Eight months post-June 2025 Twelve-Day War, the Middle East lingers in armed stability: exhaustion and uncertainty, neither peace nor war. Israel’s surprise strikes destroyed 35-45% of Iran’s ballistic missile stockpile and eliminated key military leaders. The United States bombed three Iranian nuclear sites. Iran retaliated with over 550 ballistic missiles and 1,000 suicide drones targeting Israeli population centers. Then the war abruptly halted.
What prevented escalation then no longer operates reliably now. The February 28, 2026 Israeli strikes on Tehran—described as “preventative” rather than retaliatory—unfolded in a fundamentally altered strategic landscape. The U.S. has surged over 120 aircraft to the region—the largest airpower buildup since the 2003 Iraq invasion—while two carrier strike groups form a naval presence unmatched since Operation Iraqi Freedom. Ground troops number 30,000-50,000 across 13 bases from Qatar to Jordan. President Trump has issued a 10-15 day ultimatum demanding complete Iranian uranium enrichment halt, missile program rollback, and defunding of proxy forces.
Yet no broader war has erupted. Question: not U.S.-Israeli capability—they have it—but constraints blocking or sparking posturing-to-war shifts. Iran’s deterrence: proxies degraded, Hormuz unusable, internals constraining flexibility. Result: miscalculation likelier than deliberate war. Four patterns in this crisis explain why.
The Collapse of Distributed Deterrence
Iran’s core deterrence against U.S. and Israeli strikes has long relied on proxies: Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iraqi Shia militias, and Yemen’s Houthis. This “Axis of Resistance” offered Tehran deniability, dispersed responses, and cost imposition without direct risk to Iranian territory. The June 2025 war revealed this architecture to be structurally compromised. The fall of Assad’s regime in Syria—a critical transit corridor for Iranian arms and personnel flowing to Hezbollah—compounded the isolation.
Documented Pattern:
During the twelve days of intense Israeli-Iranian combat, the proxy network failed to meaningfully intervene. Hezbollah did not launch major cross-border operations. Iraqi militias did not escalate attacks on U.S. bases beyond token gestures. The Houthis continued existing Red Sea operations but did not intensify them in support of Iran. This inaction cannot be blamed on missed chances—the war offered prime justification for intervention.
Eight months later, this degradation persists. Military analysts assess Iran’s regional network as “significantly weakened and degraded.” The Institute for the Study of War notes that “it is unclear whether the groups that comprise the Axis of Resistance would intervene in a renewed conflict between Iran and the United States.” This is observation of present structural reality, not speculation about future capability.
Why This Matters:
The proxy network’s failure compresses Iran’s decision space in ways that increase rather than decrease escalation risk. When distributed deterrence operated effectively, Iranian decision-makers could calibrate responses across multiple theaters, impose costs indirectly, and maintain escalation control through proxies who bore the direct retaliation risk. Proxies sidelined, futile responses and regime-threatening escalation now gape.
Iran retains cyber ops, sub-threshold harassment, symbolic missiles, gray-zone cells. These are not trivial. But the real danger is not the technical menu—it is how leadership perceives that menu. When most available responses seem either impotent or suicidal, the decision tree feels binary even if it technically is not. That perceptual compression—leaders seeing only “absorb” or “escalate”—endangers more than capability loss alone. It warps decisions, not tools.
This compressed decision space recurs throughout the crisis, driven by different mechanisms in each domain. In proxy deterrence, the compression results from network failure. In Hormuz strategy, from the gap between threat and usable force. In domestic politics, from the regime’s inability to appear weak. Each mechanism is independent, but they converge on the same structural outcome: fewer safe choices, shorter decision timelines, and greater probability that miscalculation cascades before anyone can correct course.
Alternative Explanation:
The simpler interpretation is that proxy forces are pausing for tactical reasons and could reconstitute quickly. Perhaps Hezbollah is conserving forces for Lebanese defense. Perhaps Iraqi militias await clearer signals from Tehran. Late-2025 IRGC-Hezbollah drills suggest reconstitution is possible.
Three documented anomalies weaken this explanation. First, the proxy network failed to intervene during the June 2025 war—when intervention would have been most strategically valuable and Iran was under direct attack. If the network were capable of coordinated action, that was the moment to demonstrate it. Second, the pattern persists eight months later despite ample time and urgent strategic reason to reconstitute. Third, Iran has shifted toward direct military threats (Hormuz closure warnings, ballistic missile reconstitution) rather than proxy operations, suggesting Tehran itself recognizes the network’s limitations.
A subtler version warrants attention: the failure may stem not from incapacity but from exposed interest divergences under pressure. Hezbollah may have prioritized its own survival over Iranian strategic needs. Iraqi militias may have their own calculations about American retaliation costs. This distinction matters analytically:
- Degradation hypothesis: Iran cannot coordinate proxies (command-and-control disruption, potentially repairable).
- Divergence hypothesis: Proxies won’t act when their own survival is at stake (structural, durable).
For escalation risk, incapacity versus unwillingness matters less than the outcome: Iran cannot depend on distributed response when it counts. For reconstitution assessment, the distinction is decisive—diverging interests are structural in ways that disrupted command links are not.
The Unusable Weapon: Hormuz as Suicide Switch
Iran can disrupt or temporarily close the Strait of Hormuz—one of the world’s most critical energy chokepoints—through mine deployment, anti-ship missile strikes, or small boat swarm attacks. This is Iran’s highest-impact retaliation option. It would end the regime.
Multiple U.S. administrations have declared Hormuz closure a red line warranting military action. The Fifth Fleet maintains permanent presence in Bahrain specifically to ensure strait security. American war planning treats Hormuz disruption not as a negotiating tactic but as an act of war.
The Paradox:
Iran possesses a weapon that forces adversaries to prepare against it but grows less usable as regime survival wanes. The weapon’s value lies entirely in the threat, which degrades as the conditions that might trigger its use simultaneously make its use irrational. Compressed space at strategic scale: power-to-survival gap now a void.
Documented Evidence:
Iranian officials regularly threaten Hormuz closure in response to sanctions or military pressure. During the February 2026 crisis, Iranian military commanders warned that any major strike on nuclear facilities would trigger “closure of all energy export routes from the Gulf.” Iran has conducted military exercises demonstrating closure capability, and U.S. planners take the threat seriously enough to maintain substantial naval presence to counter it.
Yet the threat has never been executed—not even during the June 2025 war, when Iran was under direct attack. BloombergNEF projects that complete removal of Iranian oil exports would push Brent crude to $91/barrel by Q4 2026. A Columbia University analysis projects $80-100/barrel spikes if even 20-30% of Gulf exports face disruption. These are significant impacts. Yet such disruption would gut the market Iran itself relies on—a self-defeating loop turning Hormuz from military lever to shared destruction that harms wielder and target alike.
As one analysis of escalation dynamics notes, “more severe retaliatory actions, such as attempting to close the Strait of Hormuz or striking Gulf energy infrastructure, would almost certainly trigger a far more expansive US response.” The current U.S. force in theater—two carrier groups, 120+ aircraft, air defense systems, 30,000-50,000 ground troops—is explicitly sized for sustained operations against Iranian military infrastructure if Hormuz closure occurs.
Why This Constraint Matters:
With Hormuz practically unusable, Iran is left with responses it perceives as ineffective or escalation it cannot survive. Two dynamics follow.
First, incentives emerge for preemptive use of whatever capabilities remain, since the gap between “insufficient” and “regime-ending” leaves no room for calibrated escalation. If limited responses seem futile and major ones suicidal, logic tilts toward passivity (eroding domestic legitimacy) or preemptive escalation.
Second, Iranian signaling becomes harder to interpret. When graduated options existed, adversaries could read response levels as indication of intent. When only extreme options remain practically available, any Iranian military action carries ambiguous meaning. That ambiguity increases the likelihood of miscalibrated American or Israeli responses—over-reacting to limited moves, or under-reacting to the opening of a broader campaign.
Alternative Explanation:
Perhaps Hormuz closure is less costly to Iran than conventional analysis suggests. If the regime prioritizes ideological confrontation over economic rationality, or believes overthrow is imminent regardless, the calculation shifts.
The regime’s behavior over decades suggests strong survival instincts—backing down from existential confrontations, accepting humiliating compromises, prioritizing institutional preservation over ideological purity. But that restraint pattern held when options abounded: functioning proxies, diplomatic channels, economic reserves, allies like Assad. This analysis argues those have vanished. A thirty-year baseline of rational restraint may not hold when the structural conditions that enabled it no longer exist. This does not make Hormuz closure likely—it means the threshold at which it shifts from unthinkable to desperate last resort may be lower than conventional analysis assumes.
The key distinguishing evidence would be Iranian military preparations: mine-laying vessels moving into position, anti-ship missile batteries relocating to optimal firing positions, Revolutionary Guard naval forces conducting final exercises. The absence or presence of such preparations would clarify whether Hormuz closure remains theoretical threat or active contingency.
The Miscalculation Multiplier: Internal Collapse as Strategic Accelerant
The Iranian regime faces a domestic crisis of extraordinary severity. Inflation exceeds 60%. Energy shortages force rolling blackouts that paralyze communication networks. Approximately 80% of pharmacies face bankruptcy as the rial has collapsed from roughly 700,000 to 1.4 million per dollar, choking medicine imports. Economic-sparked protests, now demanding regime change, face brutal crackdowns—casualties unverifiable.
This fragility does not make the regime conventionally weaker. It may harden positions and eliminate de-escalation pathways. When a government turns its security apparatus inward, flexibility abroad contracts.
Documented Pattern:
The IRGC and Basij forces that historically focused on external operations and proxy coordination have been redeployed to domestic security. This is observable force disposition: units that would coordinate with Hezbollah or Iraqi militias are now suppressing protests in Iranian cities.
Redeployment slashes external capacity: IRGC can’t crack down domestically and coordinate regionally. The proxy network’s degradation is partly attributable to this internal focus. But more critically for escalation risk, it shrinks diplomatic flexibility by tying regime survival to unyielding resolve. Any diplomatic compromise can be portrayed by domestic opponents as weakness, providing ammunition for opposition movements. The regime cannot back down from confrontations without undermining the legitimacy narrative that justifies repression.
Why This Increases Miscalculation Risk:
External pressure and internal collapse create a feedback loop that narrows the regime’s decision space. On the perception side, a regime under extreme internal pressure may misread external signals, seeing threats where none exist or missing de-escalation opportunities because decision-makers are consumed by survival. On the reality side, the regime cannot afford to appear weak domestically, eliminating compromise solutions that might otherwise be acceptable.
Internal collapse does not predictably yield aggression or aversion: history shows regimes either externalize crises for nationalist rallies or hunker down to avoid new fronts. The outcome likely depends on a variable this analysis cannot resolve from the outside: elite cohesion within the regime—the single most dangerous structural uncertainty in this crisis, and the hinge on which every other dynamic turns.
Evidence of Reduced Flexibility:
The Iranian negotiating position in the February 2026 Geneva talks demonstrates this hardening: “Iran demands to isolate the negotiations to the nuclear issue only, aiming to gain sanctions relief vital for infusing foreign currency and to postpone the renewal of UN sanctions.” This narrower stance—refusing to discuss proxy support, ballistic missiles, or human rights—signals weakness, not strength. Survival demands single-issue focus.
The Trump administration’s demand for comprehensive negotiations (uranium enrichment halt, missile rollback, proxy defunding, end to internal repression) is precisely what the Iranian regime cannot accept without undermining its domestic legitimacy narrative. Neither side acts irrationally within its constraints—but those constraints clash, breeding miscalculation and unintended escalation.
Triangular Escalation: Force Posture, Israeli Autonomy, and Credibility Traps
The crisis is triangular, not bilateral: U.S. force posture, Israeli autonomy, and Gulf credibility dynamics create independent escalation pressures that interact with Iran’s constraints. The previous three sections describe compressed decision space operating on Iran. This section describes the external forces that compress it further.
The Force Composition Gap:
The U.S. buildup, while massive in airpower, lacks Marines, special operations forces, and logistics for an extended campaign. It is far smaller than what the United States deployed in 1991 and 2003 for major combat operations.
This gap sends dual ambiguities. To Iranian decision-makers, it may suggest punitive strikes rather than regime change—encouraging them to absorb limited strikes without facing existential threat. That assessment could prove catastrophically wrong if limited Iranian retaliation triggers American escalation beyond what the current force composition suggests. To American decision-makers, it creates time pressure: if sustained operations are not feasible with current forces, and deploying additional forces would take weeks, pressure builds to act decisively within the current deployment window before diplomatic alternatives are exhausted.
Indicators: Punitive = standoff airpower, limited munitions, static logistics. Sustained = forward munitions, tankers, reserve activation. Preparation for sustained operations shows forward staging of precision munitions, tanker aircraft deployment for extended sortie generation, reserve logistics activation, and combat search-and-rescue positioning. The current deployment fits the punitive profile—but crisis fog may obscure this distinction for Iranian analysts.
Israeli Strategic Autonomy:
Israel’s February 2026 strikes on Tehran were not simply an extension of American strategy. Israel may be more willing to accept escalation risk, perceiving Iran’s nuclear program as an existential threat in ways Washington does not. Israel may also assess that Iran’s currently weakened state represents a unique window unlikely to recur. Coalition pressures and security establishment consensus about Iranian nuclear timelines may push toward action even when American preferences lean toward caution.
This triangular structure means escalation can ignite from any corner. An overreaching Israeli strike could draw U.S. assets into unwanted war via Iranian retaliation—pulling Washington into a conflict it did not initiate. The June 2025 war demonstrated this: Israeli actions created facts on the ground that constrained American options regardless of American preferences.
The Nuclear Timeline as Escalation Driver:
Iran’s nuclear program operates not merely as a negotiating topic but as an independent escalation driver. If Iran is closer to weapons capability now than before June 2025—plausible, given that strike damage to centrifuge infrastructure may have been repaired or exceeded through underground dispersal—this changes both Israeli tolerance for delay and the strategic significance of any pause in hostilities. Shrinking timeline: Israel’s use-it-or-lose-it pressure on Israel specifically, potentially decoupling Israeli action from American diplomatic timelines.
Regional Credibility Traps:
Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Qatar have publicly stated they will not permit airspace or territory to be used for strikes on Iran. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman told Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian directly that “the kingdom would not permit the use of its airspace for any strike on Iran.”
Yet the same Saudi Defense Minister, Prince Khalid bin Salman, told Washington think tank experts in a closed-door briefing that if Trump “did not follow through on his threats, it would ‘only embolden the regime.'” This unmasks preference falsification: public refusals, private urgings for U.S. resolve. The public stance constrains American options; the private stance pressures follow-through. Even diplomatic progress may prove insufficient if credibility concerns override tactical flexibility.
China and Russia—with UN Security Council vetoes, economic relationships with Iran, and strategic interests in constraining American military freedom of action—could alter Iranian isolation calculations through diplomatic cover, economic relief, or military technology transfers. Their positioning remains an unresolved variable shaping Tehran’s willingness to absorb or resist pressure.
Unresolved Questions
The structural analysis reveals questions that existing institutions could answer but have not. They are ordered by danger: the first shapes how every subsequent question is interpreted.
1. Elite Cohesion:
Is the Iranian regime still a unitary strategic actor? If the IRGC command structure is unified, deterrence logic likely remains calibrated. If fragmentation exists—different factions with divergent threat perceptions, different domestic priorities, or different levels of control over missile forces—then Iran’s behavior may not reflect coherent strategic calculation. Rogue escalation, signaling incoherence, and internal competition for nationalist legitimacy through external hardening all become plausible. Without clarity on elite cohesion, every other variable in this analysis becomes harder to interpret. The intelligence community could assess this through IRGC communications and command pattern analysis, but the assessment remains classified or non-existent.
2. Proxy Network Reconstitution:
Can Iran reconstitute Axis of Resistance effectiveness within 6-12 months, or is the degradation permanent? Precisely: command disruption (potentially repairable) or interest divergence (structural and durable)? Modern surveillance and strike capabilities may prevent the covert network rebuilding possible in earlier decades, raising the question of whether the proxy deterrence model itself has become obsolete. The intelligence community possesses the capability to assess this. The assessment has not been made public.
3. Regime Survival Threshold:
At what level of external pressure does Hormuz closure shift from suicide switch to rational last resort? The thirty-year restraint pattern was established under structural conditions that no longer hold. The intelligence community could assess this through leadership communications analysis, regime collapse modeling, and evaluation of security force loyalty. Without this assessment, the U.S. and Israel operate blind regarding the threshold at which Iranian behavior becomes unpredictable.
4. Credibility Constraint:
Does Trump’s 10-15 day ultimatum create a commitment trap requiring strikes even if diplomatic progress occurs? The Saudi defense minister’s warning that failure to follow through would “embolden the regime” suggests credibility costs may override tactical flexibility. Public ambiguity about whether the ultimatum is negotiating tactic or actual deadline leaves allies and adversaries uncertain about American intentions.
5. Energy Market Feedback:
Do oil price spikes fracture coalition support for strikes or harden resolve to eliminate the Iranian threat permanently? The IEA could quantify how long strategic petroleum reserves and alternative routing could offset Hormuz disruption, clarifying how much leverage Iran’s “suicide switch” actually provides. The analysis has not been made public.
6. Israeli-American Divergence:
How far can Israeli action proceed independently of American preferences before creating irreversible escalation? The nuclear timeline may create Israeli urgency that does not match American diplomatic timelines. Understanding the structural limits of this divergence is essential for assessing escalation risk.
Institutional Actions Required
These are mitigations, not solutions. The structural trap—where each actor’s constraints are incompatible with the others’—may not have an institutional resolution, only institutional management that reduces the probability of catastrophic miscalculation.
1. Counterintelligence Assessment of Current Officials:
The Department of Justice should conduct counterintelligence assessments of officials with security clearances who had documented contact with Iranian intelligence services or proxy networks. This requires no new legal authority—standard CI protocols already provide the framework. Results should be reported to oversight committees within 90 days.
2. Proxy Network Reconstitution Monitoring:
The Defense Intelligence Agency should establish a dedicated analytical cell for monitoring Axis of Resistance reconstitution indicators, with monthly congressional reporting. Indicators should include command-and-control communications, cross-border weapons transfers, joint training exercises, and coordinated operations. Critically, this cell should distinguish indicators of reconstituted capability from indicators of reconstituted willingness—the latter being harder to detect but more strategically significant.
3. Escalation Control Mechanisms:
The State Department should establish back-channel communications with Iranian counterparts through Omani mediation, focused on escalation control rather than comprehensive negotiations. These channels should define red lines, establish protocols for distinguishing deliberate escalation from accidents, and create verification procedures for mutual de-escalation. “Appeasement” risks exist—but beat signal-free crisis.
4. Force Composition Review:
The Department of Defense should formally review whether current force deployment is sized for the operations it might be required to conduct, with explicit assessment of what signals the composition sends to Tehran. If the force suffices only for punitive strikes, that should be stated to avoid false expectations. If sustained operations are contemplated, necessary ground and special operations components should be augmented. If the ambiguity is deliberate—calibrated to threaten without triggering preemptive Iranian action—that calculation should be documented and reviewed.
5. Allied Energy Contingency Planning:
The Department of Energy, with the International Energy Agency, should develop and publicly release contingency plans for Hormuz closure or Gulf infrastructure strikes: strategic petroleum reserve protocols, alternative supply routing, demand management. Public disclosure would reduce market panic and demonstrate to Iran that Hormuz leverage is less effective than Tehran might calculate—though it risks signaling American expectation of closure.
6. Israeli-American Escalation Coordination:
The National Security Council should establish explicit protocols for managing Israeli-American divergence on Iranian strike decisions, including advance notification, agreed escalation boundaries, and mechanisms for preventing Israeli action from creating irreversible American commitments. The triangular escalation structure—where Israeli action can pull American forces into conflict regardless of Washington’s preferences—is a vulnerability that existing coordination mechanisms may not adequately address.
Stakes
The current crisis matters not because war is inevitable but because the conditions for miscalculation have intensified while the mechanisms for preventing it have degraded. Iran’s proxy failure eliminates graduated responses. Hormuz remains unusable except as regime-ending escalation. Internal collapse eliminates diplomatic flexibility. U.S. force composition creates time pressure. Israeli autonomy introduces escalation dynamics beyond American control. Regional opposition to strikes conflicts with credibility demands for follow-through.
None of these conditions individually guarantees war. Together, they create an environment where small miscalculations cascade into large conflicts that neither side intended. The June 2025 war demonstrated that intense combat between Iran and Israel can occur and then stop. It also demonstrated that the mechanisms which stopped the war no longer operate reliably.
The irony is systemic: intended remedies amplify vulnerabilities. Massive deployments that should deter may instead create time pressure for preemptive strikes. Internal collapse that should weaken Iran may instead eliminate its flexibility for compromise. Proxy degradation that should reduce Iranian threat projection may instead push Tehran toward more dangerous direct action. Regional opposition that should constrain the U.S. may instead create credibility traps. Israeli autonomy that should provide flexibility may instead create escalation pathways Washington cannot control.
This is not a situation where one side is right and the other wrong, or where one policy choice would resolve all tensions. It is a structural trap where each actor’s constraints are incompatible with the others’, and where the mechanisms that might prevent miscalculation have been systematically degraded. The institutions that could mitigate these risks possess the capability to do so. Will they act first—or wait for the next crisis to demonstrate why they should have?
cafebedouin.org 