Horizontal Escalation: How Iran Uses Lessons from Vietnam and Kosovo to Exhaust Washington?

In an analysis published by 'Foreign Affairs' magazine, academic Robert E. Pape argues that the recent military escalation against Iran has put the United States and Israel in a predicament beyond their endurance. He explained that Operation 'Epic Rage', despite its precision in targeting the leadership hierarchy in Tehran, proved that modern air power alone is not enough to resolve complex political conflicts.

Washington and Tel Aviv thought that the elimination of the Supreme Leader and senior IRGC commanders would paralyze the leadership structure and destabilize the Iranian regime. However, the Iranian response was swift and organized, with hundreds of missiles and drones launched to target a wide geographical area that included most of the Gulf states and the American military bases deployed there.

Sources reported that sirens did not stop in the occupied cities, while American forces in the Al Udeid, Al Dhafra, and Ali Al Salem bases sought shelter from Iranian projectiles. This response was not just random retaliation, but rather the beginning of a 'horizontal escalation' strategy aimed at expanding the scope of the war and prolonging it to confuse the calculations of the stronger adversary.

Iranian strikes caused enormous economic repercussions, with fires breaking out in commercial facilities in Dubai and damage to installations near Kuwait International Airport. These events led to a sharp jump in global oil prices, with traders expecting continued disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of the world's energy supplies pass.

Pape points out that Iran has drawn lessons from previous wars fought by the United States, specifically in Vietnam and Serbia. In those conflicts, the militarily weaker party succeeded in thwarting American objectives by shifting the battle to political, economic, and social levels that made the cost of continuing the war prohibitively high.

Tehran's strategy relies on demonstrating flexibility and the ability to operate even after losing top leadership, which was embodied in launching widespread attacks just hours after the assassinations. This message is directed internally and externally, confirming that the regime possesses institutions capable of managing the conflict under the harshest conditions.

By targeting sites in nine countries hosting American forces, Iran seeks to impose what experts call 'multiple exposure'. This move aims to embarrass Washington's allied governments and show that hosting American bases brings destruction rather than security, thereby creating popular and political pressure within those countries.

Analyses confirm that Iran does not seek to defeat America in a traditional face-to-face battle, but rather aims to gain political influence and change regional power balances. Politicizing the conflict by disrupting navigation and striking the insurance and shipping sectors puts the American administration under immense pressure from Congress and the international community.

Time plays a crucial role in Iranian calculations, as the longer the conflict lasts, the greater the likelihood of disagreements between Washington and its European allies. European capitals fear energy price fluctuations and potential migration waves, which may push them to distance themselves from escalatory American policies.

On the ground, friendly fire incidents, such as American planes crashing over Kuwait, revealed the extent of logistical complexities in managing a wide front. These errors reinforce the Iranian narrative that external military intervention leads to uncontrollable chaos even by great powers.

Tehran is also trying to create a rift between the ruling regimes in the region and their peoples by portraying itself as a force resisting foreign hegemony. Iran exploits negative sentiments towards Israeli policies in the region to rally popular sympathy that transcends ideological and sectarian differences with the Iranian regime.

The American president faces a real dilemma between two difficult choices; either to redouble military efforts and impose permanent containment that may last for years without tangible political results. Or to declare 'objectives achieved' and withdraw, which would expose the administration to sharp internal criticism for failing to complete the mission.

The NATO experience in Kosovo in 1999 shows that precise air strikes can have counterproductive results, such as inciting waves of ethnic cleansing or mass displacement. In the Iranian case, military pressure could push Tehran to a greater escalation that threatens the stability of the entire global system, not just Gulf security.

In conclusion, the article concludes that 'horizontal escalation' is the most effective weapon in the hands of regional powers to counter Western technological superiority. If Washington does not realize the dimensions of this shift, it may find itself mired in a long-term war of attrition in which it loses control over the course of events it ignited.

Iran does not need to defeat the United States militarily in a traditional conflict, but rather aims to gain political influence by dragging a stronger adversary into a spiral of multiple risks.