Intervention in Iran: Deterrence or chaos?

A potential attack on Iran has moved beyond being merely a diplomatic bargaining chip and has become a concrete possibility of military action. However, this prospect should not be perceived solely in terms of Iran’s nuclear program or the future of the regime. A potential attack would go beyond these, creating consequences that would directly affect regional power balances and international alliances. 

The debate over a potential attack on Iran is often reduced to the question of "will it happen or not?" Yet, the real issue is what the consequences of such an attack would be for the Middle East and the global system. Given the current economic situation, the extent to which the global economy is prepared for such a scenario remains uncertain.

It is assessed that the expected operation could target nuclear and energy facilities, as well as high-level management cadres, including the Supreme Leader, and centers affiliated with the Revolutionary Guards. Because a significant portion of the facilities linked to the Revolutionary Guards are located within or in the immediate vicinity of residential areas, a potential attack would pose a high risk in terms of civilian casualties. The execution of such an operation through a US-Israel partnership strengthens the possibility of the conflict escalating into a regional war.

Although it appears that Iran’s ties with its proxy forces have weakened due to the economic and political conditions it has faced recently, the possibility of war could reactivate these structures. A scenario such as targeting the Supreme Leader, in particular, could trigger harsh and difficult-to-control reactions not only in Iran but throughout the Shiite world.  

Although some Gulf countries have entered a normalization process with Israel within the framework of the Abraham Accords and host US military presence, most of these countries have clearly stated their opposition to a direct attack on Iran. This stance shows that they do not want a war that would engulf the region. 

At this point, a potential conflict must be evaluated not only for its military and political consequences but also for its effects on the global economy.

The Strait of Hormuz and Pressure on the Global Economy

In this context, the strategic importance of the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz becomes decisive. The Persian Gulf is one of the most critical transit points for global energy traffic. Approximately 20-25% of global oil trade and about 20% of liquefied natural gas are transported through the Strait of Hormuz. The energy exports of Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates depend on this narrow waterway. Therefore, any military tension in the Gulf or the possibility of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz would create an effect that would increase global energy prices, particularly Brent crude oil prices.

External Balance

The cautious approach of Gulf countries toward a military operation against Iran is also closely related to this economic vulnerability. It is observed that even Saudi Arabia, which has been in competition with Iran for many years, has recently been following a more pragmatic line aimed at lowering tensions. While this stance does not mean that Saudi Arabia is on Iran’s side, it shows that it is aware of the costs of a regional war. A potential regional war could place the rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Iran within a framework of interest-based relations rather than ideological ones.

From the perspective of the US, it is clear that it does not look favorably upon the possibility of a long-term war in the Middle East. Even if it were a limited operation against Iran, the results could be the beginning of an uncontrollable process. This does not align with the US’s strategic calculations.

Internal Balance

For Iran, external intervention carries different meanings for both the administration and the public. For the administration, external threats and intervention can be seen as an opportunity to restrict freedom of expression, further increase pressure, and eliminate the opposition. As seen in the 12-Day War, the threat of external intervention can unite different segments of society under a single flag.

Therefore, the expectation of external intervention for political change in Iranian society would be a highly risky approach. Because, looking at the examples of Iraq, Libya, and Syria, external intervention has led to the disruption of the state-society balance along with regime change. In Iran, a potential regime change can only be shaped through internal dynamics; external intervention can only be a triggering factor in this process.

In fact, one should not ignore the opposite possibility. External intervention could further strengthen the regime by rallying the public under a single flag. This would neutralize the internal opposition and cause reform demands to be postponed.

Conclusion

When planning a potential external intervention against Iran, the region’s historical and political structure, international power balances, and Iran’s internal social dynamics must be evaluated together. Pursuing a policy of deterrence solely by using military force is not sufficient. Furthermore, Iran is not a country that can be easily reshaped through external interventions like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, or Syria.

The US effort to force Iran to take a step back by pressuring it, especially over nuclear activities, does not seem realistic due to Iran’s geographical location, past experiences, and security perception. For Iran, nuclear technology is seen not only as an element of power but as an existential reason for the regime.

If the goal is truly to ensure regional and global security and limit nuclear proliferation, this becomes more credible not only with pressures on Iran, but with a fair and binding agreement that covers all states possessing nuclear weapons and technology. Otherwise, the Middle East will continue to be a competition field where major powers cannot decide whether there will be war or peace.