Thread by @ProfessorPape

In my new piece in The New York Times today, I argue the Iran war has reached a point Washington still refuses to say out loud:

either the U.S. escalates to a ground war—or Iran emerges as a new center of global power.

Think about—what stops this future?
nytimes.com/2026/04/06/opi…

This is not about personalities

It’s a structural problem building since 2002, when Iran’s nuclear program shifted the conflict from political to military

Once large-scale strikes begin, escalation follows a logic of its own

The administration’s strategy is not irrational:
--limited force
--signal resolve
--avoid ground war
--create leverage

The problem is the assumption underneath it:
that escalation can be controlled
History says otherwise

Iran’s power isn’t changing because of new capability

It’s changing because of geography and opportunity

The U.S. struck first on Feb 28

Now Iran’s moves are seen globally as response—not aggression.

That reshapes world reaction to Iran's growing power

That’s why Hormuz matters

Iran doesn’t need to close it
It needs to make it unpredictable
~20% of global oil flows through that chokepoint.

If risk rises, everything changes—prices, insurance, state behavior -- many bandwagoning, not balancing

Even proposals now being discussed—like massive strikes on Iran’s infrastructure—don’t solve this

They impose major harm on civilians
expand retaliation across the Gulf
and deepen global blame on Washington
That strengthens Iran’s position—not weakens it

This is the Escalation Trap

Initial strikes don’t resolve the conflict—they expand it

The U.S. now faces a narrowing choice:
--escalate to restore control
or accept a new balance of power

The answer may determine whether the world economy goes over a cliff