Can Trump Learn from Deng Xiaoping's Decision to End War?

by Chang SeongWon Posted : September 4, 2026, 18:00Updated : September 4, 2026, 18:00


1979, China invaded Vietnam, a fellow communist state. The North Vietnamese government, having unified Vietnam, began to pressure ethnic Chinese and invaded pro-China Cambodia, prompting Deng Xiaoping, then China's top leader, to declare, "The little friend does not listen."

With a massive military force, China initially expected an easy victory, but faced strong resistance from the Vietnamese army and militia in the rugged northern mountainous terrain. After about a month of conflict, China declared a sudden unilateral withdrawal, claiming it had achieved its strategic objectives.

Despite some successes on the battlefield, the People's Liberation Army suffered severe casualties, and Deng, facing internal factional struggles and the urgent need for reconstruction after the Cultural Revolution, determined that China could not sustain the war. This decision, however, came at the cost of some of Deng's prestige as the war responsibility narrative emerged.

Nonetheless, Deng accelerated military modernization following the Sino-Vietnamese War and pushed forward with his reform and opening policies, laying the groundwork for China's rise as an economic powerhouse. His pragmatic approach, exemplified by the "black cat, white cat" theory, became evident in this choice.

In contrast, the Soviet Union, also a communist state, invaded Afghanistan the same year but became mired in a decade-long conflict, which ultimately contributed to its collapse. This comparison highlights the effectiveness of Deng's decision.

The war that began with a surprise attack by the U.S. and Israel on Iran has now surpassed six months. However, President Donald Trump has yet to achieve a complete victory or a definitive ceasefire. Unlike Deng, he has not declared an end to the conflict.

Since last month, the U.S. has adjusted its Iran policy, focusing on economic sanctions while refraining from escalating military actions ahead of the midterm elections. Reports suggest that these sanctions are having some effect. However, relying solely on sanctions to end the war or compel Iran to capitulate has its limits. Countries like Russia, North Korea, and Cuba have withstood U.S. sanctions for extended periods, and Iran has endured decades of American pressure. As a major oil producer with the world's third-largest oil reserves, Iran's resilience is significant, and the war, initiated unilaterally by the U.S. and Israel during ongoing nuclear negotiations, lacks a strong justification.

Meanwhile, the costs of the war continue to mount for the U.S. Military fatigue and resource depletion are accumulating, and there is growing concern over the stockpile of advanced weaponry. The rise in oil prices due to the conflict is affecting inflation in the U.S. and ultimately burdening both the American and global economies. Without a clear victory, ceasefire, or end to the war, all participating nations face significant losses.

Trump's favorite book, "The Art of War," emphasizes that the best victory is achieved without fighting, and if war is unavoidable, it should be concluded swiftly. However, the U.S. currently finds itself in a situation that fits neither scenario. It has not avoided war, nor has it brought it to a quick conclusion.

In this context, it is essential not only to wait for Iran's surrender but also to reassess the U.S. objectives and the costs required to achieve them. Deng Xiaoping, despite losing some face in the Sino-Vietnamese War, retreated for a greater goal, ultimately leading China to become the world's second-largest economy. The Soviet Union, on the other hand, dragged out its conflict for a decade without resolution, resulting in its downfall. The strength of a great power lies not only in its ability to initiate war but also in its capacity to determine when to stop fighting and to step back when necessary.

What Trump needs now is that same decisive judgment. However, one wonders if he can emulate Deng Xiaoping's willingness to sacrifice his own prestige for the sake of the nation and a greater cause.





* This article has been translated by AI.