Iran still enjoys escalation dominance
And no, it is not overplaying its hand
A common take among analysts is that Iran may be overplaying its hand. Chatham House’s Sanam Vakil spelled out her case on the pages of Time magazine. She points out correctly that ‘Tehran’s leadership fears a staged unwinding of its leverage’, as a result of what I have described as the game of cat and mouse. She goes on to suggest that ‘Escalation, in this logic, is meant to raise the cost of the standoff enough to force Washington back to the table on broader terms’.
That’s a misreading of Iranian objectives. The escalation is not intended to ‘force Washington back to the table’ at all. Rather, the escalation — attacking every ship that disobeys Iranian authority by taking the Oman route — is meant to preserve Iranian leverage. The Iranians believe, quite correctly, and as Vakil herself tells us, that their leverage will erode if the Hormuz weapon does not remain firmly in their grip.
We are told that the Iranian wager is premised on the assessment that Trump does not have the appetite or the stamina for a costly fight: ‘Tehran expects him to want to avoid rising energy prices, American casualties, and another open ended war in the Middle East, particularly with midterm elections approaching.’ This Iranian assessment, she insists, is incorrect: ‘But Tehran may be misreading the source of Trump’s caution. … His reluctance to accept an open-ended war coexists with a deep aversion to humiliation, creating the risk that failed coercion will lead not to restraint but to further escalation.’
But is this quite right? Suppose that we perturb the premise. Let’s say the Iranians think that there is a good chance that Trump will not let Iran keep Hormuz. Would they then be willing to compromise of holding on to Hormuz? Why? What path does Iran have to security against US-Israeli depredations if it does not control Hormuz? Should the Iranians let him neutralize the Hormuz weapon if they think the US will ramp up attacks on Iran? Or even launch a ground invasion as Azizi reckons?
