Crisis, deterrence, and containment: Where is the US-Israel strategy driving Iran?

Assoc. Prof. Yeşim Demir

With Israel's attack on Iran, this war, in which international law has been seriously violated, has moved regional tensions to a new dimension. The US, which in past Arab-Israeli wars provided open support to Israel but did not participate in direct combat, has been directly involved this time from the very beginning of the war. The statements made by US President Donald Trump clearly reveal the strategic goals underlying this intervention. It is also observed that European states are supporting Israel in this process with their anti-Iran stances. For the US, this war is considered not only a military intervention but also a strategic opportunity in line with the goal of creating a long-term regional security architecture against Iran.

In line with this strategy, the US has supported the process of normalizing Israel's relations with Arab states within the framework of the Abraham Accords and has pursued a policy of excluding Iran from the regional equation during this process. It is conducting a containment policy that encircles Iran with military bases deployed in Gulf countries.

The pressure on Iran has not remained limited to economic sanctions but has gradually turned into direct military intervention. Indeed, it is seen that this strategy is being implemented in stages: the neutralization of high-ranking commanders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah through assassinations, the weakening of the Assad regime in Syria, and the pushing back of proxy forces constitute the links of this process.

Another dimension of the US attack on Iran concerns the limits of Israel's military capacity. The fact that Israel does not possess bunker-buster bombs capable of destroying Iran's underground nuclear facilities and is approaching the limits of its offensive capacity may have made it necessary for the US to step in. In this context, the US intervention can also be interpreted as an effort to prevent a potential Israeli defeat. Furthermore, it was hardly expected that Trump would remain neutral in this war in the face of the large amounts of donations he received from Jewish businesspeople during his election campaign.

In response to Israel's attack, Iran also launched retaliation, and this reaction has taken on a more serious character than the limited responses of the past. In particular, the fact that Iran gave only a symbolic response following the assassination of Qasem Soleimani by the US in 2020 had created a perception in public opinion that Iran would proceed on a more cautious path. However, recent developments show that this situation has changed.

The damage caused by the US attack on nuclear facilities has not yet been clarified. Iran has announced that only the above-ground section of the Fordo nuclear facility was damaged and that repairs are possible. However, the real debate is over how Iran will respond to these attacks. In this context, the option of closing the Strait of Hormuz has seriously come to the agenda.

It is assessed that Iran has two main strategic trump cards: closing the Strait of Hormuz and direct attacks on US bases located in the region. Although a decision to close the Strait of Hormuz has been issued by the Iranian Parliament, the approval of both the Supreme National Security Council and the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is required for this decision to come into effect. Given this situation and the fact that a ceasefire has been declared, it does not seem likely that such a radical step will be taken. Moreover, it is observed that oil flow from the Persian Gulf has been easily maintained throughout the war, and there has been no interference with the ships of any country. Trade has continued as if there were no war.

The second option, an attack on US bases, contains a different message. In particular, the attack on the US base in Qatar, which was carried out with prior notification, reflects Iran's strategy of both maintaining its deterrent power and sending a message without escalating direct conflict. This action can also be read as an effort by Iran, which has lost influence in Syria, to maintain its presence in the regional equation.

WHAT CALCULATIONS ARE BEHIND THIS CRISIS?

The primary concern of Israel and the US is not only Iran's nuclear weapons capacity but also its ballistic missile systems, which have hypersonic features and are extremely difficult to intercept. The threat these systems could pose in the future is cited as the main justification for the current attacks.

Iran, on the other hand, has stated that it will not remain passive in the face of these attacks but has chosen to provide measured responses that will not lead to an all-out war. Closing the Strait of Hormuz could lead to reactions from many actors, especially China and European countries, as it would deeply affect global energy markets. Therefore, such a step carries a strategic risk for Iran as well.

On the other hand, while Iran's air strikes reinforce the morale and sense of resistance of the public in domestic politics, it is also known that its missile capacity is not unlimited. While sending a message of deterrence, Iran is trying to keep the diplomatic door open. However, since the start of these negotiations depends on the re-establishment of an environment of trust, it is likely to take time.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN NEXT?

How the crisis will take shape in the future depends largely on the steps the parties will take in the coming period. If military interventions turn into a strategic goal, the risk of permanent instability on a regional and global scale will inevitably increase. Therefore, it is of vital importance for the sustainability of the international system that the parties avoid triggering a long-term war for the sake of short-term gains.

It is not yet clear whether the ceasefire declared after the clashes, referred to as the "12-Day War," is a sign of lasting calm or a harbinger of a new war. However, it does not seem very possible to speak of a long-term peace between Iran and Israel under current conditions. Since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, Iran has defined Israel as the "little Satan" and believes it must be destroyed. On the other hand, Israel has made securing its existence in the region a state policy. This state of mutual and ideologically based hostility makes the establishment of a full peace difficult.

It is seen that both states need the perception of an "enemy" to gain political legitimacy and the support of their domestic public. In this context, although the declared ceasefire is not expected to be completely sustainable, it is possible that direct clashes will be replaced by lower-intensity attacks. Furthermore, it is thought that Israel and the US have made significant progress toward one of their primary goals: the destruction of Iran's nuclear facilities. If these facilities are truly damaged, it could take several years for Iran to make them operational again. However, Iran's high missile capacity and its ability to compensate for losses in a short time indicate that existing missile stocks could be used in moments of potential threat.

This ceasefire also created an opportunity in domestic politics for Trump, who was unsuccessful in his promise to end the war in Ukraine. By showing that he played an effective role in the Iran-Israel conflict, he gained the opportunity to prove his success in the field of foreign policy to his voters.

Another development that drew attention in the days following the declaration of the ceasefire was the call made to the Iranian people by two important anti-regime figures in Paris on consecutive days. Iran's former crown prince Reza Pahlavi, known to have strong ties to the US and Israel, and Maryam Rajavi, leader of the People's Mojahedin Organization, which has limited support among the public, invited the Iranian people to overthrow the current regime. Although there is a general tendency toward regime change in Iranian society, it approaches foreign-backed leader figures with caution.

The Iran-Israel tension is not limited to an ideological conflict between two states but is a multi-dimensional crisis with the potential to reshape regional power balances. This shows that the crisis has turned into a comprehensive security problem that includes not only military but also ideological, diplomatic, and economic elements. While each of the parties tries to maximize its own security priorities, the risk of an uncontrolled escalating crisis poses serious threats to regional and global security. The temporary nature of the ceasefire reveals that the current status quo in the region is not sustainable and that new conflict dynamics can be activated at any moment. Therefore, seeking not only military but also diplomatic solutions appears to be mandatory for long-term stability.