Foreign Policy: The Iran war is escaping the control of the parties who ignited it, and Tehran is transforming the nature of the war into attrition
Foreign Policy magazine said, on Thursday, that the American-Israeli war with Iran has begun to escape the control of the parties that contributed to igniting it amid escalating strikes and the expanding scope of the confrontation regionally.
Exclusive Follow-ups – Al-Khabar Al-Yemeni:
The magazine, in a report, noted that the pattern of Iranian strikes reflects an organized effort aimed at causing widespread strategic disruption, as targets are concentrated on four main priorities: disrupting radar systems, weakening command and control networks, depleting interceptor missile stocks, and increasing economic pressure by paralyzing shipping and energy transport through the Strait of Hormuz almost completely.
It explained that from Iran’s perspective, this strategy represents an attempt to transform the nature of the war from a conflict based on firepower superiority to a conflict based on resilience and attrition. Instead of seeking direct military defeat, Iran focuses on raising the cost of continuing American military operations, especially if US bases in the Middle East come under repeated pressure, making this presence more politically sensitive.
The report notes that any increasing reliance on Iran’s approval for transit through the Strait of Hormuz, or countries resorting to side arrangements to ensure safe passage, would constitute an implicit recognition of Tehran’s continued influence over one of the world’s most important economic arteries, something Washington has long sought to deny.
It affirmed that the entry of the Sana’a forces, which it described as the “Houthis,” onto the front line could expand the scope of pressure to include the Bab Al-Mandeb Strait, potentially leading to the disruption of navigation in the Red Sea as well.
Thus, transforming the conflict into a direct competition over vital sea lanes connecting Asia, Europe, and the Middle East.
The Option of Sending Ground Forces:
The report addressed US President Donald Trump’s consideration of the option of sending ground forces to seize control of Iranian islands in order to force Tehran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, pointing out that this step, if taken, does not represent merely an additional escalation, but could lead to falling into an “escalation trap.”
Air power can weaken an adversary but cannot impose lasting political outcomes or control the ground, which subsequently increases pressure to use ground forces.
The report warned that introducing ground forces into Iranian territory could significantly raise the probabilities of escalation, including Iran resorting to mining the strait, targeting American forces, striking regional infrastructure, and possibly pushing the “Houthis” to close the Bab Al-Mandeb Strait, according to the newspaper’s analysis.
The report affirms that despite the significant military and economic pressures facing Iran, the consequences of which its people are bearing, this weakness doesn’t prevent it from adopting an effective strategy.
It also indicates that the stronger party often assumes its ability to control the escalation trajectory due to possessing greater firepower, but superiority in escalation doesn’t necessarily mean control over it.
According to the report, the US and Israel may achieve gains in each round of confrontation, but they may lose control over the overall trajectory of the conflict and its objectives, which represents the fundamental danger in wars built on the illusion of the ability to control, as each step seems justified by what preceded it, despite the increasing danger of the course and the difficulty of changing it.