The Civilisation That Stopped Thinking
On war, incentives, and the systems that no longer support strategy
Most wars are explained after they begin.
They are broken down into causes that are individually rational: security concerns, deterrence logic, alliance commitments, political pressure. Each element can be defended. Each can be supported with evidence. Each makes sense, in isolation.
What is rarely examined is something far more uncomfortable:
Why, in systems that possess all the necessary information, all the relevant expertise, and, on occasion, even a viable alternative, the outcome is still the same?
On 28 February 2026, the United States and Israel launched nearly nine hundred strikes against Iran in twelve hours.
The scale suggested preparation. The timing suggested something else. The strikes began one day after a mediator publicly stated that a diplomatic solution had been reached, one that aligned with the stated objective of preventing nuclear escalation.
The existence of that alternative is not the anomaly.
The decision to discard it is.
And that decision cannot be understood by examining the event in isolation. It can only be understood by examining the system that produced it.
I have taken decisions in environments where the distance between judgement and consequence is measured in seconds, not news cycles. That difference matters.
Sun Tzu is useful here, not as an authority to be quoted, but as a fixed point against which deviation can be measured.
He reduces strategy to a discipline of constraints. Avoid war when equivalent objectives can be achieved at lower cost. Understand that prolonged conflict degrades the victor as surely as the defeated. Account for consequences that do not announce themselves immediately. Leave the adversary a path that does not require escalation.
These are not moral positions. They are structural ones, conditions under which a system preserves itself.
What is striking is not that these principles are unknown. They are taught in every serious military institution. They are widely accessible, endlessly quoted, culturally embedded.
And yet they are increasingly absent from the decisions that matter most.
The explanation most people reach for is the simplest one: the leaders are not capable of applying them. They are impulsive, poorly informed, driven by short-term incentives.
There is some truth in that. But it is not the explanation. It is the symptom.
The more precise observation is that the systems which produce those leaders, and the environments in which those leaders operate, have been reconfigured in such a way that the application of those principles is no longer rewarded, and in many cases no longer possible.
Modern democratic systems do not select for strategic judgement. They select for survival within a very specific environment, one defined by attention scarcity, narrative competition, and compressed time horizons.
To enter that environment, a candidate must first be visible. Visibility is not neutral. It is acquired through simplification, repetition, emotional resonance. Complexity does not travel well in such conditions. Ambiguity is punished. Hesitation is fatal.
What survives that first filter is not necessarily what understands the system best. It is what can be seen.
Advancement requires navigating internal structures: parties, coalitions, alliances of convenience. These reward alignment, signalling, and the ability to maintain position within a constantly shifting landscape of incentives. None of this is accidental. It is how the system maintains coherence. It is not how strategic depth is selected.
By the time the process reaches the electorate, the compression is complete. Messages must be understood instantly, defended under adversarial distortion, repeated across channels optimised for speed rather than accuracy. Decisiveness becomes performance. Strength becomes narrative.
The outcome is not random. It is consistent.
Individuals who reach positions of power are, in most cases, highly competent at operating within this environment. That is why they are there. But the skills that allow them to survive it are not the same as the skills required to manage systems whose consequences unfold over years, across domains, and beyond visibility.
Once in office, the environment does not change. It intensifies.
The leader is now inside a continuous feedback loop: media cycles, polling data, political pressure, fragmented advice arriving at speed and often in contradiction. The system rewards actions that produce immediate, visible signals. It penalises delay, even when delay is the condition for understanding.
A negotiated outcome that prevents a war produces almost nothing that can be seen. There are no images, no moment of decisive authorship, no clear attribution of success. It exists as an absence, a conflict that did not happen.
A military strike produces the opposite. It is visible, attributable, immediate. It aligns with deeply embedded narratives of strength and control.
The system does not require a leader to misunderstand the difference between these outcomes. It makes the distinction operationally irrelevant.
There was a time when this dynamic was partially constrained.
Decision-making systems contained friction, structures that slowed the process, forced exposure to alternative views, increased the cost of acting without sufficient understanding. Career diplomats carried institutional memory across administrations. Intelligence assessments could not be easily reshaped to fit narrative. Military advisory chains introduced operational reality into political abstraction.
Friction is often misunderstood as inefficiency. In complex systems, it is a stabilising force. It creates the space in which consequences can be considered before they are triggered.
That friction has been reduced.
Expertise has become politicised, evaluated through alignment rather than accuracy. Information flows have accelerated to the point where the cost of waiting exceeds the perceived cost of being wrong. The system now penalises deliberation and tolerates error, provided the error is decisive and legible.
Under these conditions, certain outcomes become more likely. Not because individuals are uniquely flawed, but because the structure in which they operate makes those outcomes the path of least resistance.
War, in this context, is not an exception. It is a high-visibility action that satisfies multiple incentives simultaneously.
It is tempting, at this point, to reduce the analysis to the individual. To name the leader, to catalogue the decisions, to draw a straight line between personality and outcome.
Donald Trump invites that temptation more than most.
He operates with a clarity that is, in its own way, instructive. Every relationship is transactional. Every interaction is evaluated through immediate gain. Visibility is not a by-product of action; it is the objective. Strength is not something to be demonstrated through outcome, but through the performance of dominance in the moment.
In another environment, this operating model works. In real estate, in media, any domain where attention is currency and transactions are short-cycle, it produces results.
Transposed into geopolitics, it does something else.
It compresses time. It collapses the distinction between signal and substance. It converts systems that depend on continuity, credibility, and delayed reciprocity into arenas of immediate exchange.
But this is where the analysis usually fails.
Trump is not an anomaly in the sense that matters. He is not a glitch in the system. He is not an external force imposed upon it.
He is a high-fidelity product of it.
A system that rewards visibility over depth, immediacy over deliberation, and performance over outcome will, over time, produce individuals optimised for those exact conditions. Remove the institutional friction that once constrained them, accelerate the information environment in which they operate, and the behaviour becomes not only possible, but rational.
The discomfort in recognising this is understandable. It is easier to locate the problem in the individual than in the structure that selected him.
But replacing the individual without altering the structure does not resolve the problem. It merely changes its expression.
Once initiated, the consequences propagate across systems that are already tightly coupled.
Energy flows are disrupted. Prices adjust immediately. Inflation follows, not as a policy choice but as a mechanical outcome. Central banks face constrained options. Economic pressure translates into political instability. The institutions that might otherwise absorb the shock have already been weakened, by previous crises, by accumulated debt, by the gradual erosion of coordination mechanisms.
These effects do not unfold linearly. They compound.
A system does not fail at the moment of impact. It fails when it discovers that it has already consumed the reserves it would need to absorb one more shock.
The system did not fail.
It functioned.
The deeper problem is that these dynamics reinforce themselves. Visible actions reshape expectations. Expectations reshape incentives. Incentives reshape behaviour.
Over time, the system becomes less capable of selecting for the very qualities it requires to stabilise itself: patience, ambiguity tolerance, the ability to operate without immediate validation.
This is not a collapse. It is a drift, slow enough to be normalised, fast enough to become irreversible once certain thresholds are crossed.
We prefer to believe that what we are witnessing is a failure of individuals. That the problem can be corrected by replacing one leader with another, one administration with the next.
It is a comforting belief.
It is also wrong.
Because the system that produced this decision is still in place. The incentives that shaped it have not changed, and the structures that failed to stop it remain exactly as they were. Systems do not produce different outcomes simply because we ask them to. They produce what they are designed to produce.
What we are calling crisis is, in reality, normal operation under current conditions.
That is the uncomfortable truth. Not that something has gone wrong, but that nothing has.
A system optimised for visibility will continue to choose visible actions. A system that penalises deliberation will continue to avoid it. A system that separates decision from consequence will continue to degrade the quality of both.
The war is not the warning. It is the signal that the warning phase has already passed.
And the question that remains is no longer whether we understand what is happening, but whether we are prepared to change the structures that make it inevitable.
###
The views expressed in this article are solely my own and do not represent the positions of my employer, any organisation I am affiliated with, or any institution.