ISRAEL & AMERICA V. IRAN: SCENARIOS

1. The War That Did Not End In A Week

The starting assumption in Western commentary was simple. Israel and the United States would strike Iran decapitating its leadership and taking out its military facilities. In the midst of such chaos the Iranian people would rise up against the system and some form of government friendly to the United States would follow. 

Instead the opposite appears to have happened.The regime continues to function, Iranian forces focusing on the destruction of Israeli and American bases throughout the region and are knocking out ISR facilities. 

The expected rapid regime collapse did not occur and instead energy prices are on their way to doubling and in place of a short war there is now the expectation that the war could go on for many months if not years.

Historically this outcome should not surprise us. Precision strikes rarely end wars. They often trigger the opposite reaction - nationalism and resistance.

This is what some military theorists describe as the “smart bomb trap”: technological superiority encourages leaders to believe wars can be won quickly from the air.

The reality is usually escalation.

• Smart bomb trap – the belief that precision technology allows wars to be won quickly without large scale escalation or occupation.

Sources

Robert Pape – University of Chicago
https://political-science.uchicago.edu

---

2. The Oil Market – The Real Time War Indicator

Take and interpret official statistics to penetrate the fog of war. Financial markets often reveal what official statements conceal. In the 1991 Gulf War, oil prices collapsed when the bombing began because traders expected a rapid victory. In the 2003 Iraq invasion, oil prices also fell once the attack started.The market believed both wars would be short. But today the opposite is happening. Oil prices are rising sharply, traders are pricing in disruption rather than resolution.

The most obvious reason is the Strait of Hormuz. Around 20 percent of global oil supply passes through this narrow channel between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula. Closing it does not require a full naval blockade, it can be done by a pickup truck or two camels carrying heavy artillery on the back. Certainly, drone attacks on tankers, mines or small boat attacks, insurers withdrawing coverage, shipping companies refusing to enter the area... It is easily done and there is little that America or Israel can do to stop this and bear in mind that this would stop the flow of oil and LNG down the Persian Gulf, but equally it would stop the flow of vital imports up to the gulf states themselves. 

The Nature of Gulf Kingdoms 

Remember these gulf states are figments of the Western imagination, temporary, recently created, tiny "monarchies" where a local chief with Western backing called himself King and his fort became a palace. 

They were created on the littoral fringe of a vast and timeless ever-churning desert. They are wholy artificial places where you can go make huge amounts of money, pay no taxes and live in complete security (you thought), but they're also places that have no real independent existence at all, they rely entirely on the outside world, oil and the dollar. They produce nothing except oil and fresh water from desalination plants, for everything else they must import. 

Their purpose is to protect the extraction of oil and its delivery down the sea lanes to global markets. Neither the kingdoms nor the families running them were expected or built to last very long. 

The deal was oil contracts priced in dollars in exchange for American protection. The income is invested back into American treasuries which allows America to continue its debt-based economic existence. 

The kings surely cannot be surprised that if America uses its bases to attack Iran, that Iran should in return attempt to obliterate those bases. 

• Strategic chokepoint – a narrow geographic passage controlling critical trade or military movement.

Sources

US Energy Information Administration
https://www.eia.gov

---

3. The Economic Domino Effect

Energy shocks historically trigger economic crises. Oil flows through Hormuz are disrupted, resulting in global oil prices surging, energy importers face rising inflation, central banks are likely to put interest rate cuts on hold, economies seize up. 

The result is likely to be stagflation. Europe is particularly vulnerable because already Russian gas supplies have been cut off, Germany has closed nuclear power plants against the backdrop of high energy import dependency. 

A prolonged oil shock therefore risks pushing the global economy toward recession and this threat is likely to be decisive in deciding how this conflict will end.

• Stagflation – a situation where inflation rises while economic growth slows and unemployment increases.

Sources

OECD – Energy price shocks
https://www.oecd.org

---

4. Who Is Actually Driving The War

One of the most important considerations is political control, who is calling the shots, who is in the driving seat.

The assumption in markets is that President Trump will eventually pull back, as Trump famously always chickens out (TACO). 

However an objective analysis suggests something different. The war may not be driven primarily from Washington - the driving force seems to be Israel and specifically, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose strategic ambition for the last thirty years has been to remove Iran as a regional peer competitor in West Asia and to pursue his apocalyptic vision of a greater Israel.

If that assessment is correct, then you cannot count on the usual TACO expectation that “Washington will de escalate”. 

• Regional hegemony – the dominance of one state over others within a particular geographic region.

Sources

Council on Foreign Relations
https://www.cfr.org

---

5. Why Iran Cannot Easily Back Down

Iran faces its own strategic dilemma. Iran has faced pressure from America and Israel since the 1979 revolution and the 444-day hostage crisis and more painfully in the past year the country has experienced repeated strikes on its territory.

If it fails to respond forcefully, its credibility and deterrence threat collapses, making further attacks become more likely. It is a mystery to most as to why the Iranian religious leadership could not see that its continued in existence depended on developing a nuclear deterrence. 

Resistance tactics can continue for a long time even against technologically superior opponents.

• Asymmetric warfare – a strategy where weaker actors use unconventional methods to counter stronger militaries.

Sources

RAND Corporation – Asymmetric conflict studies
https://www.rand.org

---

6. The Escalation Ladder

Military planners often think about conflict using the concept of an escalation ladder.

The steps typically look like this.

1. sanctions and economic pressure
2. proxy conflicts
3. targeted air strikes
4. regional war
5. ground invasion
6. tactical nuclear weapons
7. strategic new clear exchange

Each step occurs when the previous one fails to achieve decisive results. The danger lies not in the first step but in the cumulative movement upwards. Already, this conflict has moved beyond the early stages

• Escalation ladder - a model describing how conflicts intensify through successive stages of military force.

Sources

Herman Kahn – On Escalation
https://www.rand.org

---

7. The risk of this conflict going new clear 

It's true that most people find new clear war unimaginable, but now we see the subject entering the conversation for one reason: frustration with failed strategies.

After all, consider that if leadership decapitation fails, regime change does not occur, the war becomes prolonged, global economic damage intensifies, a global recession looms, then American leaders may concede to Israel a decisive solution.

From history we know that two actions have produced rapid regime collapse: large scale ground invasion and or an overwhelming destructive shock. We think of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

• Tail risk - a low probability event that carries extremely large consequences.

Sources

SIPRI – Nuclear weapons reports
https://sipri.org

---

8. The Wider Systemic Risk

The final argument in the discussion comes from economist Alastair Macleod. His focus is not just the battlefield, but the global financial system.

The West enters this crisis with several structural weaknesses - very high government debt, fragile financial markets, lingering inflation pressures and energy vulnerability. 

A prolonged war combined with an oil shock could easily trigger broader instability.

Possible outcomes as we have seen include: recession, more financial market stress, currency instability and political upheaval if not regime change in Western (sic) countries. 

So in this view, the conflict may produce systemic consequences far beyond the Middle East.

• Systemic crisis – a breakdown affecting the entire political or financial system rather than a single sector.

Sources

Bank for International Settlements
https://www.bis.org

---

9. The Possible Futures

Putting the arguments together we can see several possible paths.

Scenario one – quick de escalation

• oil prices fall
• markets rally strongly
• conflict stabilises.

Scenario two – prolonged regional war

• oil shock spreads globally
• recession emerges.

Scenario three – wider escalation

• direct confrontation between larger powers
• severe economic disruption.

Scenario four – extreme escalation

• new clear weapons used as a decisive shock.

Scenario five – systemic crisis

• financial and political instability within Western economies themselves.

None of these outcomes is certain.

But the combination of geopolitical escalation, energy disruption and financial fragility means the risks now extend far beyond the original battlefield.

• Geopolitical systemic shift – a transformation in the global balance of power triggered by major conflict or economic upheaval.

Sources

International Crisis Group
https://www.crisisgroup.org

---

(Some words have been re-spelt to conform with Google's community guidelines.) 

Read More

THE TRAGEDY OF BLOC POLITICS

7 March 2026

Glenn Diesen explains the security dilemma in Europe:

• He discusses NATO expansion after the Cold War

• He argues that the Ukraine war reflects a structural conflict in the European security system

• He contrasts Western bloc politics with emerging multipolar institutions

THE TRAGEDY OF BLOC POLITICS

Overview

1. Europe’s Security Crisis

The war in Ukraine is often presented as a sudden geopolitical rupture. Professor Glenn Diesen argues that it is better understood as the collapse of the post Cold War security architecture in Europe.

Instead of building a cooperative system after 1989, Europe gradually returned to bloc politics. When security is organised around opposing alliances - one camp strengthening itself against another - tensions accumulate until they eventually explode into open conflict.

---

2. The Security Dilemma

International politics operates without a central authority capable of guaranteeing security. In this environment every state must protect itself.

The difficulty is that defensive actions are often interpreted as threats. When one country strengthens its military or expands alliances, neighbouring states respond in kind. This dynamic is known as the security dilemma.

Over time the result can be arms races, alliance rivalry, and deepening mistrust.

---

3. The Post Cold War Choice

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Europe faced a strategic decision.

One path would have been inclusive security - creating a cooperative system that included Russia in the European order. The other path was to maintain and expand the Western alliance structure built during the Cold War.

In practice the second option prevailed. NATO expanded eastward, and the logic of bloc politics gradually re emerged.

---

4. Ukraine As The Fault Line

Countries located between NATO and Russia became the most vulnerable parts of this new geopolitical landscape.

Ukraine in particular was divided between competing geopolitical orientations. Some political forces sought integration with Western institutions, while others favoured maintaining close relations with Russia.

In such circumstances, internal political divisions can easily become international crises. Ukraine eventually became the central battleground in this wider strategic contest.

---

5. A Lesson For The Future

Diesen’s central argument is simple. Systems built around rival blocs tend to generate instability.

When states organise themselves into opposing camps, every attempt by one side to increase its security inevitably makes the other side feel less secure.

A more stable international order requires cooperation, economic interdependence, and diplomatic frameworks that reduce rivalry rather than intensify it. Europe’s experience offers a warning to other regions not to fall into the same trap of bloc politics.

---

8. 
   

DETAIL

1. The Tragedy Of Bloc Politics

Insights from Professor Glenn Diesen on geopolitics and international security

The war in Ukraine and the wider security crisis in Europe are often discussed as if they were sudden events or the result of personalities and politics in the moment. Professor Glenn Diesen argues that this interpretation misses the deeper structural problem. In his view, the conflict reflects the collapse of the post Cold War security architecture in Europe.

The key issue is the return of bloc politics. Instead of constructing an inclusive European security order after the Cold War, the continent drifted back into a system where states organised themselves into rival camps. When security is built in this way - one alliance against another - tensions tend to accumulate until they eventually erupt.

Understanding how Europe arrived at this point requires stepping back and looking at the deeper logic of international relations.

International anarchy the condition in which the global system has no overarching authority capable of guaranteeing the security of states.

Reference: Glenn Diesen, The Ukraine War and the Eurasian World Order (2024)

---

2. The Security Dilemma

One of the most fundamental ideas in international relations is the security dilemma. In a world without a global government, every state is responsible for its own protection. When one country strengthens its security - by expanding its military capabilities or joining alliances - neighbouring states often interpret this as a potential threat.

The result is a self reinforcing cycle. Defensive actions by one state are interpreted as offensive moves by another. Each side responds by strengthening its position further. Over time this can lead to arms races, alliance rivalries and growing suspicion.

Diesen argues that the most stable international systems are those based on the principle of indivisible security. Under this concept, countries recognise that their security is interconnected. Stability emerges when states pursue security with each other rather than against each other.

Security dilemma a situation in which measures taken by one state to increase its security inadvertently reduce the security of others, leading to escalating tensions.

Reference: John Herz, “Idealist Internationalism and the Security Dilemma”, World Politics (1950)

---

3. Early Attempts At Cooperative Security

Europe did once attempt to escape the logic of bloc politics. After the devastation of the Second World War, several initiatives were designed to make conflict between European states materially difficult.

The European Coal and Steel Community is perhaps the most famous example. By integrating the coal and steel industries of France and Germany - the very industries needed to wage war - the project created economic interdependence between former enemies.

Later, during the Cold War, the Helsinki Accords of 1975 established principles for dialogue between East and West. These agreements emphasised respect for sovereignty, recognition of mutual security concerns, and cooperation across ideological lines.

By the end of the Cold War many policymakers hoped that these principles would evolve into a pan European security system without dividing lines. Institutions such as the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe were intended to support this inclusive framework.

Indivisible security the principle that the security of one state cannot be achieved at the expense of another.

Reference: Helsinki Final Act, Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (1975)

---

4. The Post Cold War Choice

The collapse of the Soviet Union created a historic moment. European and American policymakers faced a strategic choice about how the new security order should be organised.

One option was inclusive security - a cooperative framework that would incorporate Russia into the broader European system. The other option was a hegemonic structure built around the continued expansion of Western alliances.

According to Diesen, the second path prevailed. Instead of dissolving Cold War structures, NATO expanded eastward across Central and Eastern Europe. From the Western perspective this expansion was presented as a voluntary process driven by the desires of new member states seeking protection.

From Moscow’s perspective, however, the expansion of a military alliance towards its borders revived the old logic of bloc competition. Critics in the 1990s, including the American diplomat George Kennan, warned that such expansion could provoke a new period of confrontation between Russia and the West.

Hegemony a system in which one dominant power exercises decisive influence over the international order.

Reference: George Kennan interview, The New York Times, 5 February 1997

---

5. Ukraine As A Geopolitical Fault Line

Countries located between Russia and NATO gradually became the most fragile parts of the emerging system. Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova found themselves positioned between competing geopolitical projects.

Within many of these states there were strong internal debates about the direction of foreign policy. Some political groups favoured integration with Western institutions such as NATO and the European Union, while others advocated closer economic and cultural ties with Russia.

Diesen suggests that such divisions created fertile ground for instability. When great powers compete over influence in strategically important borderlands, domestic political tensions can easily escalate into international crises.

Ukraine eventually became the central battleground in this wider contest over the future of European security.

Proxy conflict a conflict in which major powers support opposing sides in another country rather than confronting each other directly.

Reference: Glenn Diesen, Russia’s Geoeconomic Strategy for a Greater Eurasia (2017)

---

6. The Logic Of Hegemonic Order

Another element in Diesen’s analysis concerns the broader idea of hegemonic peace. After the Cold War the United States emerged as the world’s dominant power. Many policymakers believed that global stability could be maintained through American leadership supported by alliances and international institutions.

This model did deliver a period of relative stability in some regions. Yet critics argue that hegemonic systems contain inherent risks. When one power dominates the international system it may become tempted to extend its influence through military interventions, alliance expansion and ideological projects abroad.

Over time this can provoke resistance from other major powers seeking to restore balance. The result is a gradual erosion of legitimacy and the emergence of counter alliances.

Hegemonic peace the theory that global order is maintained when a single dominant power provides security and enforces rules within the international system.

Reference: Robert Gilpin, War and Change in World Politics (1981)

---

7. Alternative Approaches Emerging In Asia

Diesen contrasts Europe’s experience with developments in parts of Asia and the wider Global South. Several regional organisations have emerged that operate less like military alliances and more like flexible platforms for cooperation.

Institutions such as ASEAN, BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation place greater emphasis on strategic autonomy and diversified partnerships. Rather than forming rigid military blocs, these organisations encourage economic integration and diplomatic dialogue among states with very different political systems.

This model does not eliminate competition between states. However, it seeks to prevent competition from crystallising into opposing geopolitical camps that could eventually lead to conflict.

Strategic autonomy the ability of a state or region to pursue independent policies without being subordinated to the interests of a dominant power.

Reference: ASEAN Charter (2008); BRICS Summit Declarations

---

8. The Central Lesson

For Diesen the lesson of Europe’s security crisis is straightforward. Systems organised around rival blocs tend to produce structural instability. When states cluster into opposing camps, every attempt by one side to strengthen itself inevitably threatens the other.

Over time this dynamic can turn geopolitical competition into outright confrontation.

A more stable order, he suggests, requires inclusive security institutions, economic interdependence with diversified partners, and diplomatic frameworks that reduce rivalry rather than intensify it.

This argument does not imply that conflict can be eliminated entirely. International politics will always involve competition between states with different interests. The challenge is preventing that competition from hardening into permanent blocs.

---

9. A Warning For The Future

Europe once presented itself as a model of peace and integration. The current crisis suggests that this achievement may have been more fragile than many assumed.

If security is organised primarily through exclusion - one alliance against another - the logic of rivalry tends to reassert itself. The consequences may take decades to unfold, but eventually the structural pressures become difficult to contain.

For policymakers elsewhere, particularly in Asia, the European experience offers a clear warning. The real challenge is not simply managing relations between great powers. It is avoiding the deeper structural trap of bloc politics that can transform geopolitical competition into open conflict.

---

9. References

• The Rest Doesn't Care About The West's Block Mentality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsyNQqvGAc4

• NATO's War of Choice  The Sabotage of the Peace Negotiations

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnL4s-b6hxo

Read More