From Waltz to Hormuz: Why a Gulf escalation would backfire systemically |
Most analyses of potential US escalation against Iran in the Gulf remain confined to deterrence logic and regional balances of power. The debate often focuses on credibility, retaliation, and red lines. Yet such framing misses a deeper structural reality. When viewed through the lens of classical international relations theory, a Gulf crisis is not merely a bilateral confrontation. It is a stress test for the global industrial system.
Kenneth Waltz, in Man, the State, and War (1959), argued that conflict can be understood through three “images”: the individual, the state, and the international system. Applying this framework to the current US–Iran dynamic reveals that the most consequential risks lie not at the level of personalities or even state rivalry, but at the systemic level.
At the first image, leadership behaviour matters. Donald Trump’s political style has historically combined transactional bargaining with strategic brinkmanship. Escalation, or the credible threat of it, can function as political signalling both externally and domestically. In this sense, tension in the Gulf may serve as a mechanism for projecting resolve or recalibrating negotiations.
However, escalation at the individual level does not necessarily imply a desire for full-scale war. It often reflects controlled risk-taking raising pressure without crossing the threshold into uncontrollable conflict. Yet even calibrated escalation operates within broader constraints that individual actors do not fully control.
READ: Increased US military presence in Middle East aims to defend forces: Rubio
At the second image, the structural rivalry between Washington and Beijing becomes central. The United States remains engaged in a long-term economic and technological competition with China. Energy flows are part of that equation.
Roughly 83 percent of Middle Eastern........