Herbert McMaster
Herbert McMaster is the Fouad and Michelle Ajami Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, host of Hoover’s Today’s Battlegrounds, and a regular participant on GoodFellows. A retired U.S. Army lieutenant general and former U.S. national security advisor, his public work focuses on geopolitics, military history, foreign policy, and national security.
American Security Requires Strategic Competence, Not Military Power Alone
H.R. McMaster argues that the greatest danger to American security is not a lack of military power but a loss of strategic competence after the Cold War. In a Hoover Institution discussion, the former national security adviser says U.S. leaders mistook a temporary unipolar advantage for a lasting condition, underestimated the political nature of war, and failed to connect military action to achievable political outcomes. That failure, he argues, now meets a more dangerous environment in which China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea are increasingly reinforcing one another.
American Strategy Fails When Untested Assumptions Become Policy
H.R. McMaster argues that American strategy often fails not for lack of information but because officials allow untested assumptions to become policy. In a Hoover Institution discussion, the former national security adviser says U.S. approaches to China, Iran, Russia and Afghanistan repeatedly projected Washington’s hopes onto adversaries rather than examining their motives, ideology and incentives. His remedy is a more disciplined process: define the problem on its own terms, test assumptions, present leaders with real options, and weigh the risks of inaction as seriously as the risks of acting.
U.S.-Iran Memorandum Trades Leverage for a Fragile Midterm Quiet
Niall Ferguson, H.R. McMaster, and John Cochrane argue that the draft U.S.-Iran memorandum looks less like a settlement than a political pause that gives Tehran money and time while leaving the nuclear question unresolved. In a Hoover GoodFellows discussion, they differ on whether unintended consequences could still weaken Iran’s regime, but largely agree that Washington had leverage in the Strait of Hormuz and failed to use it. They extend that concern to Ukraine and Cuba, framing the central problem as American pressure applied without follow-through.
U.S.-Iran Memorandum Trades Hormuz Relief for Unresolved Nuclear Questions
Hoover fellows Niall Ferguson, H.R. McMaster and John Cochrane read the reported U.S.-Iran memorandum less as a peace settlement than as a bid to reopen the Strait of Hormuz while postponing the nuclear dispute and front-loading concessions to Tehran. They largely agree the draft looks weak; their disagreement is over whether it buys time for a harder strategy later, creates space for pressure inside Iran, or signals a loss of U.S. will that allies and adversaries will now test.
Germany’s Defense Shift Recasts Europe’s Role in NATO
Norbert Röttgen, a senior CDU/CSU lawmaker in the Bundestag, argues in a Hoover Institution discussion with H.R. McMaster that Germany has belatedly accepted that Europe’s peace now depends on deterrence, defense capacity and resilience against Russian coercion. He says Berlin’s post-Cold War assumptions about trade, Russian moderation and American security guarantees cost it crucial time, but that Germany’s sharp rise in defense spending marks a real strategic shift. Röttgen’s answer is not a looser transatlantic relationship, but a new division of labor in which Europe carries more of its own defense while preserving the United States as partner and backstop.
Iran Ceasefire Debate Turns on Whether Tehran or Washington Has Leverage
Hoover Institution fellows H.R. McMaster, Niall Ferguson and John Cochrane use a mailbag discussion to test questions of war, leadership and institutional resilience against a common standard: whether policy connects means to political ends. Their sharpest disagreement is over Iran, where McMaster argues Tehran is weak and should face more pressure, while Ferguson says it has more room to wait out Washington than the Trump administration expected; Cochrane presses the underlying incentives that make voluntary Iranian nuclear concessions unlikely.
Iran Standoff Tests Whether Washington Manages Wars or Wins Them
In this GoodFellows mailbag, Hoover fellows H.R. McMaster, Niall Ferguson and John Cochrane treat the Iran standoff as the central test of American strategy. McMaster argues Washington should stop managing the conflict and intensify pressure on a weakened regime, while Ferguson warns Tehran may be waiting for oil-price and market pain to force the United States into a worse bargain; around that dispute, the three extend the same standard to war leadership, institutional decline, Europe, climate policy and populism: policy has to connect means to political ends rather than substitute rhetoric for results.
Finland Brings NATO a Border With Russia and a Whole-Society Defense Model
Finnish diplomat Kai Sauer argues that Finland’s entry into NATO is not a turn toward confrontation with Russia but a response to Moscow’s assault on Ukraine and its challenge to sovereign states’ right to choose their own alignments. In a discussion with H.R. McMaster, Sauer presents Finland as a front-line ally whose contribution rests not only on geography, but on conscription, whole-of-society resilience, energy diversification, and trusted technology capabilities. McMaster frames those strengths as part of a broader transatlantic agenda: moving burden-sharing from complaint to practical cooperation.
Fellows Split Over Whether the Constitution Is Too Hard to Amend
At the first public taping of Hoover’s GoodFellows, John Cochrane, Niall Ferguson and H.R. McMaster used the Constitution as a text for argument rather than commemoration. Cochrane warned against treating it as scripture and stressed the civic “spirit” behind it, McMaster described an imperfect founding grounded in principles, and Ferguson stated a broad First Amendment position. Their clearest split came over amendment: Ferguson said the process no longer works in practice, while Cochrane argued its history shows it has sometimes been too available.
Cuba’s Opposition Says Democratic Change Can Be Forced Within 12 Months
Cuban opposition leader Rosa María Payá tells H. R. McMaster that Cuba’s humanitarian collapse is also a political opening: the regime, she argues, survives by force, foreign patronage, military control of the economy, and regional repression, not by consent. In a Hoover Institution conversation, Payá says democratic change can be generated within 12 months if outside pressure on regime elites is paired with recognition of a prepared opposition alternative and direct support for Cubans demanding freedom.
Senior Officers Must Advise Privately and Execute Lawful Civilian Decisions
In a Hoover Institution discussion on civil-military relations, retired generals Joseph Dunford and Christopher Cavoli, with H.R. McMaster moderating, argued that the U.S. military’s democratic role depends on a hard boundary: senior officers give candid, private, nonpartisan advice; civilian leaders make policy; and the military carries out lawful orders. Their case was that this discipline is not Washington etiquette but a practical safeguard for the force, ensuring Americans are not sent into danger without an achievable political objective, clear risks, and accountable civilian decisions.