The Triple War: Between Forced De-escalation, Controlled Escalation, and the Prospects for Diplomacy| Sudanow Magazine

The region is witnessing a pivotal moment that transcends a mere passing round of escalation, evolving instead into a real test of the limits of power and political choice. While the administration of Donald Trump appears inclined to reopen a window for diplomatic solutions—driven by cost calculations, domestic pressures, and concerns over sliding into an open-ended war—Israel is moving in the opposite direction, seeking to maximize military pressure and deny Iran and its regional extensions, foremost among them Hezbollah, any opportunity to regroup.

This divergence reflects more than a tactical disagreement; it reveals a deeper gap in assessing the strategic moment. Washington believes that the cost of decisive military action outweighs its benefits, and that managing the conflict through diplomacy is less risky. Tel Aviv, by contrast, views the current moment as a rare opportunity to reshape the regional balance of deterrence, and that any retreat now could yield adverse long-term consequences. Between these two perspectives, the region is suspended within a fragile equation: diplomacy without guarantees, and escalation without clear limits.

What Trump has signaled regarding reducing the pace of military engagement is no longer merely a transient tactical choice, but rather a broader strategic repositioning shaped by three key considerations:
1. The diminishing effectiveness of limited strikes in altering Iranian behavior.
2. The rising economic and security costs borne by allies, particularly in the Gulf and beyond.
3. The risk of unintended escalation into a full-scale regional confrontation.

Yet this “pullback” does not amount to withdrawal. It is better understood as a redistribution of roles, whereby Washington creates space for its allies—foremost among them Israel—to continue applying military pressure within undeclared ceilings, even as the ultimate outcomes of the conflict may diverge from the expectations of its actors.

Israel and the Strategy of “Preventing Re-entrenchment”

In contrast to American caution, Israel is intensifying its operations based on the conviction that any pause at this stage would allow Iran to rebuild its regional networks. This strategy is centered on:
• Targeting logistical infrastructures linked to Hezbollah
• Expanding the target bank to include vital corridors such as the Litani River
• Increasing the cost of indirect Iranian entrenchment across multiple arenas

However, despite its tactical effectiveness, this approach raises the likelihood of direct confrontation, particularly amid growing indications that actors within the “Axis of Resistance” are prepared to broaden the scope of retaliation.

The Gulf: From Concern to the Search for Security Alternatives

Meanwhile, Gulf states have moved from a phase of concern to one of strategic reassessment regarding regional security architecture. This shift is driven by several factors:
• Persistent threats to critical maritime routes, particularly the Strait of Hormuz and Bab al-Mandeb
• Rising insurance and shipping costs
• The limited effectiveness of international protection at peak moments of crisis

This reality is fueling discussions around:
• Building regional collective security arrangements
• Reducing exclusive reliance on the American security umbrella
• Exploring new balancing frameworks that may include regional powers such as Pakistan, Turkey, and Egypt

Iran: Absorbing Pressure or Repositioning?

Iran continues to pursue a policy of “active strategic patience,” which rests on:
• Avoiding large-scale direct confrontation
• Responding asymmetrically through allied actors
• Preserving critical lines of influence

However, what distinguishes the current phase is that Tehran is now facing compounded pressure:
• Militarily from Israel
• Politically from its regional environment
• Economically and internally on the security front

Despite this, indicators of fundamental change within the structure of the Iranian system remain limited, suggesting a continued strategy of adaptation rather than transformation.

Will Diplomacy Return?

A notable development in recent dynamics is the cautious reactivation of backchannels, including indirect messaging. Previous experience—particularly the nuclear agreement—demonstrates that Washington may turn to negotiations when the cost of escalation reaches an unacceptable threshold.

However, diplomacy now faces more complex challenges:
• Deep erosion of trust among the parties
• The growing role of non-state actors
• The interconnection of multiple files, including the nuclear issue, missile capabilities, regional influence, and the Strait of Hormuz

As such, any return to negotiations is likely to be:
• Partial and limited
• Focused on specific files, particularly maritime security
• Far from a comprehensive settlement

Scenarios for the Coming Phase

The potential trajectories can be summarized in three main scenarios:
1. Conditional De-escalation
• Continued limited strikes
• Controlled responses
• Activation of unofficial diplomatic channels
2. Calculated Escalation
• Expansion of target banks
• Exchange of high-impact strikes
• Without sliding into full-scale war
3. Regional Explosion
• Triggered by miscalculation or a major strike
• Direct involvement of multiple actors
• Serious threat to global energy routes

Conclusion: No Imminent Resolution—But a Prolonged Managed Conflict with a Diplomatic Horizon

Recent developments suggest that the region is not approaching a decisive resolution so much as entering a phase of prolonged conflict management:
• The United States is unable to impose a final settlement
• Israel cannot secure a total military victory
• Iran continues to pursue a strategy of calculated attrition

Amid this reality, diplomacy remains an available option—but not as an alternative to conflict. Rather, it serves as a tool for managing it, preserving balances, and safeguarding interests.

The most enduring truth, however, is that the region now inhabits an extended gray zone: neither full-scale war nor stable peace, but a fragile equilibrium that could unravel at any moment.

Ultimately, the region does not appear to be heading toward a decisive outcome, but rather drifting into a prolonged phase of strategic tension in which contradictory trajectories coexist without canceling one another out. While the United States pushes—albeit cautiously—toward reviving a partial diplomatic track, Israel continues to entrench a different equation based on sustained preemptive strikes and preventing Iran and its allies from re-establishing their positions.

This divergence places the region at a highly sensitive crossroads: either diplomacy—potentially led by Gulf states in coordination with Pakistan, Turkey, and Egypt—succeeds in imposing a rhythm that contains escalation without resolving its root causes, or the battlefield dictates its own logic, with all the risks of uncontrolled expansion.

In both cases, the absence of alignment between the two principal allies not only opens space for maneuver, but also significantly increases the risks of miscalculation. Accordingly, the trajectory of the coming phase will depend not only on the intentions of major capitals, but on their ability to manage this divergence without allowing it to ignite a broader confrontation.

In this context, diplomacy is not the opposite of war—it may instead represent a delayed attempt to postpone it. The central question remains: how long can what is unresolved continue to be deferred?

Current Affairs

Militia Strongholds Witness Rapid Security Deterioration

Lessons from the American Civil War: From Managing Division to Re-founding the State

Suspending Imports: Skipping the Necessary Steps