Deterrence in shadow
Page 1
The inability to accurately model the "escalation ladder" has turned every attack scenario into a high-stakes gamble—a gamble in which the initiator of the conflict will not necessarily call the shots on its course and conclusion. In today's interconnected world, where the global economy and energy security have become the Achilles' heel of major powers, this risk takes on more complex dimensions. The concern over Iran's creative and unconventional responses—responses that could impact energy flows, the security of international waterways, or the stability of global markets—drives up the cost of war beyond the "acceptable" range.
When a state actor cannot be sure that a conflict will be confined to purely military targets and sees the possibility of the rules of the game being transformed, strategic logic dictates that the military option be set aside.
From this perspective, the current situation should not be seen as a sign of lasting peace. What has prevented war is a kind of balance based on fear and ambiguity—a situation in which the adversary steers clear of entering a dark tunnel with an unknown end and, instead of direct confrontation, falls back on political, economic, and diplomatic pressure tools. As long as this ambiguity regarding the manner, timing, and intensity of Iran's response persists, the likelihood of a full-scale war in the short term will fall victim to rational cost-benefit calculations.