As the world awaits Iran’s revenge against Israel for the assassination of a Hamas leader, a British commentator said, nothing has happened — no escalation, no suicide attacks. It’s like the dog that didn’t bark in the night. Many would find sneak attacks, revenge and a wider conflict more logical. However, this is exactly what an international conflict looks like today: No country readily escalates a confrontation.
The Russia-Ukraine conflict had been more or less static for some time, but even the recent Ukrainian incursion into Russian has not triggered a larger-scale war. The Israeli assassination of the Hamas leader in Iran has not yet yielded retaliation. But why not?
The basic reason is that the relative strengths and limitations of all parties involved may not lead to a beneficial outcome. Neither of these two situations involve evenly matched sides. Both involve a relatively dominant party and sustained external interventions.
There are also indirect and deeper reasons:
First, large-scale war is not an economically viable option for any country. Historically, a war may be launched because of an economic collapse and to divert attention from internal problems. It may also occur when a nation is emboldened by its strong military to expand its territory or when it is forced to resist foreign aggression. At present, few economies are in a good shape, but none are experiencing total collapse.
Since the start of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the United States, with limited capacity for financial assistance, has found it difficult to support Israel and Ukraine at the same time. The German economy is in a downturn, and Europe’s ability and willingness to continue supporting Ukraine are declining. Russia’s wartime economy has worked well, but it’s unknown whether Russian can sustain a larger war.
Second, the social and political systems build during long periods of peace instinctively resist the shocks of a wider conflict or war, thus constraining the behavior of decision-makers. The Israeli military, for example, is based significantly on reserve service; soldiers have regular jobs and families. Some join a fight in the morning and hold video conferences at noon to discuss investment. They care more about families and businesses. Some people refuse to continue military service for this reason.
A shortage of men and a shrinking economy have hampered the Netanyahu administration’s ability to go for an all-out war. When Ukraine raided Kursk, the immediate concern of European officials may not have been the battlefield but the price of gold, stocks and houses. Even in the United States, which readily intervenes everywhere, anti-war voices have been high for a long time. No wonder Trump vowed to “end the Ukraine conflict with a phone call.”
Third, the returns of modern warfare are neither rich nor certain. More than a century ago, a war victory might mean additional territory, population, resources, greater influence in a region (or even the world at large), and more respect at home. Today, war means attrition. Without a solid moral ground, victory doesn’t naturally lead to additional territory, population or resources, and regime change may occur at home. Even a safer external environment gained through victory may not last. Since the beginning of the new century, the U.S. has waged several wars, all ending in chaos. As the world bears witness, no one wants to repeat those mistakes.
Fourth, greater information transparency plays a key role. Opaque and asymmetric information tends to increase the harm of an expected event and to escalate it to a crisis. But nowadays information technology compresses time and space, leading to a reduced likelihood of a conflict caused by misunderstanding. Audiences at the recent Republican rally for Donald Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania, and guerrillas in Hamas tunnels simultaneously watched as a bullet pierced Trump’s ear on July 13. After the Iranian president’s helicopter crashed, Iranians would not be ahead of ordinary British netizens in seeing photos of the site. High levels of transparency also bring an information explosion. As decision-makers prefer a fuller and more detailed picture to a sketch before taking action, there is now additional time for efforts to avoid escalation and engage in coordination and communication.
Fifth, as economic globalization has increased interdependence and connections, most countries cannot bear the economic consequences of market segmentation. While imposing unprecedented, comprehensive sanctions on Russia, the U.S. and Europe have also acquiesced to letting Russian oil and gas flow to the world market; and they have purchased enriched uranium, titanium and other key minerals from Russia.
While the U.S. has no need for Russian oil and gas, it would not be able to withstand the collapse of the world oil and gas market that would be caused by Russia’s sudden and complete withdrawal. It will take time for the EU to end its energy dependence on Russia; meanwhile, it must continue trading. Even Ukraine, which is at war with Russia, has not blown up Russian pipelines in its territory.
Sixth, good management in the international community has mitigated crises. Although harshly criticized, international and regional organizations and mechanisms have contributed to a certain extent. The world exerts pressure on Israel through the UN Security Council. The U.S. and Europe have maintained communication with Russia. Collective decision-making by the EU, strategic stability mechanisms among major powers and relevant regional security organizations have all been playing their respective roles. Moreover, through two world wars, the Cold War and various international and domestic crises, major countries have rich experience and means to deal with conflicts.
Of course, it is hard to predict the course of development in conflicts, but the possibility of escalation overnight cannot be ruled out. Reflection may offer two ideas for the future. First, conflicts are more likely to be prolonged than widened; hence there is no need to make early concessions for fear of a wider war. Second, maintaining sufficient military deterrence and sustaining measured high pressure and engagement at selected sites are the best strategies for defeating an enemy without going to a full-scale war.
