Every Iranian counterstrike against US targets is intended to raise the cost of war for Washington. But each one also makes an American withdrawal politically impossible. This paradox sits at the heart of the current conflict - and neither side appears to have a way out.
Ali Vaez, Director of the Iran Project at the International Crisis Group, identifies this dynamic in his analysis for Foreign Affairs, as reported by "Hvylya".
The paradox works as follows. Iran fires at US bases and allies to demonstrate "the potential for unlimited escalation," hoping to dissuade Trump from continuing. But "a US climbdown appears less likely in response to Iranian counterstrikes lest a major gamble appear to have backfired." The more Iran escalates, the higher the cost of American retreat - not in military terms, but in political credibility.
Trump approved Operation Epic Fury after months of diplomatic failure and hawkish pressure. In his State of the Union address, he asserted that Iran was "at this moment again pursuing their sinister ambitions" on the nuclear front and "working to build missiles that will soon reach the United States of America." Having framed the threat in such existential terms, backing down under fire is the one option Trump does not have.
The result is a self-reinforcing escalation loop. Iran retaliates to force US restraint. The US escalates because retreat now looks like defeat. Iran retaliates again. Neither side has an off-ramp that its domestic politics would accept. With Khamenei dead and the regime fighting for survival, and with Trump having publicly committed to regime change, the conflict's internal logic drives both sides deeper in - with no mechanism to stop.
Also read: Colby's Grand Design: How NATO 3.0, the Iran War, and a Submarine Torpedo Fit Into One Strategy