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
iran
The Dangers of a War Without an Off-Ramp
Strategic signals from Tehran and realist warnings in Washington align on a disturbing conclusion: The present conflict may lack a credible pathway toward termination.
Mar 13, 2026
The recent escalation of hostilities involving United States and Israeli strikes on Iranian territory has raised urgent questions about where the conflict is headed. As military actions unfold and rhetoric intensifies, a sober assessment of the strategic structure of the conflict becomes increasingly necessary. Wars often generate powerful narratives shaped by domestic politics, alliance commitments, and wartime psychology. Yet beneath these narratives lie strategic realities that ultimately determine whether a conflict moves toward escalation, stalemate, or settlement.
Two recent interviews conducted by Norwegian political scientist Glenn Diesen offer a revealing window into these realities. In separate conversations, Diesen spoke with professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and professor Seyed Mohammad Marandi of the University of Tehran. The two scholars speak from vastly different institutional and national contexts, yet their analyses converge on a troubling conclusion: The present conflict may lack a credible pathway toward termination.
From the perspective of realist international relations theory, Mearsheimer emphasizes a familiar strategic principle. Wars initiated without clearly defined political objectives often drift toward escalation and attrition. Military operations may achieve tactical success while simultaneously deepening the strategic trap in which policymakers find themselves. When leaders cannot articulate what political outcome would constitute victory—or how such an outcome might realistically be achieved—military escalation risks becoming an end in itself.
The dynamics described by Marandi from Tehran reinforce this concern from the opposite side of the conflict. His remarks suggest that Iranian policymakers increasingly interpret US actions not as limited or coercive strikes but as part of a broader effort to impose strategic defeat. When a state believes that external pressure is intended to undermine its economic survival or political system, the incentives for compromise diminish dramatically. Resistance and escalation become the rational response.
Wars rarely end well when they begin without a clear understanding of how they are supposed to end.
Under such conditions, both sides tend to view their own actions as defensive while interpreting the other side’s moves as steps toward existential pressure. This reciprocal perception forms what strategists sometimes describe as an escalation trap. Each escalation appears justified in the moment, yet each step simultaneously reduces the space for diplomatic resolution.
Recent commentary from Tehran reinforces these concerns about escalation dynamics. In a separate interview with Diesen, Marandi of the University of Tehran pointed to the strategic importance of Kharg Island, the hub through which the majority of Iran’s oil exports pass. Speculation in strategic circles about possible attempts to strike or seize the island illustrates how the conflict could quickly move beyond limited military operations toward attacks on critical economic infrastructure. Such a move, he suggested, would likely be interpreted in Tehran not as a tactical action but as an attempt to cripple the country’s economic lifeline, increasing the risk of wider regional retaliation and drawing additional states into the confrontation.
One particularly revealing example emerged in the discussion between Diesen and Marandi regarding the possibility—circulating in strategic commentary—of a US attempt to strike or seize Kharg Island. Located in the Persian Gulf, Kharg Island is the central hub for Iranian oil exports, reportedly handling roughly 80-90% of the country’s shipments. Because of its economic importance, targeting the island would represent a dramatic shift in the character of the conflict.
Military strikes against discrete installations can sometimes be framed as limited actions intended to degrade specific capabilities. Attacks on critical economic infrastructure are different. They signal an effort to impose systemic economic damage on the opposing state. From Tehran’s perspective, such an action would likely be interpreted not as a tactical move but as an attempt to cripple the Iranian economy itself.
Strategically, this kind of escalation rarely remains confined to its original target. Marandi noted that any attempt to seize or attack the island would likely require the use of airspace or facilities in neighboring Gulf states. That reality alone would expand the number of actors drawn directly into the conflict. Iran would almost certainly interpret such involvement as participation in the attack and respond accordingly.
The result could be a widening regional confrontation affecting maritime routes, energy infrastructure, and shipping lanes across the Persian Gulf. Given the centrality of the region to global oil markets, such developments would quickly carry worldwide economic consequences.
Yet even from a strictly military standpoint, Marandi argues that such escalation might prove strategically futile. Iran’s geographic proximity to the island and its coastal defense capabilities could complicate any attempt to seize or neutralize it. More broadly, attacks on economic lifelines rarely produce the decisive political outcomes their planners hope for. Instead, they tend to deepen the resolve of the targeted state while increasing the scale of retaliation.
This dynamic highlights a deeper structural problem in the current conflict: the absence of a clearly defined off-ramp. When wars begin without clear termination conditions, each new escalation step appears tactically rational while simultaneously making political settlement more difficult. Military actions generate retaliation; retaliation generates justification for further escalation; and over time the original political objectives become increasingly obscured.
History provides many examples of wars drifting into such patterns. Once conflict becomes self-sustaining, the political cost of de-escalation rises even as the strategic benefits of continued escalation diminish. Leaders fear appearing weak if they pursue negotiations, yet continuing the war often produces mounting risks without delivering a decisive outcome. These dynamics are precisely what realist analysts warn about when conflicts begin to expand without clearly defined political objectives or credible pathways toward de-escalation.
For the United States, these strategic concerns intersect with constitutional questions as well. Sustained hostilities raise fundamental issues regarding congressional authority over war powers and democratic accountability in decisions that may carry enormous human and geopolitical consequences. When a conflict expands without clear political objectives, the need for transparent debate about strategy and legal authority becomes all the more urgent.
The convergence between realist analysis in Washington and strategic signaling from Tehran therefore deserves careful attention. Despite their very different vantage points, both perspectives point toward the same underlying concern: The present conflict may be drifting toward a prolonged confrontation without clearly defined limits or exit mechanisms.
Recognizing that danger does not require accepting the strategic narratives of any particular side. It simply requires acknowledging a central lesson of international politics. Wars rarely end well when they begin without a clear understanding of how they are supposed to end.
If policymakers hope to avoid an open-ended escalation spiral, renewed emphasis on political strategy and diplomatic pathways will be essential. Without a credible off-ramp, even limited conflicts can evolve into prolonged confrontations whose costs far exceed their original causes.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Unlike Security Council, UN Experts Condemn US and Israel for Waging ‘Illegal War’ on Iran
“The US and Israel should stop waging and expanding wars, and considering themselves as above international legality.”
Mar 13, 2026
A dozen United Nations experts on Thursday denounced the United States and Israel for waging wars of aggression against Iran and Lebanon, a statement that contrasted sharply with a UN Security Council resolution adopted hours earlier condemning Iranian retaliation without mentioning the US-Israeli bombing campaign.
“The US and Israel should stop waging and expanding wars, and considering themselves as above international legality,” said the group of experts. The statement's signatories include Francesca Albanese, special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territory and a target of US sanctions; Balakrishnan Rajagopal, special rapporteur on adequate housing; and Michael Fakhri, special rapporteur on the right to food.
The experts decried US President Donald Trump's push for the Iranian government's "unconditional surrender" and regime change, warning that such demands could "lead to prolonged war and enormous human suffering."
“No violations of human rights in Iran or elsewhere provide any legal or moral justification for an unwarranted interference with the sovereignty of a UN member state and an illegal attack,” the experts said. "Any loss of life in an illegal war is a violation of the right to life."
UN experts denounce aggression on Iran & Lebanon, warn of devastating regional escalation: "U.S. and Israel should stop waging and expanding wars, and considering themselves as above international legality”.https://t.co/yYhNfFUMvN pic.twitter.com/8Qv4OSeVEr
— UN Special Procedures (@UN_SPExperts) March 12, 2026
The statement came as evidence of US-Israeli war crimes in Iran and Lebanon continued to mount and the humanitarian crisis sparked by the regional war intensified, with millions already displaced and around 2,000 killed—including many children.
On Wednesday, the UN Security Council adopted by a vote of 13-0 a resolution condemning "in the strongest terms the egregious attacks by the Islamic Republic of Iran against the territories of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Jordan," countries that host US military installations. Russia and China abstained from voting on the resolution, which did not condemn or mention the ongoing US-Israeli bombing.
Amir Saeid Iravani, Iran’s ambassador to the UN, told reporters at UN Headquarters in New York on Thursday that "yesterday was a shameful day for the Security Council."
"Those members, especially Western, who constantly assert their commitment to protecting civilians, especially children, proved that these claims are little more than empty rhetoric," said Iravani. "They were unwilling even to condemn—or express concern over—the heinous crimes committed by the United States and Israel against innocent people in Iran, including the massacre of 170 girl students at a school in Minab."
Keep ReadingShow Less
250+ Groups Have Single Message: 'Not One More Penny' for 'Foolish, Destructive' Iran War
"Every penny wasted on bombing children and families in Iran would be better spent on healthcare and affordable housing in America."
Mar 12, 2026
On the heels of Pentagon officials privately telling Congress that just the first six days of President Donald Trump and Israel's assault on Iran cost Americans more than $11.3 billion, over 250 groups on Thursday collectively told lawmakers on Capitol Hill to "vote against any additional funding for Trump's unconstitutional war on Iran, including the reported supplemental appropriations bill that could provide $50 billion or more."
"By launching a war against Iran, Trump has violated the Constitution, defied international law, flouted the will of the American people, and has put millions of lives across the region at risk," wrote the coalition, led by the ACLU, MoveOn, Public Citizen, and Win Without War. Other signatories include Common Cause, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, Indivisible, Jewish Voice for Peace, National Nurses United, Oxfam America, and the Service Employees International Union.
"President Trump's illegal war has already shown the costs war imposes—American service members killed and injured, thousands of civilians killed in fighting, skyrocketing oil prices, a conflict spiraling over a dozen countries in unexpected ways, and more," noted Christopher Anders, director of the ACLU's Technology and Democracy Division.
In addition to the joint operation against Iran, Israel is bombing Lebanon and has again cut off the Gaza Strip from humanitarian aid. Iran has retaliated by targeting Gulf states that host US military bases.
The coalition warned Congress that "a vote for President Trump's Pentagon supplemental funding package would be a vote to commit the US even further to this crisis, which has already killed seven US service members and nearly 2,000 people from across the region, and which endangers the lives of many more."
The letter stresses that the US Constitution empowers only Congress to declare war. Despite this, a short list of Democrats and nearly all Republicans in the GOP-controlled Senate and House of Representatives have refused to advance war powers resolutions that would end Trump's war of choice in Iran.
"Waging a war of choice that costs an estimated $1 billion a day not only fails to address the economic squeeze and healthcare crisis facing working Americans, it also diverts federal funding that could otherwise be utilized," the letter argues. Sara Haghdoosti, chief of program for MoveOn Civic Action, declared that "every penny wasted on bombing children and families in Iran would be better spent on healthcare and affordable housing in America."
The National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies, another signatory, has previously highlighted that the war's estimated daily price tag could cover the daily costs of federal nutrition assistance for more than 40 million Americans, as well as daily Medicaid costs for the roughly 16 million people expected to lose health coverage due to the 2025 GOP budget package.
The US Department of Defense has never passed an audit, and as the letter points out, "the Pentagon budget already now totals more than $1 trillion, after the extra $150 billion the agency received in the tax and budget reconciliation bill."
New: We joined 250+ national organizations urging Congress to reject any more funding for President Trump's reckless and illegal war on Iran. Congress must listen to the American people and invest our tax
s towards the urgent needs of our communities, not more disastrous war.
[image or embed]
— FCNL (@fcnl.bsky.social) March 12, 2026 at 4:00 PM
"The $50 billion that the administration reportedly seeks for a new Pentagon supplemental," the letter says, "would be enough to restore food assistance for 4 million Americans that was taken away in the tax and budget reconciliation bill, establish universal pre-K education, and pay for the annual construction of more than 100,000 units of housing, among other possible priorities."
"The choice before Congress is whether it will choose to prevent this unconstitutional war from dragging out and potentially escalating or enabling dangerous and deadly protracted conflict," the coalition concluded. "We urge you to refuse funding for this illegal war that Congress never authorized and a majority of the American people oppose."
According to Shayna Lewis, deputy director of Win Without War, "It's outrageous that Trump is even asking for more money to spend on bombs when his spiraling war is killing civilians abroad and driving up prices for everyone at home, all with no end in sight."
"Congress," Lewis said, "should tell Trump clearly: not one more penny for this foolish, destructive war."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular