What history tells us about who will blink first in this global game of chicken

It must be quite a headache for any economic forecaster to quantify the flow-on effects of the Israeli-American war against Iran, which unexpectedly broke out on the last day of February.

President Trump has confidently declared the conflict will soon be decided in his favour, while a militarily weaker Iran appears determined to disrupt at least 20 per cent of the world’s oil supply through the Strait of Hormuz.

The US-Israel alliance will likely launch new strikes to try and break Iran’s resolve, while the latter focuses on driving up the cost of living for long-suffering Western societies, with the ultimate aim of having its enemies voted out at upcoming elections.

As this latest asymmetric clash escalates, one wonders who will blink first in this latest ‘game of chicken’.

If human history is to be our guide, we should start by looking at similar attempts at economic disruption during antiquity, by two weaker rivals of the Roman Empire. During the Second Punic War, Carthage sought to derail Rome by raiding grain shipments between Sicily and Sardinia; the Aetolian League similarly raided merchant ships supplying Roman armies in Greece. Yet Rome never once blinked as it took decisive steps to counter the raids of its enemies. It eventually also crushed Carthage at the Battle of Zama in 202 BC and later vanquished the Aetolian League at the Battle of Thermopylae in 192 BC.

A weaker opponent did, however, ultimately prevail during the Middle Ages, after King Valdemar IV of Denmark attacked the Hanseatic League in 1361. During the ensuing nine-year war, the League upped the stakes by imposing trade embargoes across Baltic markets and naval blockades of shipping, eventually forcing the Danes to blink and sign the Treaty of Stralsund. Rolling forward almost 200 years to 1568, the rebels from the Low Countries took to the sea during their fight against the Spanish king, Philip II. Known as the infamous ‘Sea Beggars’, their ceaseless raids on enemy shipping contributed to Spain blinking first after eighty years of war, forcing Madrid to recognise the Dutch Republic at the Peace of Westphalia.

This tactic was echoed by American privateers over two centuries later, when the American Revolutionary War broke out in 1775. The privateers captured hundreds of British merchant ships, which piled the pressure on their imperial enemy; however, it took French intervention to force Great Britain to recognise American independence eight years later, at the Treaty of Paris.

Fast-forward to the Cold War: the UK, France and Israel ganged up on Egypt, led by Gamal Abdel Nasser, during the 1956 Suez Crisis. Their forces achieved rapid military success as they sought to regain control of the Suez Canal and weaken Nasser’s regime. Facing defeat, Nasser boldly ordered that almost forty ships be sunk inside the canal to block the strategic passage of European oil shipments. The ensuing global havoc irked both the USA and the USSR, which found themselves unexpectedly aligned in forcing the three invaders to withdraw, with Nasser keeping the Suez Canal and finding himself elevated to iconic status.

These examples suggest that while economic shocks can swiftly change battle outcomes, their real impact usually unfolds after years of grinding pressure. Securing control of resources appears more effective than relying on purely destructive tactics. So it remains to be seen whether Iran’s chokehold causes both Uncle Sam and Israel to blink first, during their mounting - and potentially ruinous - game of chicken.

James Vella-Bardon's work can be found on Amazon.