The current crisis in the Middle East raises an important question: Is it possible to restore deterrence without escalating a conflict?
7 October and Iran’s drone and missile attack on Israel this weekend happened because deterrence failed. This is not just about Israeli deterrence. Iran had to have decided that the risk of an American response to either event was minimal, or that possible pain would be acceptable. Thus, both America and Israel need to restore deterrence. That’s dangerous, however. Restoring deterrence almost always implies escalation. Can it be managed? Are there alternatives?
Iranian missile found in the Dead Sea
Setting aside the specifics of Israel/Iran, let's consider some options in the abstract.
If Joe fails to deter Bob from hitting him, how does Joe restore deterrence?
The obvious answer is to hit back much harder, which effectively means escalation. I can't help but think of Ender Wiggin’s axiom in Ender's Game that the key was not just to win the present battle but to win the next one, meaning disproportionate violence. Not tit-for-tat but tit-for-massive aggression. Bob hits Joe, Joe breaks Bob’s legs in the hope that Bob won’t hit him again. The disproportionately is important: One can easily miscalculate and achieve something short of threatening “intolerable pain.” If one gets that wrong, all one has done is enrage one’s adversary. Escalation without deterrence.
Is there a way to nuance this? We live in the real world, after all, not a Science Fiction novel, and generally speaking, Sci-Fi novels are not a good source of wisdom. Besides, Ender tended to overreach and kill his opponents, even if unintentionally, and his solution in the end was the complete destruction of the enemy’s entire species. Xenocide.
Going after proxies is a commonly cited option, but that seems unlikely to do the job. The point of proxies is their expendability. There’s no reason to think Tehran cares about the wellbeing of its Iraqi proxy militias, for example. Interestingly, Biden calculated his response to Iran's killing of American servicemen on January 28 to thread the needle of trying to communicate resolve and capability (presumably to deter further aggression) while also communicating a desire to avoid escalation. So, rather than hit Iran hard, Biden hit some Iranian proxies, and only after more or less broadcasting precisely where and when. Perhaps this has convinced Iran to stop rocketing American bases, but I’d be surprised if it otherwise made much of an impression. Besides, not much was gained from rocketing American bases, so why not stop? Biden reportedly is pressuring Israel to do something comparable in response to Iran’s drone and missile attack.
The only real alternative I can think of is a demonstration. Joe does no harm to Bob, but demonstrates that he absolutely can. This is the “I know where your children go to school and here are photos I've taken of them” kind of threat. To work, the threat has to be to inflict intolerable pain. Also, the technical ability to do something might not suffice. No one doubts, for example, that the US could inflict intolerable pain upon Iran. The question, rather, is if Biden has the will to do it if Iran calls his bluff. Does he have the stomach for it? Or, is he crazy enough to gamble like that? The crazy part is important: it's good to cultivate as much uncertainty as one can about how one might react. I am convinced this is part of the logic of Israeli operations in Gaza: After having demonstrated time after time that Israel lacks the stomach to go into Gaza on a large scale, wreak havoc, and suffer casualties, Israel needed to prove that it possesses the will, and not just the military capability.
Iran has gambled that Biden does not have it in him. That is a safe bet. This is an election year, and none of Biden's predecessors beginning with Carter have demonstrated a will to unleash America's military might on Iran, even after Iran did things that called for a proper thrashing. Biden himself no doubt confirmed Tehran’s assessment with his deliberately tepid response to Iran’s 28 January attack on a U.S. base in Iraq. Trump alone might have had the crazy factor going for him. His unpredictability in that regard is an asset. Still, he limited himself to killing Suleimani and famously called off at the last minute a retaliatory strike after Iran shot down a U.S. drone. I heard from a credible source that Trump did this for no better reason than that he was watching Hannity, who cautioned against escalation.
Iran, some claim, attempted the same thing with its attack on Israel. Iran knew, the argument goes, that its missiles and drones would fail to penetrate Israel's defenses, and it also reportedly gave ample warning. I'm not at all convinced: The scale of the attack and the effort with which Iran timed the many elements of the attack (multiple weapons with different speeds launched from different locations, all arriving at the same time) suggest an attempt to overwhelm Israeli defenses. Or, perhaps the point was to advertise the ability to do that sort of coordination, which was a prerequisite for overwhelming Israeli defenses? A demonstration? It is hard to say. All I know is that for Israelis, being subject to an attack at such a scale does not feel like moderation. It feels like an attempt to kill them.
What kind of demonstration might do the trick? This is the hard part, as it would call for imagination combined with a touch of bloody-mindedness, neither of which are strengths of the State Department or the Pentagon. Let’s imagine some way to demonstrate an ability to shut down Iran’s oil industry at will. Or make its naval forces disappear. But without actually doing it. Placing significant military capabilities such as carrier groups nearby also helps, which Biden did initially when the Gaza war kicked off. As for Israel, which cannot mass forces near Iran, perhaps using cyber to demonstrate an ability to shut down vital infrastructure, or even conducting an air raid that only drops leaflets. “Bombing” Tehran with taunting messages to demonstrate that one can bomb Tehran might have a salutary effect.
Nothing, really, is guaranteed to work, and ultimately it seems improbable that there really is a way to restore deterrence without resorting to hitting back, disproportionately. Joe has to not only punch Bob back, but put him in the hospital. And kill his cat for good measure. The downsides to this approach are obvious. Bob will be really, really mad, perhaps so mad that he no longer cares about the risk entailed in going another round. Moreover, in Israel’s case, the U.S. and the rest of the international community undoubtedly would object, with potentially devastating consequences for Israel. This would be akin to the police arresting Joe.
It’s not hard to imagine what Iran could do if it really wanted to hurt Israel. It could cut Hezbollah's leash and flatten northern Israel. Tehran, moreover, is not above bombing Israeli or even Jewish interests abroad. If they’ve bombed one Jewish Community Center overseas (with NO consequences), what’s to stop them from doing it again, other than a credible threat that the resulting pain would be intolerable?
It’s high time Israel ran the risk of escalation, but not without U.S. backing. Similarly, it’s high time the U.S. ran the risk. Iran is not afraid of America, and that’s a problem.
Yeah, read Ender’s Game. Not for wisdom, but because it’s fun. Don’t be this guy: