A Cycle of Escalation: Why We Keep Expecting More from This War

The latest exchange between the US and Iran, where American forces destroyed three Iranian oil tankers in retaliation for a missile attack on warships, is just another chapter in a long-running saga. The incident itself is hardly surprising – we’ve seen this pattern play out before, with each side escalating tensions until someone blinks or something catastrophic happens.

CENTCOM commander Adm. Brad Cooper’s promise to “impose an even higher economic cost” on Iran has all the gravitas of a threat from a teenager in a video game. This casual tone is a stark reminder that our leaders often struggle to convey urgency or convey the true stakes, despite the seriousness of the situation.

The multibillion-dollar shadow network funded by these oil tankers is a disturbing example of how Iran uses its resources to prop up regional proxies and fund its own military adventures. It’s not just about fueling terrorism; it’s also about perpetuating a cycle of violence that’s difficult to break.

Washington’s “maximum pressure” campaign against Tehran has been underway for some time, with sanctions, bombing raids, and targeted killings yet to achieve their desired effect: regime change or significant concessions from Iran. The evidence suggests our tactics are more likely to strengthen the very leaders we’re trying to topple.

This cycle of escalation has become so predictable, it’s almost like clockwork. A provocative move by one side is met with an over-the-top response from the other, and before long, we’re hurtling towards some unknown destination – or disaster.

Looking back on past conflicts in the region, it’s striking how many have played out in similar fashion. The Gulf War of 1990-91, the Iraq War of 2003-11, and even the drone strike that killed Qasem Soleimani last year all share a common thread: a narrative of US military might being pitted against an adversary with a seemingly endless capacity to absorb blows.

This dynamic speaks volumes about our own priorities and limitations. We seem content to engage in these high-stakes games, convinced we have the upper hand, even as our adversaries adapt and find ways to survive. The stakes are high, but this isn’t just about winning or losing; it’s about what this means for regional stability, global security, and – ultimately – our collective sanity.

As tensions simmer once more between Washington and Tehran, it’s worth asking: What happens when this cycle of escalation finally breaks? Will we be prepared to dial back the rhetoric, engage in genuine diplomacy, and work towards a lasting resolution? Or will we continue down the same familiar path, expecting different results from the very same actions that have led us here time and again.