Facing New Global Threats: Lessons from the Past and Present Security Challenges

The 1930s and 1940s showed the world, through the actions of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan, that large-scale evil is a harsh reality. The Second World War’s global devastation was necessary to stop these oppressive regimes. Afterward, the Soviet Union, along with its allies, continued the quest for global dominance through a totalitarian order.

The introduction of nuclear weapons made another global war unthinkable for Western societies. In contrast, the Soviet Union often leveraged its nuclear arsenal to prevent Western intervention during its spread of communism across Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Americas. Belatedly recognizing the danger, the Truman administration responded in January 1950 by sending Secretary of State Dean Acheson to outline U.S. national security interests in Asia. Acheson shared a security perimeter, but this excluded Taiwan and South Korea, overlooking them as crucial U.S. security concerns.

Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Kim Il Sung deliberated on targets for communist expansion — Taiwan or South Korea. Kim Il Sung acted first in June 1950, launching a massive invasion of South Korea. Soon, Chinese Communist troops joined, with Soviet support in arms and economy. Truman reacted by organizing a United Nations “police action.” Terms like “unconditional surrender” and “regime change” were not part of U.S. and allies’ strategies.

The Korean War set a precedent for “limited war,” against major powers aiding aggressive smaller nations. These nations, once halted, remained to challenge at another time. Today, decades after the Korean War, North Korea remains among the “axis of evil,” as identified by President George W. Bush in 2002, along with Iran and Iraq. Now, partnerships among Russia, China, and Iran fuel a modern threat to the West.

Western powers face multiple options in dealing with these threats led by Iran. Continuation of current strategies involving negotiations, economic sanctions, and limited military measures against Iran’s nuclear ambitions is one path. This, however, keeps U.S. ties in an exhausting, stop-start conflict cycle with Iran, which Americans find intolerable.

Another approach could involve acquiescing to Iran’s control over the Gulf of Hormuz, threatening global maritime freedom and likely provoking conflict in the Taiwan Strait, backed by China. This would represent a strategic setback for the U.S. and contrast with the principles of Trump’s “Make America Great Again” campaign.

A third option involves viewing Iran as an irreparable nuclear threat and acting decisively. Like World War II’s enemies or Saddam Hussein’s regime, Iran’s hold could be dismantled. Lessons from past failures suggest more than just verbal encouragement to Iranians.

“Take over your institutions,”

Trump once urged, but strategic communication, reminiscent of Cold War efforts, is crucial. Reinvigorating establishments like Voice of America can inform Iranians, bypassing restricted media. Announcing a coordinated campaign could motivate regime and military defections.

Resistance efforts, akin to European partisan activities in World War II, could facilitate liberation already proven possible with Western aid. Trump, perhaps an unexpected leader, can reconnect with moral campaigns and distance from controversial Russian affiliations. Failure to acknowledge threats, akin to historical figures like Neville Chamberlain, may be judged harshly.

Joseph Bosco, having served in defense roles and advisory capacities regarding Taiwan and Asia, authors these insights. His affiliations include the Institute for Corean-American Studies and the Global Taiwan Institute. © 2026 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved.