Herman Kahn, author of On Escalation.

1,672 words

So often in geopolitical discussions commentators invoke the specter of escalation and the prospect of climbing the “escalation ladder,” rung by rung, towards ultimate nuclear cataclysm. Unfortunately, we are in the midst of one of the worst global crises in living memory where escalation is being recklessly pursued by Benjamin Netanyahu in particular and the Israel Lobby more generally. Fitting the historic pattern, the Israel Lobby is using their gentile fall guy, President Donald Trump, to achieve their perceived goals.

America First policies have been subsumed by Israeli interests. What are Israel’s strategic goals? Greater Israel is the overarching strategic aim of this bull rush toward wider conflict in the Middle East; and failing that, the secondary goal of turning Iran into a destroyed, rump state is the other. That is why the sky is the limit as far as violence is concerned in this conflict. That is why the escalation ladder is being climbed so recklessly.

Origin & Core Idea

The escalation ladder is a conceptual framework used in geopolitics and strategic studies to model how conflicts between states (or other actors) can intensify in a stepwise, incremental manner: from low-level political or diplomatic actions all the way to full-scale nuclear war.

It is not a literal prediction of what will happen in every crisis, but a heuristic (a thinking tool) to analyze risk, decision-making, bargaining, and the potential for miscalculation. The idea emphasizes that escalation is often deliberate and controlled rather than an automatic slide into catastrophe; though once you start climbing, it can become very hard to climb back down without concessions or clever de-escalation.

The concept was formalized by American strategist Herman Kahn in his 1965 book On Escalation: Metaphors and Scenarios. Kahn, a Cold War nuclear theorist, developed it as part of his work on deterrence, limited war, and thermonuclear conflict.

He originally sketched versions with 16 steps, then expanded it into a famous 44-rung ladder (sometimes described with slight variations across his writings). The ladder is divided into broad phases or “thresholds” that mark psychological, political, or military breakpoints where the nature of the conflict changes dramatically. Crossing a threshold (e.g., from conventional to nuclear weapons) carries huge symbolic and practical weight.

Think of it like a game of “chicken” played at ever-higher stakes: each side escalates to signal resolve, hoping the other will back down first, but every rung increases the danger of uncontrollable spiral.

Broad Structure of Kahn’s Ladder

Kahn grouped the rungs into rough categories (not exhaustive—his full list is very detailed and scenario-specific):

• Rungs 1–6 or so: Subcrisis Maneuvering: Diplomatic protests, economic sanctions, shows of force, propaganda, covert actions, minor military deployments. Still “peaceful” competition.
• Higher conventional rungs: Traditional and Intense Crises: Blockades, limited conventional strikes, mobilization of forces, attacks on proxies or third parties, major ground/air operations short of all-out war.
• Nuclear thresholds (around rung 15–21): “Exemplary” or demonstration use of nuclear weapons (e.g., a single low-yield detonation in a remote area to signal seriousness), limited tactical nuclear strikes on military targets. This breaks the “nuclear taboo.”
• Even higher rungs: Bizarre Crises and Nuclear War phases: Counterforce strikes (hitting enemy nuclear forces), attacks on cities, massive retaliation, up to “spasm” or insensate war (all-out, civilization-ending exchange).

The key insight: escalation is not a smooth slope or a binary “peace or total war.” There are many discrete, observable steps, each with its own costs, signals, and potential off-ramps. Actors can choose to stop, pause, or even descend if the risks become too high.

Why It Matters in Geopolitics

The ladder helps strategists and leaders:

• Assess how far a crisis has already climbed.
• Anticipate what the next logical (or escalatory) move might be.
• Design deterrence or “escalation dominance” strategies: making it clear to an adversary that further climbing would be suicidal for them.
• Identify thresholds worth defending at all costs (e.g., preventing any nuclear use).

It is especially relevant in nuclear-armed great-power rivalries, where the ultimate rung is mutual destruction. Analysts also apply the metaphor to conventional wars, cyber conflicts, proxy fights, or even economic/tech rivalries (there are now “AI escalation ladders” modeled on Kahn’s idea).

John Mearsheimer’s Use of the Concept

Professor John Mearsheimer frequently invokes the escalation ladder when discussing contemporary conflicts. For him, it is a practical warning tool: in great-power competition, states often feel compelled to “go up the ladder” to protect vital interests, but miscalculation or domestic politics can push everyone higher than intended. Mearsheimer highlights how third parties can inadvertently drag superpowers toward dangerous rungs, and he stresses the difficulty of finding “off-ramps” once nuclear thresholds loom.

In short, Mearsheimer uses it to argue for restraint and realism: better to avoid climbing in the first place than to bet you can control the climb forever.

The escalation ladder remains influential because of its flexibility. It does not claim every conflict follows the exact 44 steps—real crises are more complex, even messy, with parallel ladders, cultural differences, or sudden jumps. It does, however, force clearer thinking about the risks of “just one more step.” It is an example of strategic theory making the complexities of escalation in war understandable.

Where are Things Now?

In early April 2026, the United States under President Donald Trump is pressing a multifaceted military campaign against Iran that has escalated far beyond initial targeted strikes. What began in late February with joint U.S.-Israeli operations—reportedly including the elimination of key Iranian leadership—has grown into sustained airstrikes, naval deployments, and explicit threats against critical infrastructure. Trump vacillates between boasts of objectives being attained and warnings of “obliteration” if Iran fails to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

The ongoing conflict has disrupted global energy markets, injured hundreds of U.S. personnel, and has resulted in bizarre mixed signals from Trump: claims of “great progress” in negotiations are contradicted in short order with promises to strike Iran “extremely hard” over the next two to three weeks.

The Spark & Rapid Escalation

The current phase traces to late February 2026, when U.S. and Israeli forces launched extensive airstrikes on Iranian nuclear-related sites, munitions facilities, and leadership targets. Israel alone conducted hundreds of sorties, while the U.S. contributed precision strikes, including bunker-buster attacks on sites like Isfahan. Iranian retaliation has included missile and drone barrages affecting Gulf shipping and allies, with reports of fires at facilities in Kuwait and incidents near Qatar.

Trump has repeatedly stated that Iran’s nuclear program has been severely degraded, reducing the immediate threat of weaponization. However, the effective Iranian closure of the Strait of Hormuz—a vital chokepoint carrying roughly one-fifth of global oil—has kept pressure high. In Truth Social posts and other public remarks, Trump warned that failure to reopen the strait would lead to strikes on electric generating plants, oil wells, Kharg Island, and possibly desalinization facilities: “we will conclude our lovely ‘stay’ in Iran by blowing up and completely obliterating” these targets.

Inadvertent Revelations & Troop Deployments

A bizarre, viral element that added color and operational security concerns to the military buildup involves Charm Daze, a San Diego exotic dancer, whose TikTok about military patrons preparing for deployment went viral. She described troops from the region’s major naval base spending heavily while appearing depressed in anticipation of their deployment to the Middle East. Military influencers quickly criticized the post for potentially revealing troop movement timelines to a broad audience. This coincided with the arrival of additional U.S. forces, including Marines and sailors aboard the USS Tripoli, joining carrier strike groups and airborne assets. Roughly 10,000 additional troops have surged into theater, positioning assets for potential operations near Iran’s coast. Greg Johnson’s prediction of ground troops being deployed will undoubtedly come to pass.

Kharg Island: Leverage or Further Escalation?

Central to escalation scenarios is Kharg Island, Iran’s primary oil export terminal, which handles the vast majority of its crude shipments. Trump has publicly mused about seizing or neutralizing it: “Maybe we take Kharg Island, maybe we don’t. We have a lot of options.” Pentagon contingencies reportedly include options for amphibious or blocking actions to use the island as leverage for reopening the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran has warned that any landing would turn the island into a “death trap” for U.S. forces. Some reports detail how a temporary hold on Kharg could “get them by the balls” in negotiations, while others highlight the dangers of widening the conflict or provoking broader Iranian retaliation across the Gulf. U.S. strikes have already targeted military assets on the island while sparing core oil infrastructure in some cases, per Trump’s statements emphasizing “decency” in avoiding unnecessary economic damage.

Most recently over Easter weekend, however, Trump has said vituperatively that civilian infrastructure including power plants and desalination facilities will become part of the American target set if Iran does not capitulate. He had this to say on Truth Social:

Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell – JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah.

This does not bode well for deescalation as the president becomes more volatile.

Diplomacy Amid Threats

Trump has alternated between bellicose rhetoric and claims of productive back-channel talks. He has postponed strikes on energy infrastructure multiple times—once for 48 hours, later for five days—citing conversations with Iranian representatives. Iranian officials, however, have denied meaningful negotiations or any authorization for tankers to resume passage.

In a primetime address, Trump reiterated that core objectives are nearing completion and that the strait could “open up naturally” once the conflict winds down, while still pledging aggressive action in the short term. He has urged oil-dependent nations to “get involved” in securing Hormuz if they want fuel flows restored, and expressed frustration with North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies reluctant to assist.

Only War

As of early April 2026, the situation remains extremely precarious. With carrier groups remaining in theater, additional troops arriving in the region by the day, and with Iran showing no signs of capitulation, the escalation ladder will continue to be climbed.