For a long time, a prevailing notion in US geopolitical strategy has been that middle-tier powers like Cuba or Iran can be forced into submission through military or economic pressure. To avoid the risks of an all-out war, US policymakers primarily adopt the strategy of 'Gradual Escalation.' They assume that in the face of mounting pressure, the adversary will eventually yield to their terms—whether that means halting a weapons program or keeping a crucial shipping route like the Strait of Hormuz open. However, according to history and Ray Takeyh, an analyst at the US-based think tank 'Council on Foreign Relations,' this strategy has repeatedly failed in reality.

Historical Context: The Flaws of 'Gradual Escalation'

This policy was introduced in US military strategy during the 1960s. The then-US Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and his advisors believed that gradually increasing military pressure would force North Vietnam to the negotiating table. But the biggest weakness of this theory was underestimating the adversary's 'resilience' and 'adaptability.' In reality, military aggression, rather than weakening the opposing government, stokes nationalist sentiments and unites the people even more. During the Vietnam War, the US dropped more bombs than in any previous war but still could not achieve victory; instead, it resulted in the deaths of about 3 million Vietnamese and created a prolonged humanitarian catastrophe.

The Iran Front: The Gap Between Calculations and Reality

The primary objective of the military operation launched against Iran under Donald Trump's administration in February remains unclear to this day. The temporary success of ousting Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela and the backdrop of internal mass uprisings in Iran might have given the US administration a false hope of a 'quick victory.' At the very onset of the war, the US and Israel assumed that the assassination of top-tier officials, including Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, would collapse the Iranian state apparatus. However, reality has proven that Iran's political and social structure is far more resilient than Western perceptions. The new leadership swiftly brought the situation under their control and declared this war not merely a political conflict, but a 'battle for survival.'

Asymmetric Warfare and the Test of Endurance

In this battle for survival, Iran resorted to asymmetric warfare instead of conventional combat. They expanded the conflict to the Persian Gulf, putting pressure on US allies and disrupting international shipping. The core question in any protracted war is not 'who can inflict how much damage on the other,' but rather, the true determinant is 'who has the capacity to endure the most damage.' A nation for which a war is a matter of survival is prepared to make immensely greater sacrifices than an external aggressor. Even though the ordinary people of Iran were already burdened by various economic crises (inflation, unemployment, power shortages), the US threat has bound them together by a single thread. The Probable Trajectory of the Conflict and Cyclical Escalation A major negative aspect of Trump's military strategy is its extreme unpredictability. His threat on social media—that if Iran attacks any ship in the Strait of Hormuz, the US will strike directly inside Iran—has made the situation even more explosive. Such actions will create an endless cycle of 'action-reaction' or attack and counter-attack: • Retaliation: If the US strikes inside Iran, Iran will inevitably launch severe retaliatory attacks on US military bases located across the Middle East. • Casualties and Escalation: This carries the risk of massive casualties among US troops, which would force the US into even larger-scale strikes. • Humanitarian Crisis: If the war prolongs, the distinction between military and civilian targets will blur, giving rise to a horrific humanitarian crisis.

Global Economy and Strategic Recommendations Ensuring the security of the Persian Gulf, a lifeline for international trade, is imperative for the global economy. To uphold the international principle of free navigation at sea, a multilateral initiative is needed here instead of unilateral dominance. Forming an international naval coalition based on a UN mandate could be the most effective solution for the security of the Persian Gulf. However, due to the Trump administration's lack of faith in multilateral institutions, implementing such an initiative is quite difficult. Consequently, the massive burden of securing this vast maritime region will ultimately fall on the US Navy, which is highly expensive and risky for them.

A country has to pay the price for decades for any war started without adequate strategic planning and specific objectives. Even after heads of state leave power, the scars of the wars they leave behind do not heal easily. Before the escalation of the Vietnam War in 1964, the warning given by diplomat George Ball to US President Lyndon B. Johnson rings entirely true in the case of today's Iran war:

"Once on the tiger's back, we cannot be sure of picking the place to dismount." Author: Dr. Abul Hasnat Milton, Chief Editor, The Source News Bangla. (Based on reports by RT and Reuters).