Chicken Versus Bumper Cars in Conflict Escalation – War on the Rocks

Report on Performative Aggression and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: A New Paradigm in International Conflict

A new form of state-level conflict, termed “performative aggression,” has emerged, challenging traditional deterrence strategies and posing a significant threat to global stability and the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This model, characterized by limited-damage strikes designed for spectacle rather than destruction, exploits advanced air defense systems to create the appearance of war without incurring its conventional costs. Such actions directly undermine SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) by normalizing conflict and eroding the foundations of international peace and security. This report analyzes this phenomenon, using recent Iranian missile and drone strikes as a case study, to assess its impact on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Analysis of Performative Aggression Models

Distinguishing Conflict Dynamics: Implications for SDG 16

Two distinct models of aggression illustrate this new paradigm, with differing consequences for sustainable development:

1. The “Game of Chicken”: This is a traditional high-stakes confrontation where actors accept a high risk of catastrophe and runaway escalation. Such conflicts directly threaten SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure), and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) through civilian casualties and the destruction of critical infrastructure.
2. The “Game of Bumper Cars”: This represents performative aggression, where an attacker launches a strike with the expectation that it will be intercepted by the defender’s air defenses. The intent is de-escalatory and symbolic, aiming for political messaging with minimal physical damage. While seemingly less destructive, this model insidiously corrodes SDG 16 by creating a constant state of low-level hostility that destabilizes regions and weakens institutions tasked with maintaining peace.

Case Study: Iranian Strikes

Recent Iranian military actions demonstrate these two models and their varied impacts on development goals:

• Performative Strikes (Bumper Cars): The April 2024 launch of hundreds of drones and missiles at Israel, and a subsequent smaller strike against Al Udeid air base, were telegraphed and largely intercepted. These attacks caused no fatalities and no significant damage to infrastructure, serving primarily as a political signal. However, they contribute to a climate of instability that is antithetical to the peaceful societies envisioned by SDG 16.
• Destructive Strikes (Chicken): In contrast, an October 2024 missile attack on Israel resulted in two fatalities and tens of millions of dollars in infrastructure damage. A subsequent 12-day conflict killed over two dozen civilians, hospitalized thousands, and damaged critical infrastructure, including a power station and an oil refinery. These actions represent a direct assault on SDG 3, SDG 9, and SDG 11, causing loss of life, disrupting essential services, and undermining economic progress.

Impact on Sustainable Development Goals

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

Performative aggression presents a unique challenge to SDG 16. By blurring the lines between peace and war, it weakens international norms against aggression and complicates diplomatic efforts for conflict resolution. The reliance on this tactic erodes trust between nations and undermines the effectiveness of global institutions designed to prevent conflict. It fosters an environment where the rule of law is supplanted by symbolic military posturing, making the goal of peaceful and inclusive societies more difficult to achieve.

SDGs 3, 9, and 11: Health, Infrastructure, and Sustainable Communities

While performative strikes are designed to fail, the potential for miscalculation remains high. A single weapon penetrating defenses can cause unintended damage, escalating the conflict and leading to severe consequences for several SDGs.

• SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being): Any escalation resulting in casualties directly contravenes the goal of ensuring healthy lives.
• SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure): The targeting of infrastructure, whether successful or not, threatens the resilient systems necessary for sustainable industrialization and economic growth.
• SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities): The threat of attack creates fear and instability, undermining the safety and resilience of human settlements.

SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

The dynamic of performative aggression also impacts SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals). Defense against such attacks often requires international coalitions, as seen in the multi-national effort to intercept Iran’s April 2024 strike. While this highlights the importance of global partnerships in maintaining security, it also demonstrates how such conflicts can strain alliances and divert resources from development cooperation towards military expenditure.

Strategic Implications and Policy Considerations

Deterrence in the Age of Performative Conflict

Traditional deterrence strategies, whether based on denial or punishment, are ill-equipped to manage performative aggression. A defense-centric strategy (deterrence by denial) may inadvertently encourage these low-risk attacks by making them seem consequence-free. Conversely, a punitive response may appear disproportionate to a strike that caused no damage, creating a diplomatic crisis. This paradox complicates efforts by the international community to uphold the principles of SDG 16.

Conclusion: Upholding the 2030 Agenda Amidst New Threats

The emergence of performative aggression represents a significant threat to the global pursuit of the Sustainable Development Goals. It creates a dangerous middle ground on the escalation ladder that normalizes conflict, destabilizes regions, and undermines the very foundations of peace and justice required for sustainable development. Addressing this challenge requires a renewed focus on SDG 16, with the development of novel diplomatic and strategic approaches that can deter aggression without triggering catastrophic escalation. Policymakers must find ways to deny adversaries the ability to weaponize restraint and ensure that the pursuit of symbolic victories does not come at the cost of global peace and sustainable progress.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  The entire article is centered on issues of international conflict, peace, and security. It analyzes a new form of military aggression between Iran and Israel, discussing escalation, deterrence strategies, and the nature of modern warfare. This directly relates to the goal of promoting peaceful and inclusive societies, as the article explores threats to peace and the institutional strategies (deterrence, air defense) designed to manage and prevent wider conflict.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere.

   The article directly addresses this target by contrasting different types of military strikes based on their outcomes. It differentiates between “performative aggression” designed to cause limited damage and more conventional attacks. It explicitly mentions casualty figures, such as attacks where “No fatalities resulted” versus others that killed “two dozen civilians” and resulted in “two fatalities.” This analysis of varying levels of violence and death rates is central to the article’s argument.

2. Target 16.a: Strengthen relevant national institutions, including through international cooperation, to build capacity at all levels… to prevent violence.

   This target is relevant through the article’s focus on national defense and security institutions. The concept of “performative aggression” is predicated on the strength of a defender’s institutions, specifically their “high-end air defenses” and “integrated air and missile defenses.” The article also explores how national institutions can develop deterrence strategies (“deterrence by denial,” “deterrence by punishment”) and policies to prevent violence and manage escalation. The mention of allies like the “United States,” “NATO,” and “Arab monarchies” points to the international cooperation aspect of this target.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Implied Indicator for Target 16.1: Number of conflict-related deaths, injuries, and level of infrastructure damage.

  The article provides specific data points that serve as indicators for the level of violence. These include:

  • Number of fatalities: The text contrasts strikes with “no fatalities” against those causing “two fatalities” and others that “killed more than two dozen civilians.”
  • Number of injuries: It is mentioned that some attacks “hospitalized thousands.”
  • Damage to infrastructure: The article quantifies damage as “tens of millions of dollars in infrastructure damage” and specifies that “Critical infrastructure such as a power station and an oil refinery were among the targets.”

  These figures are direct measures of the impact of violence, aligning with the intent of indicators for Target 16.1.

• Implied Indicator for Target 16.a: Effectiveness of national security and defense systems.

  The article implies that the strength of national institutions can be measured by their effectiveness in preventing violence. The success of “high-end air defenses” is a key factor, with the article noting that in certain attacks, “nearly all the projectiles were intercepted.” The discussion of crafting effective deterrence strategies (“declaratory policy,” “ambiguous response policy”) also implies that the development and successful implementation of such policies are indicators of strong, capable institutions designed to prevent violence and escalation.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: warontherocks.com