Robert Pape, profesor politologije na univerzi v Chicagu, specializiran za varnostna vprašanja, ima prav: vojna proti Iranu je v skladu z eskalacijsko lestvico prešla na višjo raven, vendar ta eskalacijski preskok ni linearen, pač pa eksponenten. Vojaške eskalacije po določeni stopnji ni več mogoče kontrolirati, pač pa gre po svoji logiki. Vojna proti Iranu je iz logike disrupcije (transaportnih poti za energente in surovine) prešla v fazo sistemske destrukcije.

To v praksi pomeni, da se ne pogovarjamo več o tem, koliko tednov bo ostala zaprta Hormuška ožina, pač pa koliko let bo potrebnih, da se ponovno vzpostavijo porušene enrgetske kapacitete in energetska infrastruktura. Eno je zaustaviti promet z naftnimi in plinskimi tankerji, povsem nekaj drugega pa je uničiti plinska in naftna polja in rafinerije ter plinske in naftne terminale. Pri prvem se pogovarjamo o nekaj dnevih ali tednih, pri drugem pa o letih. O letih, ko na trgu sistemsko zmanjka denimo 10-20 % energije in ključnih surovin. Pogovarjamo se o dolgotrajni inflaciji in recesiji, pogovarjamo se o dolgotrajni stagflaciji.

Morda sta Izrael in ZDA bila pripravljena plačati ceno disrupcije, toda Iran je v svojem eksistenčnem boju z uničevanjem energetske infrastrukture postavil bistveno višjo ceno. Nima druge izbire, sicer ga čaka usoda Libije in Iraka. Problem je, da te eksponencialne eskalacije ni mogoče zaustaviti, saj bi v ta namen ZDA in Izrael morala priznati poraz. Tega pa ne želita ali si tega politično ne moreta privoščiti. Kar pomeni, da bo celoten svet plačal izjemno veliko ceno za ta nepremišjen in slabo pripravljen izraelsko-ameriški napad na Iran.

Očitno je, da se politiki tega ne zavedajo. Ne ameriški in ne evropski.

____________

The next phase will not just be more intense. It will be fundamentally different.

What is changing is not the level of violence. It is the nature of harm.

We are now approaching that threshold.

The Persistent Illusion of Controlled Escalation

Most observers still believe escalation is a matter of degree.

More strikes. More retaliation. More pressure.

This assumes the war is simply intensifying along a familiar path. It is not.

Escalation is not linear. It is structural – it crosses thresholds.

What appears as gradual escalation is often a transition between fundamentally different phases of conflict. Leaders believe they are calibrating force. In reality, they are moving the war across thresholds that change what strategies are available – and the level of costs they will pay.

Once those thresholds are crossed, the logic of the war changes with them.

The Escalation Trap in Deeper Focus

The escalation trap is not just that wars expand. It is that efforts to control the conflict create pressures that make major escalation across thresholds more likely.

We saw this in the opening of the Iran war.

A U.S.–Israeli leadership strike intended to produce a quick and decisive victory did not topple the regime. Instead, it triggered a response the attackers did not anticipate. Iran did not simply retaliate—it adapted, expanding the battlefield through horizontal escalation that raised costs across shipping, regional partners, and critical infrastructure.

Each move by the stronger side to “win” quickly created new incentives for the weaker side to widen and deepen the conflict.

The search for control produced … the loss of control.

The Coming Threshold: From Disruption to Damage

Not all escalation is the same.

Some escalation increases intensity. This is change of degree. Other escalation changes the nature of the war itself. This is change across thresholds that change the persistence and cumulative level of costs.

We are now shifting from disruption to damage.

Until now, much of the conflict has been defined by temporary disruption—shipping delays, insurance shocks, tanker avoidance, and limited strikes whose effects can quickly be reversed if violence stops. This creates the illusion that the war can be paused and unwound.

But that phase is ending.

The next phase—ground operations and likely reciprocal infrastructure attacks—will produce lasting harm that does not disappear when the shooting stops.

This is the threshold that matters.

What “Damage” Actually Means

The difference between disruption and damage is not abstract. It is physical, economic, and lasting.

In the current phase, Iran can disrupt oil markets by threatening shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. Tankers reroute. Insurance premiums spike. Flows slow. But these effects are reversible. Once risk declines, shipments resume within weeks.

Damage works differently. It removes physical capacity.

If oil infrastructure is directly attacked—export terminals, offshore loading platforms, refineries—the effects are fundamentally different. Facilities like Kharg Island, which handles the majority of Iran’s oil exports, are complex, integrated systems of pipelines, storage tanks, and loading terminals. They cannot be quickly replaced. Significant damage can take months or longer to repair, removing supply from global markets for prolonged periods.

Disruption delays flows. Damage removes them.

That difference is decisive. Short disruptions create price volatility. Sustained damage creates lasting economic shock—exactly the time horizon of months associated with recession-level effects that economists are discussing today.

This is how a regional war becomes an historic global economic crisis.

Why Iran Will Choose Damage

The United States and its partners have incentives to keep the conflict at the level of disruption. Temporary disruption preserves the option of restoring order without incurring the costs of rebuilding destroyed systems.

Iran faces a different calculus. For Tehran, the stakes are existential. Survival, not stability, is the objective.

When survival is at stake, the rational strategy is not calibrated restraint so as to retain capacity to benefit later. It is to impose costs on the opponent that are deep, prolonged, and difficult to reverse.

History shows this logic clearly.

During the Second Boer War, British forces advanced against Boer fighters who could not defeat them conventionally. In response, the Boers adopted a strategy that included destroying their own farms, infrastructure, and supply networks to deny resources to the advancing British. The British, in turn, escalated further—burning tens of thousands of farms and placing civilians into concentration camps in an effort to break resistance.

What began as a conventional conflict became a war of systemic destruction.

The logic chain: disruption -> temporary costs -> escalation -> persistent damage

In a different context, the same logic appeared during the 1991 Gulf War oil fires. As Iraqi forces retreated from Kuwait, they set fire to hundreds of oil wells. The act did not improve Iraq’s battlefield position. It imposed lasting economic and environmental damage, removing significant oil production for months and creating global economic effects. Iraq impacted a few percent of the world’s oil – the Iran war could damage 20%.

These actions may appear irrational. They are not.

When survival is at stake, imposing long-term costs becomes rational may be the best path available.

What to Watch Next

The next phase of this conflict will not be defined simply by more strikes.

It will be defined by whether operations shift toward destroying and controlling critical infrastructure.

That is where damage becomes systemic.

Watch for indicators:

• Sustained attacks on export terminals, refineries, and offshore platforms
• Efforts to physically control or deny access to key energy nodes
• Losses that cannot be restored within weeks, but require months or longer

These are the signals that the threshold has been crossed. And once crossed, the escalation trap deepens.

Vir: Robert Pape