To raise the cost: Learning from past mistakes

Everyone knows the expression “Pandora’s Box.” It’s often used as a caution against unleashing unforeseen consequences by starting something one isn’t prepared to handle. In Greek mythology, Pandora, the first woman created by the gods, was a pivotal figure in a tale of curiosity and consequence.

Pandora was fashioned by Hephaestus on the orders of Zeus, who sought to create a being of irresistible beauty. Each god bestowed upon her unique gifts: Aphrodite gave her beauty, Hermes gave her cunning, and Athena taught her crafts. However, Zeus had a hidden motive in creating Pandora—he intended her as a means to punish humanity for Prometheus’s theft of fire.

Zeus presented Pandora with a box (or jar) and explicitly instructed her never to open it. Despite this warning, or perhaps because of it, Pandora’s curiosity grew over time. The allure of the forbidden became too strong to resist, and eventually, she succumbed to temptation. She lifted the lid of the box, and in an instant, all the evils of the world were unleashed—sickness, death, despair, and countless other afflictions spread across the earth.

Horrified by what she had done, Pandora quickly closed the box, but it was too late. The contents had already escaped, leaving only one thing behind: hope. This small consolation was all that remained to humanity amidst the newfound suffering.

Last week, within a span of just seven hours, two prominent figures associated with Iranian proxies in the Middle East were eliminated: Fuad Shukr, a senior military leader of Hezbollah (often referred to as the organization’s second-in-command), and Ismail Haniyeh, the Chief of the Political Bureau of Hamas. While both were key members of designated terrorist organizations, the impact of their eliminations is markedly different.

Fuad Shukr was a significant figure within Hezbollah, responsible for military operations that targeted Israel. His most notorious act was orchestrating a rocket attack intended for the Chermon military base, which tragically struck a soccer field in a Druze village in northern Israel, killing 12 children. This village, notable for its mixed population, included residents who were not all Israeli citizens. This brutal act of terror shattered any remaining boundaries of conflict, making Shukr’s elimination a highly anticipated and, some might argue, necessary response.

In contrast, Ismail Haniyeh’s case presents a different scenario. As an active leader of Hamas, he was a vocal supporter of the October 7th massacre, which drew international condemnation. However, his elimination occurred on Iranian soil the day after Iran’s new president took office, significantly heightening the political stakes. Moreover, this event took place amidst delicate negotiations between Israel and Hamas—mediated by Qatar, Egypt, and the United States—aimed at achieving a ceasefire and securing the release of the remaining 120 hostages in Gaza. Haniyeh’s death thus carried complex implications, potentially disrupting diplomatic efforts and altering the dynamics of regional politics.

According to a report on The Telegraph, the Mossad orchestrated the assassination by enlisting agents from within the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to plant explosives in a Tehran guesthouse where Haniyeh was staying. The operation, which took months of planning, was executed with precision as the agents planted bombs in three different rooms and detonated them remotely. This covert action, conducted on Iranian soil, not only humiliated Iran but also exposed a significant security breach, prompting immediate calls for revenge from Iranian and Hamas officials. The incident was seen as a deliberate provocation, underscoring the high stakes and potential for escalation in the region.

Following the eliminations of Fuad Shukr and Ismail Haniyeh, Iranian and Hezbollah leaders issued severe threats of retaliation. Senior Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri, speaking at Haniyeh’s funeral in Doha, called for revenge against Israel, declaring that the elimination would not go unpunished. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei condemned the assassinations, describing Haniyeh’s death as an attack on Iran’s sovereignty and promising a harsh response. Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah vowed that Israel would “weep terribly,” indicating that the conflict had entered a “new phase” and promising an inevitable and forceful retaliation. These statements underscore the heightened tensions and the likelihood of escalated hostilities in the region. It was even reported by The New York Times that Khamenei ordered a direct attack on Israel as a retaliation for the eliminations and an Iranian state TV anchor announced on Friday night that the world would soon witness “extraordinary scenes” and “very important developments”. This announcement further emphasized the immediacy and seriousness of Iran’s intended response to the assassination of Haniyeh.

Everything changed in a matter of seconds when the United States announced it was sending additional fighter jets and warships to the Middle East amid escalating threats from Iran and its proxies. The Pentagon revealed that a fighter jet squadron and ballistic missile defense-capable cruisers and destroyers would be deployed to bolster regional defenses. Additionally, the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier strike group was ordered to the Middle East to replace the USS Theodore Roosevelt, ensuring a consistent US naval presence. This move aimed to protect Israel and safeguard US troops, dramatically altering the strategic landscape and compelling Iran to reconsider its plans for immediate retaliation.

After the US military deployment announcement, three significant events unfolded: Hassan Nasrallah announced another speech scheduled for Tuesday; the Al Akhbar newspaper reported that Iran summoned commanders of resistance factions from Iraq and the region to Tehran to strategize their response against Israel; and Mossad Director Ronen Bar traveled to Egypt to continue negotiations on the hostage deal. What initially appeared to be an immediate escalation towards a potentially catastrophic conflict transformed into a complex interplay of diplomacy and threats, highlighting the delicate balance of regional power dynamics.

The “raise the cost” theory in international relations is fundamentally about deterrence—making the potential consequences of an adversary’s actions so severe that they are dissuaded from proceeding. This concept is deeply rooted in the strategic theories developed during the Cold War, notably by scholars such as Glenn Snyder and Thomas Schelling. Their work on deterrence emphasized the importance of credible threats and the manipulation of potential costs to influence the behavior of adversaries. By ensuring that the risks and repercussions of hostile actions are prohibitively high, states can prevent conflicts and maintain stability.

Glenn Snyder, in his seminal work “Deterrence and Defense,” highlighted the intricate balance between deterrence and the readiness to defend. He argued that effective deterrence relies on a credible threat of retaliation, which must be perceived as both capable and certain by potential aggressors. Thomas Schelling, in “The Strategy of Conflict” and “Arms and Influence,” explored the strategic use of threats and promises. Schelling emphasized that the power of deterrence lies not just in the capability to inflict damage, but in convincing the adversary of the inevitability of such a response. Together, their insights form the backbone of the “raise the cost” theory, illustrating how calculated measures can prevent adversaries from taking undesirable actions by making the costs outweigh the benefits.

The deployment of additional US military assets to the Middle East significantly raised the cost of retaliation for Iran by introducing a credible threat of an inevitable response. The deployment included a fighter jet squadron, ballistic missile defense-capable cruisers and destroyers, and the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier strike group, replacing the USS Theodore Roosevelt. This show of force underscored the US commitment to defending its allies and maintaining regional stability, effectively deterring Iran by ensuring that any aggressive actions would result in swift and severe consequences. The enhanced US military presence served as a potent reminder to Iran that the costs of retaliation would far outweigh any perceived benefits, aligning perfectly with the principles outlined by Snyder and Schelling in their deterrence theories. This likely explains the meeting convened between Iran’s regional allies from Lebanon and Iraq to discuss potential retaliation against Israel following the killing of the Hamas leader in Tehran, scheduled for next Tuesday, being that according to a Reuters report, a similar meeting already took place last Thursday, during which it was decided to plan direct attacks on Israeli soil.

The stark contrast between the US response to threats from Iran and its reaction to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine reveals a shift in Foreign Policy probably as a consequence of past mistakes. When Iran launched missiles at Israel back in April, the US quickly deployed its Air Defense Systems and put together a coalition that repelled the attack. It even brought the intelligence of how the attack would be. This time, when everyone was bracing for a more powerful attack, fighter jets and warships were deployed to the Middle East, signaling a robust deterrent posture. This decisive action deterred further escalation by making the costs of retaliation prohibitively high for Iran. In contrast, the US response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has been markedly more restrained, primarily due to the nuclear capabilities of Russia and the differing political dynamics.

Anne Applebaum’s article for The Atlantic from April, highlights how the lack of a unified US response to Russia allowed the aggression to continue with limited consequences. Unlike the swift assistance provided to Israel, Ukraine has faced significant hurdles in obtaining necessary defensive support, partly due to internal political divisions within the US. This hesitancy and lack of immediate, strong deterrent measures against Russia’s initial actions in Ukraine have demonstrated a failure to raise the cost effectively, which might have altered the course of the conflict. The reluctance to escalate has arguably emboldened Russia, missing a critical chance to deter further aggression by making the initial costs clear and substantial.

The tale of Pandora’s Box serves as a poignant metaphor for the recent strategic interactions between the US and Iran. Just as Pandora’s act of opening the forbidden box unleashed uncontrollable evils into the world, Iran’s potential retaliation against Israel could have ignited widespread conflict and chaos in the Middle East. However, the US military deployment acted as a deterrent, effectively closing the lid on Pandora’s Box before its contents could wreak havoc. The credible threat of severe consequences forced Iran to reconsider and recalibrate its response, much like the realization that stemmed Pandora’s initial mistake.

This modern iteration of deterrence underscores the enduring relevance of the “raise the cost” theory in maintaining global stability. The swift and decisive US actions demonstrated the ability to deter adversaries by clearly communicating the severe repercussions of any aggressive moves. By raising the stakes, the US managed to avert immediate conflict, echoing the mythological lesson of Pandora’s Box: that foresight and strategic deterrence are crucial in preventing the release of destructive forces. The deliberate postponement of Iran’s planned retaliation highlights the effectiveness of this approach, ensuring that diplomacy and measured responses take precedence over escalation and conflict.

Learning from its perceived inaction during Russia’s invasion of Ukraine—where bipartisan support was lacking—the US applied these lessons to deter Iran effectively. The response to Ukraine’s crisis was criticized for its restrained approach, which may have emboldened Russian aggression. This time, the US made a calculated move to demonstrate strength and resolve, showcasing an evolved understanding of deterrence that seeks to avoid past mistakes and reinforce international stability through decisive action.

While it is certain that Iran will respond, speculating on the exact scope and nature of their retaliation is not as productive as observing the unfolding diplomatic maneuvers. The true measure of this conflict’s resolution will lie in recognizing the signs of determined diplomacy and strategic movements. Understanding these dynamics will provide insight into how this volatile situation may be managed and potentially de-escalated.