The escalating conflict between Israel and the US against Iran and its proxies is a complex and dangerous game of military chess. What started as a targeted campaign has now evolved into a potential trap, with each side employing different strategies that could lead to an even more costly and protracted war.
The Escalation Trap Unveiled
The initial phase of this war has seen the assassination of key Iranian leaders, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, yet the clerical regime remains intact. Despite tactical successes, such as precise airstrikes, the strategic goals of the campaign are far from achieved. This disparity between the tactical and strategic levels is a warning sign, according to experts, who fear the attacker may fall into an escalation trap.
A Trap of Escalation
Robert Pape, a US historian and advisor, highlights the stages of this trap. The first stage is marked by initial tactical success, which can create an “illusion of control”. However, when this doesn’t translate to strategic success, the attacker enters the second stage, where they “double down” and escalate their actions. This is precisely where the US and Israel currently find themselves, with intensified airstrikes and a potential expansion of operations in Lebanon.
Iran’s Counter-Strategy
Iran, on the other hand, has adopted a “horizontal escalation” strategy, aiming to widen the conflict geographically and economically. By striking Gulf states and shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, Iran can escalate the costs for Washington beyond the realm of military counterattacks. This strategy creates a wedge between the US and its Gulf allies, questioning the rationale behind the war and its costs.
The Role of Trump’s Psychology
Former US envoy Robert Malley believes that Trump’s psychology will largely dictate the US’s next moves. He suggests that Trump, lacking an easy victory, may opt for more extreme escalations, such as deploying troops on the ground or collaborating with ethnic groups within Iran. However, these actions could provoke severe reactions from Iran, potentially leading to terrorist attacks against American targets.
Debates and Divides
Jack Watling of the Royal United Services Institute highlights the debates shaping this conflict: between US defense professionals and Trump’s inner circle, between the US and Israel, and within Iran’s political and military echelons. These debates reflect differing views on the nature and objectives of the war, from achieving narrow, achievable goals to exerting “coercive control” over Iran’s future.
A Slippery Slope
The risk of a civil war in Iran, as suggested by Robert D Kaplan, could further escalate the situation. If such a scenario unfolds, the US administration might feel compelled to intervene, sending special forces and advisors, which could lead to a gradual escalation similar to the Vietnam War.
Conclusion
This conflict is a delicate balance of power and strategy, with each side employing unique tactics. The potential for escalation is high, and the consequences could be devastating. As an observer, I find myself questioning whether a resolution can be found without further bloodshed, and whether the initial aims of this war are worth the risks involved. It’s a complex and worrying situation that demands careful consideration and a path towards de-escalation.
