US-Iran tensions escalate as Trump delays strikes: systemic drivers of escalation and missed de-escalation pathways

Indigenous and regional knowledge systems often view conflict as a symptom of broken relationships rather than a zero-sum game, emphasizing restorative justice over punitive measures. In the Persian Gulf, traditional pearl-diving communities historically resolved disputes through tribal councils, a model that could inform modern mediation. However, these perspectives are systematically excluded from Western policy discourse, which prioritizes military solutions and centralized governance.

The current crisis is rooted in the 1953 CIA-backed coup that overthrew Iran’s democratically elected government, a foundational trauma that shapes Iranian foreign policy to this day. The 1980s Iran-Iraq War, fueled by US and Gulf state support for Saddam Hussein, further entrenched mutual distrust. Parallels exist in US interventions in Latin America, where covert operations and sanctions created cycles of instability that persist decades later.

Non-Western diplomatic traditions, such as the Chinese concept of 'win-win' or the African principle of 'ubuntu,' offer frameworks for de-escalation that prioritize mutual benefit over dominance. The 2015 nuclear deal, despite its flaws, demonstrated that multilateral negotiations could yield tangible results, even amid deep mistrust. However, these models are often dismissed as 'naive' in Western policy circles, which favor coercive diplomacy.

Research in conflict studies shows that sanctions and military threats often exacerbate civilian suffering without achieving strategic objectives, as seen in Iraq during the 1990s or Venezuela today. Game theory models of deterrence suggest that miscalculations in escalation pathways are common when communication channels are weak, increasing the risk of unintended conflict. Meanwhile, studies on energy security highlight how fossil fuel dependence creates perverse incentives for militarization.

Artistic expressions in Iran, from poetry to cinema, often critique militarism and celebrate resilience, as seen in films like 'The White Balloon' or the poetry of Forough Farrokhzad. In the US, anti-war movements have historically used music and visual art to mobilize opposition, from Pete Seeger’s folk songs to contemporary protest murals. These cultural narratives reveal the human cost of conflict in ways that policy jargon cannot.

Scenario modeling suggests that a prolonged delay in strikes could either de-escalate tensions or create a 'frozen conflict' where neither side achieves its goals, leading to proxy wars and regional fragmentation. Long-term stability may require decoupling energy security from military posturing, as seen in the EU’s efforts to diversify gas supplies post-Ukraine war. However, such transitions are politically fraught, as fossil fuel interests and hawkish factions resist change.

Marginalised groups in both the US and Iran—such as Iranian feminists, Yemeni civilians, or Iraqi protesters—bear the brunt of militarization but are rarely consulted in decision-making. In Iran, women’s rights activists have long warned that sanctions and military threats undermine their ability to organize, while in the US, anti-war movements are often sidelined as 'unpatriotic.' The framing of this crisis as a leadership issue obscures the collective trauma of these communities.