Understanding the Strategy of War: The Theory of Inevitability and Bargaining

The Strategic Concept of Inevitability in War

William Spaniel opens with the concept of "inevitability" as a decisive factor in understanding long-term military strategy. He argues that inevitability refers to the strategic outlook where, over time, one side becomes increasingly likely to dominate due to asymmetrical advantages, such as economic strength or resource capabilities. This does not imply that victory is guaranteed but that the dynamics of time favor one party over the other. Militaries must recognize these dynamics to inform how they engage in warfare and negotiations.

Spaniel explains that this principle is akin to competitive games, where one side’s stronger late-game potential forces the other to act decisively in earlier phases. Failing to adapt to inevitability, whether by misjudging one's own position or misunderstanding the opponent's, can lead to devastating miscalculations. He highlights that while competitive games are zero-sum, where one player's loss is another's gain, real-world warfare is different because it involves human lives. Consequently, the cost of misjudging inevitability extends beyond strategic failure to human suffering, creating pressure to seek negotiated settlements.

To illustrate the stakes of misjudging inevitability, Spaniel references Saddam Hussein's strategy in the Gulf War. Saddam assumed he could outlast coalition forces by grinding them down over time, banking on a strategy of attrition. However, the United States recognized this risk and countered with a rapid military campaign designed to decisively win before Saddam could draw the conflict out into a prolonged struggle. The U.S.'s overwhelming force prevented Iraq from capitalizing on the long game, effectively nullifying its assumption of inevitability.

Spaniel also contrasts this with the Cold War, where both the United States and the Soviet Union believed they had inevitability on their side. The U.S. trusted that the Soviet Union's economic structure would collapse over time, while the Soviet bloc expected global communist ideology to prevail over capitalist systems. This mutual confidence in eventual triumph ironically prevented direct conflict, as both sides felt time was on their side, diminishing the urgency to fight. Ultimately, this miscalculation led to the dissolution of the Soviet Union, validating the U.S.'s long-term strategy of containment.

The Application of Bargaining Theory in Modern Conflicts

Expanding on inevitability, Spaniel ties it to concepts from bargaining theory, where the perceived long-term advantage shapes how nations negotiate and manage conflicts. He highlights two current geopolitical crises, the Ukraine War and the Iran conflict, as case studies to illustrate the practical application of these theoretical frameworks.

In Ukraine, both sides have seemingly adopted strategies based on a shared understanding of long-term dynamics. Russia, with its much larger resources compared to Ukraine, has embraced an attritional approach, pressing forward to stretch Kyiv’s defenses and allow its economic and population size to overtake Ukraine’s smaller reserves. Ukraine, on the other hand, has used high-impact tactics, such as disrupting Russian oil revenue through strategic infrastructure strikes. Kyiv’s approach aims to prevent Moscow from exploiting its inherent advantages over the course of an extended war by finding ways to disrupt the status quo.

Spaniel notes, however, that this dynamic is also present at the bargaining table. Ukraine, supported by Western allies, seeks to create immediate pressure on Russia to push for a resolution before prolonged conflict tilts the balance definitively toward Russian dominance. In contrast, Russia appears unbothered by delays, accepting the risks of internal instability while leveraging its strategic depth.

The situation in Iran demonstrates a starkly different understanding of bargaining theory. Spaniel explains that the ongoing blockade-driven conflict in the Strait of Hormuz is a stalemate, with each side assuming the other's position will collapse first due to economic pressure. Yet, inevitability theory illustrates that both sides cannot be correct in this assumption. Iran’s president has publicly advocated for accepting a negotiated end to the conflict from a position of strength while warning that delaying any settlement could lead to a weaker negotiating position in the long term. However, this understanding appears to be lost on other influential factions within Iran, including elements of the military leadership.

Economic and Strategic Impacts on War Dynamics

Spaniel emphasizes that economic factors are critical in shaping the dynamics of wars, especially as they intersect with the principles of inevitability and bargaining. Using the conflict over the Strait of Hormuz as an example, he describes how the economic consequences of blockades and spiking oil prices have impacted both Iran and the United States. While the U.S. has faced some economic repercussions, including increased oil prices and political risks ahead of elections, its broader economy remains resilient. By comparison, Iran faces far graver consequences, with soaring inflation and a collapsing currency severely straining its economy.

Spaniel points out that although the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) may seem indifferent to economic challenges, its leaders cannot ignore the potential fallout, including difficulty in paying soldiers and the risk of reignited protests. This interplay between economic strain and military strategy underscores how financial pressures can act as both a weapon and a driver of conflict resolution.

At the global level, the closure of the Strait has spotlighted the vulnerabilities in international oil supply lines. Spaniel notes that this has galvanized efforts to create alternative supply routes and diversify energy sources, potentially lessening the Strait’s future strategic importance. While Iran may hope to leverage short-term oil market instability, the global adjustment to the blockade may ultimately undermine its position.

Lessons from Historical and Contemporary Wars

Spaniel delves deeper into historical and recent conflicts to demonstrate the practical applications of the strategies he discusses. He compares the Gulf War's clash of attrition versus annihilation to the Cold War's prolonged ideological contest and the ongoing Ukraine and Iran conflicts. These examples show how the principles of inevitability and effective bargaining have repeatedly influenced the outcomes of wars.

Spaniel concludes that each conflict has distinct lessons for strategic thinking. While the Gulf War demonstrates the limits of assuming inevitability will lead to victory, the Cold War illustrates how long-term structural advantages can ultimately prevail without outright conflict. Similarly, he observes that in Ukraine, both sides appear to understand their roles in the broader conflict. Conversely, Iran seems to be a case study in strategy misalignment, where internal divisions and economic vulnerabilities may undermine its prospects.

These lessons, rooted in historical and present contexts, outline a key message: misjudging one’s own position or overestimating inevitability can determine the trajectory and outcome of conflicts. The strategic power lies in recognizing shifts and designing corresponding responses tailored to leverage one's unique strengths while exploiting the opponent’s weaknesses.

What was said, and when

The points this article makes, and the moment in the recording where each was said. Every time below opens the recording at that moment.

• 'inevitability' refers to the strategic outlook where, over time, one side becomes increasingly likely to dominate due to asymmetrical advantages such as economic strength or resource capabilities. 03:54.
• Inevitability does not imply that victory is guaranteed but that the dynamics of time favor one party over the other. 03:44.
• Spaniel highlights that while competitive games are zero-sum, real-world warfare is different because it involves human lives. 05:53.
• Spaniel references Saddam Hussein's strategy in the Gulf War, where Saddam assumed he could outlast coalition forces by grinding them down over time. 06:46.
• The United States recognized this risk in the Gulf War and countered with a rapid military campaign designed to decisively win before Saddam could draw the conflict out into a prolonged struggle. 07:08.
• Spaniel contrasts the Gulf War strategy with the Cold War, where both the United States and the Soviet Union believed they had inevitability on their side. 07:34.
• In the Cold War, the United States trusted that the Soviet Union's economic structure would collapse over time. 07:43.
• In the Cold War, the Soviet bloc expected global communist ideology to prevail over capitalist systems. 07:43.
• This mutual confidence in eventual triumph in the Cold War ironically prevented direct conflict. 07:34.
• Spaniel asserts that the Cold War ultimately led to the dissolution of the Soviet Union, validating the U.S.'s long-term strategy of containment. 08:05.
• Spaniel highlights that inevitability shapes how nations negotiate and manage conflicts, tying it to bargaining theory. 06:20.
• In Ukraine, Russia has adopted an attritional approach, pressing forward to stretch Kyiv’s defenses and allow its economic and population size to overtake Ukraine’s smaller reserves. 09:26.
• Ukraine has used high-impact tactics like disrupting Russian oil revenue through strategic infrastructure strikes. 10:01.
• Ukraine's approach aims to prevent Moscow from exploiting its inherent advantages over the course of an extended war by disrupting the status quo. 09:45.
• Ukraine, supported by Western allies, seeks to create immediate pressure on Russia to push for a resolution before prolonged conflict tilts the balance definitively toward Russian dominance. 10:17.
• Russia appears unbothered by delays in Ukraine, accepting risks of internal instability while leveraging its strategic depth. 10:32.
• In Iran, Spaniel explains that both sides assume the other's position will collapse first due to economic pressure. 11:08.
• Iran’s president has publicly advocated for accepting a negotiated end to the conflict from a position of strength while warning that delaying any settlement could weaken Iran’s negotiating position. 01:20.
• Factions within Iran, including elements of the military leadership, do not appear to share the president's understanding of bargaining theory. 10:58.
• How the economic consequences of blockades and spiking oil prices in the Strait of Hormuz impact both Iran and the United States. 12:40.
• While the U.S. has faced some economic repercussions, its broader economy remains resilient in the face of the Strait of Hormuz blockade. 13:26.
• Iran faces far graver consequences from the Strait of Hormuz blockade, including soaring inflation and a collapsing currency. 12:40.
• Economic strain in Iran creates difficulty in paying soldiers and increases the risk of reignited protests. 12:56.
• The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has galvanized efforts to create alternative supply routes and diversify energy sources. 14:09.
• This international adjustment to the Strait's blockade may ultimately undermine Iran's position. 14:09.
• Spaniel compares the Gulf War's clash of attrition versus annihilation to the Cold War's ideological contest. 07:25.
• Misjudging one’s own position or overestimating inevitability can determine the trajectory and outcome of conflicts. 06:46.