The U.S. Treasury Department imposed sanctions in early 2025 on Sichuan Juxinhe Network Technology Company and several associated individuals, citing their role in the “Salt Typhoon” campaign that targeted the network infrastructure of major U.S. telecommunications and internet service providers. This action marks an attempt by the U.S. government to impose tangible costs on state-aligned actors who operate in the persistent, ambiguous space between peace and open conflict—a strategic environment increasingly described by national security professionals as “Endless Warfare.”
The Strategic Framework of Endless Warfare
Endless Warfare represents a long-term approach utilized by U.S. adversaries to erode American influence, leadership, and power without triggering a conventional military response. Unlike traditional “gray zone” or “cognitive warfare” frameworks, which often describe specific tactical activities, Endless Warfare characterizes a continuous, overarching strategy. This strategy relies on the integration of institutional state structures and ambiguous networks—including ghost fleets, front companies, and cyber-proxy organizations—to maintain pressure on the United States over decades.
Current adversary strategies, particularly those employed by Russia, China, and Iran, demonstrate a high tolerance for risk and a calculated belief that the gains from these subversive actions outweigh the costs. For instance, while the 2021 public attribution of the SolarWinds supply-chain compromise to Russian intelligence led to the expulsion of diplomats and the application of financial penalties under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, institutional networks in Russia and China have continued their operations, effectively absorbing the costs of U.S. countermeasures.
Institutional Challenges to Deterrence
Achieving strategic deterrence in the gray zone requires more than periodic sanctions. It demands a shift toward a proactive, persistent, and coordinated national effort. Experts suggest that the current U.S. response remains fragmented across various departments and agencies. To address this, there is an internal policy debate regarding the creation of a senior-level position within the White House, such as a Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Competition. Such a role would be tasked with integrating interagency actions, ensuring that diplomatic, economic, cyber, and military responses are synchronized into a sustained, coherent national strategy.
Effective deterrence in this domain rests on four pillars:
- Deliberate Preparation: Continuous analysis of adversary trends and capabilities, combined with clear interagency coordination.
- Clear Communication: A consistent policy of public attribution, signaling to adversaries that their actions are observed and that the U.S. possesses the resolve to impose costs that exceed their gains.
- Strategic Integration: Aligning economic, legal, and military tools to ensure that actions such as sanctions are not isolated incidents but part of a systematic campaign to alter adversary risk calculus.
- Cognitive Advantage: Protecting U.S. decision autonomy from external influence and coercion, while simultaneously outpacing adversaries in the cognitive domain.
Protecting Decision Autonomy
Cognitive warfare serves as a critical component of the Endless Warfare strategy, aiming to manipulate how global events are perceived and to degrade trust in democratic institutions. Recent institutional steps to counter this include the appointment of a National Security Council Cognitive Advantage Director and the mandate in the Fiscal Year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act for the Department of Defense to formally define cognitive warfare.
The U.S. national narrative—often referred to as “America’s Story”—is viewed by policymakers as both a shield and a sword in this competition. By maintaining confidence in institutional commitments and values, the U.S. can mitigate the impact of adversary campaigns designed to foster internal divisions and sustain long-term conflict.
Negotiating in a State of Conflict
Adversaries frequently employ “weaponized negotiations” to extend conflicts rather than resolve them. Drawing on lessons from the ongoing war in Ukraine and the behavior of the Iranian state, national security analysts have identified several principles for navigating these engagements:
- Refusing upfront concessions that erode leverage.
- Establishing non-negotiable redlines early to preserve decision autonomy.
- Anticipating and proactively countering false narratives intended to shape Western perceptions.
- Ensuring that any agreements are conditions-based, featuring verifiable actions and automatic snap-back mechanisms for violations.
Disrupting Persistent Networks
The ultimate objective of a network-centric strategy is to dismantle or degrade the systems that sustain Endless Warfare. These systems include institutional military and intelligence organizations, as well as decentralized, ambiguous networks such as illicit financial systems and smuggling operations.
