SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
benjamin netanyahu
Entrapment and Self-Perpetuating Conflict Escalation in the Iran War
As the US and Iran struggle to find a way out of their war, they are being hampered by the entrapping and self-perpetuating nature of the conflict escalation process itself. Understanding this dynamic is a first step to preventing further escalation and engaging in conflict deescalation.
May 12, 2026
One of the main findings of those who study conflict resolution is that it is easier to climb up the conflict escalation ladder than to climb back down. Also, the deeply-entrenched enemy images on both sides, with Iran’s belief that the US is “the Great Satan,” and US references to Iran belonging to the “Axis of Evil,” confirm that a long history of conflict and grievances make the conflict harder to resolve.
The most significant concern in recent years has been Iran’s uranium enrichment and fear that it could be used to make nuclear bombs, a major source of angst for both the US and Israel—as presumably are Israel’s 90 or so undeclared nuclear weapons for Iran. Since the need for security and safety is one of the most fundamental issues at the heart of many conflicts, this is a classic case of the “security dilemma,” where a state’s actions to increase its security cause reactions from other parties that lead to a decrease in its security. Indeed, Iran’s nuclear enrichment led to the first iteration of this armed conflict, where in response, on June 22, the US and Israel launched a surprise airstrike on three Iranian nuclear facilities.
Of course, US President Donald Trump’s annulment (reportedly encouraged by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu) of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (painstakingly negotiated over a 20-month period with the P5+1 and European Union)—even though Iran was abiding by the agreement (as certified by the International Atomic Energy Agency)—surely undermines Iran’s trust in any agreement that it may now reach with the US.
The apparent trigger for the current hostilities was a visit by Netanyahu to Washington on February 11, where Trump and his inner circle met with Netanyahu, the director of Mossad, and Israeli military staff, in a highly unusual classified meeting in the Situation Room, in which Netanyahu made an hours-long, hard-sell pitch “suggesting that Iran was ripe for regime change and expressing the belief that a joint US-Israeli mission could finally bring an end to the Islamic Republic.” He apparently argued that this could be accomplished in three to four days. Trump (who according to an article in The Atlantic has actually supported a hard-line approach against Iran since 1980) ended the meeting by saying, “It sounds good to me.”
Although various pundits, as well as the parties themselves, are arguing that one side or the other is “winning,” in fact, both are losing—and stand to lose even more (as does the rest of the world) if they cannot find an off-ramp.
In subsequent discussions about whether to go to war, Trump’s inner circle engaged in “groupthink” by not expressing their concerns openly and mainly acquiescing to Trump’s judgment. Groupthink occurs where there is pressure to reach a consensus without critical evaluation, resulting in irrational or dysfunctional decision-making. In decisions about whether to initiate war, it typically “includes an illusion of invulnerability; an unquestioned belief in the group’s inherent morality; collective efforts to discount warnings; stereotyped views of the enemy as evil; self-censorship of deviations from the group beliefs; a shared illusion of unanimity; suppression of dissent; and the emergence of self-appointed mind guards who screen the group from dissent.”
Just over two weeks later, in Operation Epic Fury, Israeli military strikes, informed by US intelligence, assassinated a number of senior Iranian officials, including the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei—in a major breach of the international norm against the assassination of leaders. Moreover, the attacks were launched unexpectedly in the midst of an ongoing negotiation process between the US and Iran on its nuclear program, again undermining Iran’s trust in negotiations with the US. The US and Israel also targeted other military and government sites, with Iran, in turn, responding with missile and drone strikes on Israel, US bases, and US-allied Arab countries and closure of the Strait of Hormuz, disrupting global trade.
Once the threshold to armed conflict has been crossed, parties typically become caught in a rapidly-spiraling vortex of aggressive interactions, which ensure that the conflict becomes worse and worse. As each inflicts increasing damage on the other, anger and a desire for revenge grow exponentially and each sees the other’s actions as provocation that must be responded to, typically with greater intensity than the action it follows, causing the conflict to grow in size and importance.
As each experiences losses or injury at the hands of the other, the desire to punish the other and to right the wrong that has been done increases. Conflicts then begin to operate in a “retaliatory spiral,” as both now have truly hostile intentions toward one another, further poisoning the relationship, and making a peace process ever more difficult. Reduced communication also makes reality testing more dubious and allows distorted images of the other side to grow.
Threats and ultimatums grow increasingly more alarming as both attempt to use “leverage” to influence the other. Trump, for example, threatened that Iran would be “blown off the face of the Earth,” “blasted into oblivion,” and “bombed back to the Stone Ages!!!” In early March, Ali Larijani, the head of the Iranian National Security Council, posted on X: “Be careful not to get eliminated yourself.” The next day, he, too, was assassinated.
What those making such threats fail to appreciate is that parties do not always respond to leverage as hoped. The use of heavy-handed leverage, especially threats and punitive measures, frequently backfires. All too often, parties react against these attempts to influence their behavior and refuse to comply—sometimes even at great cost to themselves. “Reactance” is a well-studied phenomenon that typically occurs when the party trying to achieve influence does not fully take into account all of the factors that affect the motivation of those they are trying to influence. In such cases, the blunt use of leverage is seen by the party for what it is—an attempt to “manipulate” it to act in a certain manner against its will or interests. In some cases, preserving one’s freedom of choice and control over a situation and not being seen by one’s constituents to cave to external pressure may be more important than avoiding punitive sanctions—even when they are severe. In such situations, leverage not only fails to bring about the desired result, but may even cause the party to become more entrenched in its resistance.
Reactance tends to be strongest in relation to punitive measures (“sticks”) but can also occur in relation to positive incentives (“carrots”), especially when they are perceived to be “bribes,” which erode an actor’s freedom of choice. Indeed, the creative use of incentives that are tailored to the parties’ interests will be much more likely to influence the other party than the blunt or simplistic use of leverage which may stir up resistance.
When previously defined limits to a conflict, termed “saliences,” are crossed, it tends to redefine the rules of the conflict. The US and Israeli action in breaking the taboo of assassinating leaders, and Iran’s decision to block the Strait of Hormuz—for the first time ever—represent two such saliences which caused an increased sense of outrage and injustice and more extreme retaliatory behavior in response. In frustration at the blockage in the Strait of Hormuz, Trump wrote on his social media account on Easter morning: “Open the F***in’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell—JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah.” A couple of days later, he warned: “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again.”
At this point, the international community became concerned about what further saliences Trump might cross (e.g., committing war crimes or using a nuclear weapon) and insisted on the parties agreeing to a two-week ceasefire, which had been proposed by Pakistan. Signed on April 8, the ceasefire did calm the situation significantly, as they often do (if not egregiously violated).
Soon after, when face-to-face marathon talks were held in Pakistan (which I’ve written about elsewhere), but no agreement was reached, Trump imposed his own blockade against Iranian ports—another first. Since then, although there have been no further face-to-face negotiations, the Pakistani mediators have passed papers back and forth between the parties, outlining their latest positions. One major factor that has slowed the process is the pairing of offers with threats, since the reactance it has engendered inclines the parties to reject the other’s offers.
Although various pundits, as well as the parties themselves, are arguing that one side or the other is “winning,” in fact, both are losing—and stand to lose even more (as does the rest of the world) if they cannot find an off-ramp.
Iran’s blockage of commercial ships carrying oil, gas, and fertilizer has been very costly for the US domestically, not only at the gas pump, but in terms of an economic downturn, inflation, and projections that the war will ultimately cost $1 trillion. Iran has also caused significant damage to US military bases in the Middle East (only recently reported) and a serious depletion of US military stockpiles. Moreover, US standing in the world has suffered considerably. Finally, for Trump, his ratings have fallen and there is concern that his party could lose in the midterms.
Iran has suffered not only the obliteration of its senior leadership, but also severe damage to its infrastructure; considerable civilian and military mortality; and loss of significant military assets, such as its navy, missiles, military bases, etc. The International Monetary Fund has projected Iran's economy will shrink by over 6% n 2026, with inflation running at almost 70%. It will take years for Iran’s reconstruction.
The rest of the world has and will also suffer greatly. For example, The World Food Programme has predicted that roughly 45 million more people could be pushed into acute hunger this year, and the World Central Kitchen has warned that fertilizer shortages could lead to a multiyear famine.
To work toward a peace agreement, both the US and Iran will need to recommit to and extend their ceasefire to give themselves sufficient time to engage in a well-planned third-party mediation process. Such a process would include adequate time to create an agenda of issues acceptable to both; exploration of the interests of each party in relation to each agenda item; discussion of creative problem-solving options that might meet their respective interests; and an innovative integration of proposed options into a more comprehensive agreement, acceptable to both.
Although it’s advisable for the Pakistani mediators, who have been committed and involved throughout, to continue in this role, it might be best to choose a venue such as Geneva rather than Islamabad that would allow both delegations to feel safe and have sufficient time for the process to unfold. Finally, technical experts, such as senior staff from the International Atomic Energy Agency, should be included to ensure understanding of the technical issues with regard to uranium enrichment and to propose new ideas.
To arrive at such an agreement, the parties will also need to reduce the number of tit-for-tat attacks on one another; lower their threats and hostile rhetoric; and do their homework to consider what inducements they could offer to one another.
Of course, another danger that will need to be anticipated is the possibility that either Netanyahu, who has recently said that “it’s not over”—or hardline factions in the US or in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—could act as “spoilers.”
Obviously, the fundamental issue is the need for a better understanding and institutionalization of the knowledge and practice of conflict prevention and resolution, so that such incredibly destructive and senseless wars can be prevented and disputes of the future more sensibly settled by constructive rather than destructive means.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump's Iran War: Anatomy of a Debacle
President Donald Trump’s persistent boasts about tactical victories against Iran’ s military ignore the fundamental strategic fact that Trump has lost the Iran war.
Apr 21, 2026
When he declared war on Iran in violation of international law and the US Constitution, President Donald Trump announced several objectives. He claims to have won the war, but Iran is emerging as the long-term victor.
Let’s count the ways.
“Regime Change”
No one doubted the capacity of the US armed forces to decimate Iran’s far inferior military force. But to what end?
Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu convinced Trump that launching the attack would prompt a popular uprising that would lead to the overthrow of Iran’s theocracy. Listening to Netanyahu’s assertion, CIA Director John Ratcliffe called it “farcical.” Secretary of State and National Security Adviser Marco Rubio translated that word into language Trump would understand, “In other words, it’s bullshit.”
Trump’s bluster isn’t working with Iranian leaders. His threats to commit war crimes dominate news cycles, but they merely reveal to Iran Trump’s desperation to extricate himself from the mess he created.
Trump chose to believe Netanyahu. Announcing the US-Israeli assault, Trump told Iranians that this was their opportunity to reclaim their country. To win the war on Trump’s terms, the Iranian theocracy needed only to survive.
The attack killed the Supreme Leader of Iran and top members of the government. But immediately, the serpent grew another head—the Supreme Leader’s son, Mojtaba Khamenei, who had lost his wife and teenage son in the bombing. The new leader is known for deep, long-standing ties to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) security establishment. His appointment signaled a transition to a more heavily militarized, hard-line, and anti-Western regime.
Trump calls this “regime change.” By his definition, Admiral Karl Dönitz succeeding Adolf Hitler as head of the German state near the end of World War II constituted regime change too.
The Iran theocracy survived in an even more militant form.
Score: Iran 1, Trump 0
“Contain Iran”
Trump boasted that the war would restrain Iran’s ability to project power:
“We are systematically dismantling the regime’s ability to threaten America or project power outside of their borders,” he said.
Trump then described the destruction of Iran’s navy, air force, missile facilities, and defense industrial base. Those were tactical successes, but the war itself has been a strategic failure.
Iran’s response included attacks on neighboring countries. Even more troubling, it discovered and deployed a powerful new weapon: blocking the Strait of Hormuz. Notwithstanding its decimated navy, Iran now has a choke hold on the global economy.
Netanyahu had assured Trump that the regime would be so weakened from the US-Israeli assault that it would be unable to block the waterway through which one-fifth of the world’s oil flowed. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine flagged the enormous difficulty of securing the strait and the risks of Iran blocking it. But Trump dismissed that possibility on the assumption that the regime would capitulate before that could happen.
With the price of oil skyrocketing, Trump has created a new problem for the entire world and powerful leverage for Iran.
Score: Iran 2, Trump 0
“No Nuclear Weapons”
In his June 2025 attack on Iran, Trump claimed to have “obliterated” its nuclear facilities. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth went further, saying that not only were the facilities obliterated, but so too were Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Subsequently, Trump took repeated victory laps over the mission:
- “It knocked out their entire potential nuclear capacity.” (July 16)
- “It’s been obliterated.” (July 31)
- “We obliterated… the future nuclear capability of Iran.” (August 18)
- “But I also obliterated Iran’s nuclear hopes, by totally annihilating their enriched uranium.” (September 20)
- “Well, they don’t have a nuclear program. It was obliterated.” (October 13)
- “…completely obliterated Iran’s nuclear capability.” (November 11)
- “It was called Iran and its nuclear capability, and we obliterated that very quickly and strongly and powerfully.” (November 19)
- “We obliterated their nuclear capability.” (December 11)
- “We knocked out the Iran nuclear threat, and it was obliterated.” (January 8)
- “…obliterated Iran’s nuclear enrichment capability.” (January 20)
- “…achieving total obliteration of the Iran nuclear potential capability—totally obliterated.” (February 13)
In defending the launch of the war on February 28, 2026, Trump acknowledged that Iran’s nuclear program had not been obliterated after all. Rather, the country was now “right at the doorstep” of having a nuclear bomb. Trump has no strategy for solving that problem either.
Trump’s tactics—bombing—won’t work. Knowledgeable experts believe that a key Iranian nuclear facility is Pickaxe Mountain, where some of its uranium may be stored. That facility is so far below the ground that even America’s 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs can’t reach its inner chamber.
Trump talks about “going in” and taking the nuclear material out. But a ground operation to retrieve the material or destroy the facility would entail tremendous risk to those attempting it while providing, at best, an uncertain outcome.
The threat of a nuclear Iran remains.
Score: Iran 3, Trump 0
False Declarations of Victory That Backfire
Trump’s bluster isn’t working with Iranian leaders. His threats to commit war crimes dominate news cycles, but they merely reveal to Iran Trump’s desperation to extricate himself from the mess he created. As a negotiating strategy, it’s counterproductive.
Trump’s persistent boasts about tactical victories against Iran’ s military ignore the fundamental strategic fact that Trump has lost the Iran war. If a deal emerges from discussions between Iran’s experienced negotiators and Trump’s collection of amateurs, America and the world will pay a big price for a long time.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Amnesty Calls for Resistance to 'Predatory World Order' Pushed by Trump, Netanyahu in Annual Rights Report
"We must imagine a transformed and transformative human rights vision for the world that we are becoming, not merely defend human rights in terms of the world we once were."
Apr 21, 2026
Opening Amnesty International's annual report on human rights around the globe on Tuesday, the group's secretary general named the leaders of two powerful countries as being at the forefront of a push for a "predatory alternative world order."
While the US and Israel are viewed as two of the world's leading democracies, said longtime human rights advocate Agnes Callamard, President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have spent the past year promoting "a global environment where primitive ferocity" is flourishing.
"Throughout 2025, voracious predators stalked through our global commons, hulking hunters plundering unjust trophies," wrote Callamard in the preface to the report, "The State of World's Human Rights."
"Political leaders like Trump, [Russian President Vladimir] Putin, and Netanyahu, among many others, carried out their conquests for economic and political domination through destruction, suppression, and violence on a massive scale," she added.
The report was published nearly two months after the US and Israel began attacking Iran in an unprovoked war—violating international law, including the United Nations Charter, according to legal experts. A temporary ceasefire deal was struck nearly two weeks ago, and Trump said Tuesday that he is unwilling to extend the truce and expects "to be bombing" Iran again soon if a permanent deal isn't reached.
More than 3,300 people have been killed in Iran since the US and Israel began the war, while the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have also killed at least 2,294 people in Lebanon as it wages what it says are attacks on the Iran-aligned group Hezbollah—an assault that has displaced about 1.2 million people, representing more than 20% of Lebanon's population, and included attacks on schools, healthcare facilities, and journalists.
Israeli officials have said they are using Gaza as a "model" for the IDF's assault on Lebanon. Israel's US-backed war on Gaza began in October 2023 in retaliation for a Hamas-led attack, and has killed more that 72,000 Palestinians, including at least 777 people since a ceasefire was agreed to in October 2025. Leading human rights groups including Amnesty as well as Holocaust scholars have said the war on Gaza is a genocide, and South Africa has filed a genocide case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The International Criminal Court (ICC) issued a warrant for Netanyahu's arrest, accusing him of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.
In addition to waging war on Iran, in the past year the Trump administration has invaded Venezuela and abducted President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, accusing them of drug trafficking; bombed more than 50 boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean, killing at least 180 people in an operation officials have also claimed is aimed at stopping the drug trade; and imposed an oil blockade on Cuba while threatening military intervention there.
Meanwhile, the White House has slashed foreign aid spending, threatening millions of lives worldwide, as well as investments in domestic social programs, as it's pushed to further increase the United States' astronomical military budget.
"The predatory world order discards racial and gender justice, mocks women’s rights, declares civil society a common enemy, and rejects international solidarity," wrote Callamard. "It directs an unprecedented hike in military investments, enables unlawful arms transfers, and imposes sweeping cuts to international aid budget, risking millions of avoidable death and decimating thousands of organizations working for human rights, sexual and reproductive rights, or press freedom."
Callamard warned that far too many world leaders—confronted with superpowers that "recklessly poured" accelerants over "dry kindling" and took "sharp U-turns... away from the international order that had been imagined out of the ashes of the Holocaust and the utter destruction of world wars"—either appeased Trump and Netanyahu over the past year, attempted to imitate their authoritarian tendencies, or "ducked for cover under their shadow."
She noted that a "handful chose to stand up to them," such as Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, who refused to allow the US to use its airspace and military bases for the Iran war, and countries that joined South Africa's genocide case at the ICJ.
But overall, Callamard wrote, "one firebreak after another was breached: through complicity in, or silence about, the commissions of genocide and crimes against humanity; and through imposition of crippling sanctions against those working to deliver justice. That’s how 2025 will be remembered: for its bullies and predators; for the pouring of the politics of appeasement onto burning betrayals of international obligations; for self-defeatism; for states playing with a fire that threatens now to burn us all and scorch the future too, for generations to come."
Callamard emphasized that around the world in 2025, countries showed that "predatory" leaders can still be held accountable and that "reports of the death of the international rule-based order are greatly exaggerated":
Rodrigo Duterte, former president of the Philippines, was handed over to the ICC under a warrant for the crime against humanity of murder. In the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, 156 states voted for negotiations on an international instrument on autonomous weapons systems. In July, the EU extended the scope of goods covered by its pioneering Anti-Torture Regulation. Significant progress was made in 2025 towards a binding UN tax convention. At COP30, civil society and trade union pressure helped adoption of a Just Transition Mechanism for the protection of workers and communities as countries shift to clean energy and a climate-resilient future. The International Court of Justice and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued advisory opinions affirming state human rights obligations to respond to climate damage. Colombia and the Netherlands agreed to co-host the First International Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels in April 2026. Countrywide strikes and actions by dockworkers mounted in France, Greece, Italy, Morocco, Spain, and Sweden disrupted arms shipment routes to Israel. The governments of Belgium, Bolivia, Canada, Colombia, Cuba, Honduras, Malaysia, Namibia, Slovenia, South Africa, and Spain committed in 2025 to modify or halt arms trade with Israel. Women gained expanded abortion rights in Denmark, the Faroe Islands, Norway, Luxembourg, and Malawi. In Nepal, a youth-led uprising against corruption toppled the government.
Those victories, suggested Callamard, don't change the fact that the world is now facing a "challenging moment, threatening to destroy all that was built up over the last 80 years."
"Today 'still we rise' means focusing on what must be defended as a matter of priority and at all costs, not only for the sake of our human rights but those of future generations too," said Callamard. "In our resistance, we must also clearly identify what must be disrupted as a matter of absolute priority, among the tsunami of laws, policies, and practices unleashed by predatory state and nonstate actors."
"We must imagine a transformed and transformative human rights vision for the world that we are becoming, not merely defend human rights in terms of the world we once were," she wrote. "Together, we must then lead that transformation into existence, with all our creativity, determination, and resilience."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular