Competing Escalation Strategies in the Iran Conflict
The ongoing Israeli-US military campaign against Iran and its allied groups has evolved into a testing ground for two contrasting approaches to escalation, each carrying the risk of becoming a strategic trap.
On one side, leaders Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu have yet to achieve clear strategic objectives. Despite the initial killing of Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, and other senior figures, the Iranian regime persists, and its stockpile of highly enriched uranium remains unsecured. Airstrikes have increased in frequency and target range.
In response, Tehran has adopted a strategy of "horizontal escalation," a long-prepared approach aimed at broadening the conflict geographically by targeting Gulf states and increasing the economic and political costs for Washington and the global economy, particularly in energy supply chains.
The coming weeks are expected to reveal critical insights into the effectiveness of power projection in an increasingly fragile and multipolar global landscape.
The Escalation Trap and Tactical versus Strategic Success
Experts warn of an escalation trap, where the attacker becomes ensnared in a protracted, complex, and costly conflict beyond initial expectations. This risk stems from a growing gap between tactical military successes and strategic political outcomes in the US-Israeli campaign.
"The tactical level involves specific military tasks—such as airstrikes hitting their intended targets—where the campaign has been successful," explained Robert Pape, a US historian specializing in air power limitations who has advised several US administrations. "The strategic level defines whether the political and national security aims of the war are being achieved and at what cost."
"There are several stages to the escalation trap," said Robert Pape. "What we saw with the initial attack was tactically almost 100% success. The problem is that when that doesn’t lead to strategic success … you get to second stage of the trap.
"The attacker still has escalation dominance, so there is a doubling down, which then moves up the escalation ladder and that still does not lead to strategic success. Then you reach stage three, which is the real crisis, where you are contemplating far riskier options. I would say we are stage two, and on the cusp of stage three."
Pape noted that the Trump administration became captivated by the initial military success, fostering an "illusion of control" based on weapon precision. This perception has driven Tehran toward its own escalation model, with broader global economic and political repercussions.
Iran’s Strategy and Impact on Gulf States
By targeting Gulf states and shipping lanes in the Strait of Hormuz, Iran has demonstrated its ability to escalate the conflict’s costs for Washington beyond what the US can directly counter militarily.
"Iran’s strikes are designed to create wedges between the US and the Gulf states by in turn creating wedges between the Gulf states and their societies," Pape said.
"They are forcing the publics in the Gulf to ask: ‘Why are we paying the price of a war that appears driven by expansionist Israeli policies?’"
Potential for Further Escalation in Lebanon
Israel has indicated intentions to escalate its military operations. On Thursday, Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz ordered preparations to expand operations in Lebanon, where Israel is engaged with the Iran-backed Hezbollah militia. Katz stated that Israeli forces would "take territory" if Hezbollah rocket fire continued.
US Decision-Making and Psychological Factors
Robert Malley, former US envoy to Iran and lead negotiator in nuclear talks, suggested that US escalation or de-escalation decisions may be influenced more by President Trump’s psychology than by clear strategic calculations.
"At some point, I assume there will be an exit ramp, but I could imagine the escalation reaching levels we really wouldn’t have contemplated even a month ago … troops on the ground, going after basic infrastructure, taking over parts of Iran, working with Kurdish or other ethnic groups. All of that is escalatory in a different way.
"But that could trigger reactions on the Iranian side, and then who knows what happens. I wouldn’t be shocked if we saw terrorist attacks against soft targets, soft, quote-unquote, American targets. If that were to happen, whether it was directed by Iran or not, who knows how the president then reacts?
"But at this point, what we should fear is that the escalatory ladder is the one that Trump is most comfortable on, because I don’t think the Iranians are going make life any easier for him. I don’t think they’re going to offer him the victory on a platter that he wants and say: ‘Okay, we stop shooting.’"
Internal Debates and Regional Deterrence
Jack Watling of the Royal United Services Institute highlighted that the conflict’s trajectory is shaped by debates within US defense policy circles, between the US and Israel, and within Iranian political and military leadership, especially the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps seeking retaliation.
"There is a view in the US strategic community, if not in Trump circles, that sees a risk of state-on-state conflict with China in the near future," Watling said. "From that point of view there has been a desire in the US to avoid the risk of other simultaneous threats and conflicts – involving Russia, Venezuela and Iran – and this has led to a split between those who envisaged the war as a narrow set of achievable objectives to degrade Iran, and Trump’s desire for ‘coercive control’ over the country’s future."
For Iran, the pattern of retaliation in the Gulf is not merely reciprocal but aims to re-establish deterrence in the region. Watling cautioned that if Iran’s missile and drone strike intensity declines, it may not signal an end to horizontal escalation but rather a shift toward a sustained threat to shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.
Risks of Incremental Escalation and Civil Conflict
US author and foreign affairs analyst Robert D Kaplan identified the risk of incremental escalation leading to a broader conflict.
"If a civil war, or something akin to it, breaks out in Iran, the [Trump] administration may feel compelled to send special forces and advisers to aid one side," Kaplan wrote in Foreign Affairs.
"And the risks of escalation spiral from there. The war in Vietnam took years to evolve into a middle-sized war … The situation in Iran might follow a similar trajectory."
These developments underscore the complexity and potential for the Iran conflict to expand beyond current military engagements, with significant regional and global implications.
