The dramatic escalation and sudden pause in the Israel-Iran conflict is a masterclass in modern warfare, diplomacy, and the strategic games world powers play. The 12-day war saw Tel Aviv using its superior air power hoping to score a quick win, only to be taken aback by Tehran’s powerful counter attacks, and the US entering the war theatre to shock and awe the Ayatollah regime into submission.
To many analysts, the US entry was surprising as it shattered Donald Trump’s carefully crafted image as an anti-war president. By dropping the rarely used bunker-buster bombs on nuclear sites, Trump took a risky gamble as the conflict could have worsened and widened, locking America in a war it did not want to get into in the first place.
By pulling off a ceasefire soon after Iran’s retaliation against the US through missiles at its military base in neighbouring Qatar, Trump managed to take the strategic high ground. Iran’s calibrated strike did not cause any damage or casualties as US personnel and key assets had already been moved out, while the missiles were either intercepted or allowed to strike dummy targets.
Iran had given prior information about the impending missile attacks. When the US signalled it wouldn’t strike back, it was clear that Trump offered Tehran a chance to de-escalate. In return, Iran got bragging rights of hitting US targets and getting away with it. The US bombing on three nuclear sites helped it declare that it achieved its objective to degrade Iran’s military capabilities. The US was also relieved after Iran and Israel accepted the ceasefire pitch, as there were fears of Russia or China stepping in to tilt the tide in favour of Iran, which would have meant a ‘forever war’ that Trump despised.
What helped break the impasse was what is called an ‘off-ramp’ in diplomatic parlance, which means a way to slip out of a conflict without appearing to suffer a humiliating defeat. It is an exit strategy that offers some brownie points for leaders to show off and justify the decision to de-escalate.
The term is derived from highway exits, where an off-ramp (a slip road or service road) lets drivers get off a high-speed motorway to slow down, take a break, or go in another direction. Similarly, a diplomatic off-ramp allows countries to exit a dangerous trajectory toward a devastating war.
Off-ramp is a face-saving mechanism that allows both parties to claim some form of victory to appeal to their respective domestic audiences. However, it works only if both parties find it the best way forward. Also, the timing is crucial because off-ramps are most effective before positions harden and further escalation becomes irreversible, like it has happened in the case of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, which is dragging on without any workable off-ramps in sight. Many experts think several off-ramp opportunities were lost and now it may be difficult to find one.
Three factors can decide the trajectory of a conflict — escalation, kinetic action, and off-ramp. Escalation is when two warring parties decide to respond to provocations or attacks disproportionately. Israel is known to retaliate disproportionately to both real or perceived aggression, like it did to Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and to some extent, the Iranian defence forces. Escalatory moves may involve kinetic action by way of bullets, bombs, or even physical invasion. At this point, the conflict can get ugly and move towards a no-go-back situation, unless an off-ramp is available to exit from the escalation ladder.
A diplomatic off-ramp is a useful tool in international crisis management as it offers a way out of what analysts call the ‘escalation trap’, where each side feels compelled to respond to the other’s actions. In such situations, off-ramps provide a plausible path to de-escalation.
Off-ramps come in several forms. Back-channel negotiations, usually initiated by third parties, play a major part. Negotiations not only slow down escalations but also give the warring parties an idea about the potential consequences of their actions and how they can be avoided or minimised.
What negotiators do is assess the threshold of each party, facilitate communication, and provide minimum guarantees to keep the talks going. And most importantly, the negotiators help craft narratives that allow both sides to save face.
An interesting strategy is to deploy what can be termed ‘creative ambiguity’ in which diplomats deliberately use vague language in agreements so that both sides can interpret the terms to suit their own interests and claim victory.
The use of off-ramps to defuse tension is not new. It was effectively used during the Cold War era between the US and the erstwhile Soviet Union, when the two world powers came dangerously close to a nuclear war over the ‘Cuban missile crisis’ — a 13-day confrontation in October 1962, triggered by the Soviet Union’s installation of nuclear missiles in Cuba to thwart US invasion. The off-ramp was a series of letters between then US President John F Kennedy and Russian Premier Nikita Khrushchev, which resulted in the Soviets agreeing to withdraw missiles from Cuba in exchange for the US removing its missiles from Turkey.
It worked mostly because of the slow pace with which Moscow and Washington were forced to communicate, as diplomatic cables at that point in time took hours to be delivered and discerned. “Mr President, we and you ought not now to pull on the ends of the rope in which you have tied the knot of war, because the more the two of us pull, the tighter that knot will be tied... Consequently, if there is no intention to tighten that knot and thereby to doom the world to the catastrophe of thermonuclear war, then let us not only relax the forces pulling on the ends of the rope, let us take measures to untie that knot. We are ready for this,” Khrushchev wrote to Kennedy.
This was a clear off-ramp, positing that the escalation may have occurred inadvertently and the two leaders need to reflect on the fact that they were on a doomed highway they should not have entered.
Similarly, off-ramps have helped pipe down tension between India and Pakistan on several occasions. During the 2019 Pulwama-Balakot episode, Pakistan let the captured Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman go home, under Indian pressure, giving a crucial off-ramp to both sides. India, however, did not allow any off-ramp during Operation Sindoor that was launched in response to the April 22 Pahalgam attack. The US tried to play mediator but India did not relent and stopped the operation only after it achieved its objectives.
The problem with off-ramps is, one can also use them to get back on the highway. So, any peace achieved through off-ramp is transitory. In the Iran-Israel conflict, the truce brokered by Trump seems to be holding for now. However, nobody is betting on its long-term durability. The two arch rivals remain wary as there is no fundamental change in the root cause of the conflict — deep mistrust.
* During Donald Trump’s first term as US president, he authorised the killing of Iranian major general and commander of the Quds Force, Qassem Soleimani, who played a major part in nurturing Iran’s geopolitical influence in the region. Soleimani, grew the Quds Force into an elite military unit for covert warfare outside Iran. Through the Quds Force, he gained tremendous influence in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon - a threatre that became Iran’s Axis of Resistance.
* Soleimani was killed in a drone strike on January 3, 2020 at the Baghdad airport in Iraq. Trump said the Iranian General was plotting an attack on the US.
* Five days after the attack, on January 8, 2020, Iran targeted the al-Asad airbase in western Iraq, housing over 2,000 US troops. It fired a number of ballistic missiles weighing over 500 kg each and filled with liquid fuel, which fell outside the base and exploded causing massive impact sound and blaze. There were no casualties on the US side but several soldiers reportedly suffered brain injuries and developed hearing issues.
* That was the off-ramp of producing the spectacle of a strong retaliation. Trump immediately announced that the US would not retaliate further, thus stopping the conflict from spreading. “Iran appears to be standing down, which is a good thing for all parties and a good thing for the world,” he said.
* In response, Iran’s foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said: “We do not seek escalation or war, but will defend ourselves against any aggression.” The choice of words to suit their respective narratives helped both sides avoid further tit-for-tat escalation while saving face domestically.