Misreading the Enemy: A Recipe for Escalation in the Middle East

The recent missile strikes by Iran on US troops in Jordan have left many in Washington scratching their heads. The Trump administration’s failure to understand Tehran’s priorities and motivations has been a persistent issue throughout this conflict, with each side misreading the other’s intentions at almost every turn.

The complexity of this war cannot be overstated. Multiple players are vying for influence and power in the region, creating a volatile landscape. The US believes it has secured a temporary reprieve from Iranian aggression, but Tehran sees the situation differently. For Iran, the regime’s very survival depends on its ability to endure any US response, no matter how severe.

This cat-and-mouse game between Washington and Tehran is not new. In fact, it has been a hallmark of this conflict since the outset. The Trump administration’s decision to order airstrikes against Iranian targets without fully understanding the consequences has led to a series of miscalculations on both sides.

The disconnect between the US and its allies in the region is striking. Saudi Arabia, for example, has launched joint strikes with the US against Iran-backed militias in Iraq, but Riyadh’s motivations are not entirely clear. Is this a genuine attempt to counter Iranian influence or simply a means to distract from domestic issues?

The recent attack on two gas vessels at Damietta, Egypt, highlights the increasingly fluid nature of the conflict. While no group has claimed responsibility for the attack, it raises fears that Iran is expanding its list of targets.

At the heart of this chaos lies the US’s own understanding – or lack thereof – of its goals and objectives in the region. Trump himself appears to be torn between backing military action and pursuing peace talks. This vacillation sends conflicting signals to Tehran and other players in the conflict, making progress difficult to achieve.

The fact that the US and Iran have fundamentally different interpretations of their obligations under the memorandum of understanding signed last month adds to the confusion. The agreement was always a fragile compromise, but its collapse highlights the deep-seated mistrust between the two sides.

As tensions continue to escalate, it is worth examining the larger patterns at play in this conflict. The US has long believed that military pressure can force Iran to abandon its objectives, but this approach has been tried before – and failed. Vali Nasr’s observation that “America’s calculation is that escalation would lead to surrender. Iran’s calculation is that escalation would lead to deterrence” speaks volumes about the complexities of this war.

What if escalation doesn’t work? This is a question that neither side seems able or willing to answer, but it is crucial. The US cannot begin to understand its enemy if it has yet to settle on its own aims – or how to achieve them.

The future path of this conflict is far from certain. One thing is clear, however: the current trajectory is unsustainable. As Danny Citrinowicz noted, “escalation is a means to an end, but we don’t know what the end is.” It’s time for both sides to take a step back and reassess their goals – before it’s too late.

Ultimately, this conflict will not be resolved through a single military victory or diplomatic breakthrough. A fundamental shift in understanding between Washington and Tehran is required, and that may prove to be the most difficult hurdle of all.