By Iliya Kusa
The current escalation between the United States and Iran is an interesting example of controlled escalation, where both sides, while waging a war against each other, are still operating within certain limits and trying to adhere to specific “red lines” in order to keep the intensity of the conflict from spiraling further.
The Americans are primarily striking southern Iran while avoiding Tehran, Isfahan, and other major cities, including those located near military and nuclear facilities. Likewise, there have been no serious and large-scale strikes against civilian critical infrastructure related to water and energy. Iran, for its part, has been actively targeting U.S. military bases and logistics facilities in the region, but has not attacked American warships and, as we can see, has so far refrained from striking Israel (which has also stayed away from direct involvement in the conflict). From time to time, in order to demonstrate how far they could raise the level of escalation, the Iranians have carried out strikes near critical infrastructure facilities in regional countries, for example targeting water treatment plants in Kuwait.
Controlled escalation usually serves the negotiation process. Both sides gain the ability to strengthen their bargaining positions through the use of force and then return to the negotiating table with new leverage. Naturally, escalation can spiral out of control or fail to achieve its intended goals, trapping the parties in a cycle of escalation from which they may be unable to withdraw for political reasons.
However, at this stage, in my view, U.S.-Iran relations appear to be experiencing a phase of controlled escalation aimed at forcing each other into negotiations from a position of strength.
