I like and value the structural analyses of escalation that Professor Pape brings to the table. I would just add to it the human, or inhuman, dimension of a President that escalates because of his ego and history of successful bullying. If you suddenly dropped a Clinton, Bush, Obama or Biden into the current situation, this would evolve differently. The escalation trap is real, but I fear that Trump also constructs his own traps by issuing big threats that he then feels the need to eventually fulfill, not because they are the best policy or strategy, but because TACOing has made him feel small.
Given current events, members of our community may find the following of interest..
During the First World War, the German Air Force bombed London and other English towns causing "light" civilian casualties, but enough to cause calls for retaliation raids on German cities. Only a few of these actually happened. Winston Churchill, then Ministry of Munitions, wrote an official memo in 1917 stating that "nothing we have learned of the capacity of the German population to endure suffering justifies us in assuming that they could be cowed into submission by [bombing raids], or indeed that they would not be rendered more desperately resolved by them." By the autumn of 1918, however, Churchill wrote that bombing some German cities, might hasten the end of the war. , By the 1920s, as Colonial minister, Churchill approved the bombing of civilians in the British Mandate areas (Palestine, Iraq, etc), because it was cheaper than using ground troops to maintain control. Bombing civilians to disrupt production and destroy morale leading to what we now call "regime change" became Royal Air Force essential' if unofficial' doctrine. When war came again in 1939, the British government tried to limit aerial bombing to military targets, but a careful survey of bombing results in 1941 revealed that only one bomb in three dropped on Germany fell with five miles of the target. A year later Winston Churchill, and his rabid "dehouse the Germans" scientific advisor, Lord Cherwell, instructed RAF Bomber Command to make a virtue of necessity and try to find and bomb entire cities (area bombing). This continued to be Churchill's policy until after the Bombing of Dresden in February, 1945. Public outcry about the destruction of this famous city led Churchill to send RAF bomber commanders a memo warning against bombing simply to terrorize the German population. RAF leaders like Portal and Arthur "Bomber" Harris were offended by the memo, but shifted most of their efforts to direct support of ground forces until the end of the war. The number of German civilians killed in air raids by British and American bombers from 1939 and 1945 is estimated between 350000 and 570000. There was no "regime change" until Allied ground forces over ran Germany in 1945. Bomber Command had 55,000 air crew killed, a casualty rate of 44 %. The debate over the efficacy (and morality) of area bombing of civilians and infrastructure continues, quite literally, to this day. (4 April 2026) 1130 hrs (PDT)
- He doesn't go through with his threat, but doesn't say anything.
- Because, the threat is a misdirection to cover for some other action that is planned for tonight, possibly using the ground troops that are in place.
Iran is going to be make decisions based on tactical data and intelligence from domestic, diplomatic and allied sources. They already have backchannels to the US & Israel and are working with Pakistan so they know more about US military activities than anything we are going to see in the media. Their preparations/plans for ground attacks by marine or special forces wont be relaxed or altered because of the threat of air attacks on the civilian power/transportation system. Who would Trump be distracting and for what military benefit?
Professor Pape, there's no question that you've mapped the escalation ladder with extraordinary precision for a year (Natanz and Fordow, air strikes, Hormuz, grid destruction, ground operations, asymmetric retaliation, etc.). But I worry every rung described (publicly) assumes Iran's leadership remains tethered to rationality and strategic coherence, even under existential threat.
Is Trump flirting with the point where Iran's decision-making becomes unpredictable in ways historical models cannot anticipate? Not just irrational in the Western sense, but driven by a logic (theological, martyrdom, revolutionary, all of the above) that operates outside any cost-benefit calculus entirely? What if some of Khamenei's successors are not war-gamers, but true believers?
If hull destruction happens and Iran retaliates at maximum, what is the specific mechanism by which this war ends? Not the diplomatic theory, but the actual sequence of events? For example, who picks up the phone, when, and what do they offer Iran that Iran accepts, given that they may be about to absorb the deliberate destruction of civilian life for over 90 million people?
No doubt the phrase "never to be used again" will appear in future international legal proceedings if this happens.
Aside, it goes without saying that your analysis has proved to be the most important publicly available framework for this war (and mapping its coming consequences). If chaos must be the path to peace, I hope you all can at least create an island of calm where you currently are.
For context, Iran publicly presented their initial conditions when they accepted the ceasefire. Google
Associated Press Iran 10-point conditions. Previously they had conveyed security guarantees and reparations as two mandatory requirements of a peace deal.
I’ve seen reports that Iran wants security guarantees (they won’t be attacked by Israel/US) and compensation/reparations. The US wants unconditional surrender, the strait opened, the regime changed to pro-US, the enriched Uranium stockpiles, and compensation/reparations.
I like and value the structural analyses of escalation that Professor Pape brings to the table. I would just add to it the human, or inhuman, dimension of a President that escalates because of his ego and history of successful bullying. If you suddenly dropped a Clinton, Bush, Obama or Biden into the current situation, this would evolve differently. The escalation trap is real, but I fear that Trump also constructs his own traps by issuing big threats that he then feels the need to eventually fulfill, not because they are the best policy or strategy, but because TACOing has made him feel small.
Given current events, members of our community may find the following of interest..
During the First World War, the German Air Force bombed London and other English towns causing "light" civilian casualties, but enough to cause calls for retaliation raids on German cities. Only a few of these actually happened. Winston Churchill, then Ministry of Munitions, wrote an official memo in 1917 stating that "nothing we have learned of the capacity of the German population to endure suffering justifies us in assuming that they could be cowed into submission by [bombing raids], or indeed that they would not be rendered more desperately resolved by them." By the autumn of 1918, however, Churchill wrote that bombing some German cities, might hasten the end of the war. , By the 1920s, as Colonial minister, Churchill approved the bombing of civilians in the British Mandate areas (Palestine, Iraq, etc), because it was cheaper than using ground troops to maintain control. Bombing civilians to disrupt production and destroy morale leading to what we now call "regime change" became Royal Air Force essential' if unofficial' doctrine. When war came again in 1939, the British government tried to limit aerial bombing to military targets, but a careful survey of bombing results in 1941 revealed that only one bomb in three dropped on Germany fell with five miles of the target. A year later Winston Churchill, and his rabid "dehouse the Germans" scientific advisor, Lord Cherwell, instructed RAF Bomber Command to make a virtue of necessity and try to find and bomb entire cities (area bombing). This continued to be Churchill's policy until after the Bombing of Dresden in February, 1945. Public outcry about the destruction of this famous city led Churchill to send RAF bomber commanders a memo warning against bombing simply to terrorize the German population. RAF leaders like Portal and Arthur "Bomber" Harris were offended by the memo, but shifted most of their efforts to direct support of ground forces until the end of the war. The number of German civilians killed in air raids by British and American bombers from 1939 and 1945 is estimated between 350000 and 570000. There was no "regime change" until Allied ground forces over ran Germany in 1945. Bomber Command had 55,000 air crew killed, a casualty rate of 44 %. The debate over the efficacy (and morality) of area bombing of civilians and infrastructure continues, quite literally, to this day. (4 April 2026) 1130 hrs (PDT)
Off the wall thought:
- He doesn't go through with his threat, but doesn't say anything.
- Because, the threat is a misdirection to cover for some other action that is planned for tonight, possibly using the ground troops that are in place.
Iran is going to be make decisions based on tactical data and intelligence from domestic, diplomatic and allied sources. They already have backchannels to the US & Israel and are working with Pakistan so they know more about US military activities than anything we are going to see in the media. Their preparations/plans for ground attacks by marine or special forces wont be relaxed or altered because of the threat of air attacks on the civilian power/transportation system. Who would Trump be distracting and for what military benefit?
Professor Pape, there's no question that you've mapped the escalation ladder with extraordinary precision for a year (Natanz and Fordow, air strikes, Hormuz, grid destruction, ground operations, asymmetric retaliation, etc.). But I worry every rung described (publicly) assumes Iran's leadership remains tethered to rationality and strategic coherence, even under existential threat.
Is Trump flirting with the point where Iran's decision-making becomes unpredictable in ways historical models cannot anticipate? Not just irrational in the Western sense, but driven by a logic (theological, martyrdom, revolutionary, all of the above) that operates outside any cost-benefit calculus entirely? What if some of Khamenei's successors are not war-gamers, but true believers?
If hull destruction happens and Iran retaliates at maximum, what is the specific mechanism by which this war ends? Not the diplomatic theory, but the actual sequence of events? For example, who picks up the phone, when, and what do they offer Iran that Iran accepts, given that they may be about to absorb the deliberate destruction of civilian life for over 90 million people?
No doubt the phrase "never to be used again" will appear in future international legal proceedings if this happens.
Aside, it goes without saying that your analysis has proved to be the most important publicly available framework for this war (and mapping its coming consequences). If chaos must be the path to peace, I hope you all can at least create an island of calm where you currently are.
For context, Iran publicly presented their initial conditions when they accepted the ceasefire. Google
Associated Press Iran 10-point conditions. Previously they had conveyed security guarantees and reparations as two mandatory requirements of a peace deal.
Professor, What are the key elements to negotiated settlement that both parties (and Israel and the GCC) could accept? Thank you
I’ve seen reports that Iran wants security guarantees (they won’t be attacked by Israel/US) and compensation/reparations. The US wants unconditional surrender, the strait opened, the regime changed to pro-US, the enriched Uranium stockpiles, and compensation/reparations.