacks on Iran, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth doubled down on this vision by saying, “No stupid rules of engagement, no nation-building quagmire, no democracy building exercise, no politically correct wars. We fight to win, and we don’t waste time or lives.”

This posture, and unchecked American aggression in Iran, Venezuela, and elsewhere, prompted Canadian Prime Minister Carney to name the new reality for all nations globally at Davos in January 2026: a rupture from the old rules-based order.

Both men are right: iron laws of power are as old as humanity, and the rules-based order is threatened. But that doesn’t mean we buy off on an endless cycle of costly military adventurism. While ‘peace through strength’ is one theory, in practice it is hard for a nation to pursue without bankrupting itself: think of the USSR during the 1980’s. And if the country wielding such power does not stick to conduct that reinforces its legitimacy, it will pay for its pariah status by losing trading partners, allies, and even billions of dollars in tourism.

We suggest instead equating our national interest with real and sustainable peace, achieved and sustained at the grassroots where conflicts first arise. It is not only expensive to drop bombs from airplanes, it is also incredibly wasteful to imagine that doing so will stop terrorism or drug trafficking. High-profile military interventions in Venezuela, Nigeria, and Iran, cost millions of dollars without changing the lives of the people on the ground. Removing Nicolas Maduro has not changed Venezuela’s state apparatus – after all, cutting the top off a pyramid doesn’t make it fall.

As much as President Trump and his administration have lauded him as the ‘Peace President’, gloating of the eight wars he alone has ended, many of these treaties can be consider frozen rather than resolved. In Gaza, as of mid-February over 600 people had been killed since the October 2025 ceasefire; violence in eastern DRC and Rwanda has also resumed and local peacebuilders operating and living in eastern DRC have reported no change since the treaty. In fact, they described the peace treaty between DRC, Rwanda, the U.S. and the rebel M23 group as focused on the extraction of minerals, but overlooking the complexity of local militias and the conflicts between them. The achievement of peace treaties should be applauded, certainly. But a treaty itself is the starting line, not the finish. Evidence and experience show that treaty implementation is where the work to prevent more violence, address the root causes of the conflict, and build the institutions necessary to sustain peace begins.

The rupture that Prime Minister Carney references makes it more difficult to address global problems, yet where there is a rupture, there is opportunity for transformation. The most effective path towards sustainable peace is a locally led one, and there are incredible stories to tell about this possibility and its practical application. We see where local civil society – religious, private sector, academia, and traditional leaders – can steer the process along with government officials and donors. And we see this happening for a fraction of the cost of an inconclusive military venture. When disaster or conflict strikes, local civil society is the first to respond. This is happening now in Sudan, Nigeria, DRC, Venezuela, and elsewhere. These efforts need to be scaled up and not pushed aside in favour of solutions designed elsewhere.

Efforts to localise development, humanitarian response and peacebuilding are not new. Our national security should rest on policies that retain our legitimacy and help our economic bottom line. Sustainable peace is both a moral imperative and a cost-effective goal. Helping local efforts will achieve this in the long term, while retrieving in the medium-term good will with other nations. Our hearts and wallets can align.

—

Vahe Mirikian is the Managing Director for the US Office of Peace Direct, an international peacebuilding organization working to shift power and resource to local peacebuilders. He is also Vice President and Head of Foreign Policy with Matters of State Strategies, a boutique consulting firm with offices in Washington, DC.

Annie Pforzheimer is an adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, adjunct professor of international relations at Pace University and the City University of New York, and a retired US Department of State career diplomat with the rank of Minister Counselor.