There is much speculation that the failure of the air campaign to subdue the Tehran regime has forced Donald Trump to “look for an exit ramp” from the war that has begun. But the president has consistently thought more about escalation than departure. Part of this escalating intent was evident in the early days in the ever-increasing barrage of devastation caused by the bombings, which reached a fever pitch in his threats to destroy Iranian infrastructure, including desalination plants, causing mass suffering to the people he claims he wants to help.
Trump apparently thought twice about committing such crimes against humanity. The current truce suggests at least a measure of prudence on his part. However, the blockade on ships carrying Iranian oil, which Trump announced on Sunday — shortly after JD Vance’s 21-hour diplomacy failed in Islamabad — is another attempt to escalate, this time without killing noncombatants. But the US Navy blockade, if actually implemented, will continue on a staggered knife. What will happen if a Chinese tanker defies the blockade? Any decision to intercept or board would carry a high risk of making this war much wider in scope than Trump and his advisers have thought.
In the coming days, the blockade will inevitably tempt Iran’s light coastal forces to attack US naval vessels, something they have practiced for years in the “Great Prophet” military exercises in and around the Gulf. Their term for the herd tactics they developed is Esbah, which translates as “saturation”, which involves attacking enemy naval vessels from several directions simultaneously, with kamikaze-style weapons, missiles and drones. And if any of these strikes manage to damage naval vessels and cause casualties, Trump will no doubt feel compelled to deliver fresh “fire and fury” from the air on Iran.
Trump would see this as the moment to unleash the significant forces he has made available for amphibious and air operations, most likely by striking points on the Iranian coast from which missiles are being launched and fast attack ships are flying. Needless to say, such an escalation would prompt counter-escalation from Iran, possibly leading to widespread attacks on the hitherto safe oil tankers sheltering in the waters up the Strait of Hormuz. This would probably be the moment when the Iran-friendly Houthis would come in attacking ships transiting from the southern exit to the Red Sea at Bab al-Mandab (“Gate of Tears”). Yet for all this kind of retaliatory escalation, I can just imagine what Trump’s advisers are saying to him: “Don’t worry, Mr. President. We have escalation dominance. We can scale our responses higher and more effectively than they can.”
Subscribe to the New Statesman today and save 75%
I’ve heard this kind of high-level talk before, especially from nuclear strategists, but also in conventional conflict settings, from Kosovo to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. It’s the kind of talk that encourages belief in the use or threat of force to resolve crises. And it is likely to lead to an escalation of war with Iran when the current partial ceasefire – at this point, the Israelis are still not respecting it – ends or breaks down. From each side.
If the war is to “heat up” again soon, it will be important for American leaders to pay particular attention to the possibility that Iranian operatives and their allies, such as Shiite militias in Iraq, will aim to attack Americans wherever they can be found. There may also be a vast expansion of the so-called “battlespace,” as terrorist cells scattered throughout the world may choose to mobilize and engage in violent, disruptive attacks against American interests. The US clearly has a greater capacity for destruction; but the Iranians have already shown, by closing the Gulf, that they have a better ability to inflict disruption to the global economy.
It is clear that the forces that Trump and his cronies have amassed in the Gulf region reflect a desire to have significant escalation options. The fact that peace talks in Islamabad broke down after 21 hours suggests a lack of patience. But if the coming days give Trump — and some around him — some time for introspection, perhaps they’ll realize that the Iranians also have de-escalation options, and that finding an exit ramp now makes more sense than escalating the war.
With world opinion and the vast majority of Americans firmly opposed to this war, it is also clear that Trump is losing the “battle of history” for the context of this conflict. US military escalation at this point will not remedy the situation. Only a negotiated peace that will prevent future attacks on Iran, in exchange for a verifiable Iranian commitment never to develop nuclear weapons, can save the Trump presidency now.
(Further reading: Trump’s blockade is a desperate measure)
Content from our partners
