Between Deterrence and Strategic Threshold Management: Prospects of a U.S. Strike on Iran and Its Implications

Iran currently faces a highly complex strategic environment, where rising U.S. pressures intersect with precise regional calculations, all within an international context that no longer favors open wars but seeks to manage conflicts at their critical thresholds. In this light, U.S. military movements around Iran should not be seen as preparation for a full-scale war, but as part of a more nuanced effort to manage the strategic threshold between deterrence and escalation.

The core question is not simply whether war will occur, but who holds the ability to control its boundaries, regulate its pace, and prevent it from crossing the point where pressure turns into widespread chaos. From this perspective, a potential U.S. strike functions as a tool to recalibrate the balance, not to break it, and as a calculated deterrent message rather than a declaration of zero-sum confrontation.

This approach reflects a growing U.S. recognition that power is no longer a binary choice between war and peace, but a precise political instrument used to redefine the strategic cost of adversary behavior. This is part of the “diplomacy of force” strategy advanced by the Trump administration, combining economic pressure, political isolation, and credible military threats, while keeping negotiation channels open and controlling escalation.

Gradual Pressure as a Mechanism for Threshold Management
The U.S. strategy toward Iran relies on gradual pressure, not as a path to regime change, but as a means of managing the strategic threshold and preventing Tehran from turning time into a bargaining chip or an attrition tool. This approach introduces calculated imbalances in deterrence, keeping Iran under constant tension without pushing it toward full confrontation.

Iran, in turn, has pursued a policy of maneuvering and buying time, believing that strategic patience can absorb external pressure—through changes in U.S. administrations or the use of regional influence as an indirect deterrent. However, this strategy has become increasingly fragile due to tightening economic constraints, shrinking diplomatic room for maneuver, and the rising cost of maintaining a stalemate without settlement.

Iran’s insistence on negotiations based on full parity, and its rejection of any settlement that could be perceived domestically as a concession, has reduced the space for interim solutions and increased the likelihood of the U.S. resorting to stronger pressure measures—while still avoiding thresholds that could trigger widespread regional escalation.

U.S. Options: Striking the Threshold Without Breaking It
If force is employed, any U.S. strike is expected to be limited and precise, targeting key elements of Iran’s capabilities. The goal is twofold: to send a clear deterrent message and to recalibrate Iranian behavior without dismantling the existing deterrence system.

Such strikes could target sensitive facilities, leadership nodes in command-and-control structures, or strengthen regional deterrence through allies, reducing the need for direct intervention and keeping the conflict within a controllable ceiling. In this context, reliance on regional partners is not a military delegation but part of a composite deterrence strategy that distributes risk and prevents concentration of threats.

Post-Strike Scenarios Within Threshold Management
Following a limited strike, several scenarios could unfold, all adhering to the logic of threshold management rather than its breach:
• Mutual containment, where Iran responds in calculated ways that preserve the deterrence balance and avoid broad escalation, allowing a gradual return to diplomacy.
• Controlled indirect escalation, using regional proxies to convey political messages without crossing red lines.
• Strategic repositioning, where Tehran reshuffles internal and regional priorities under pressure, reducing external engagement.
• Misjudgment risks, the most dangerous scenario, where calculation errors inadvertently exceed the threshold, triggering escalation detrimental to all parties.

The Arabian Gulf: Exposure and Recalibration
The Gulf region would be central to any military developments due to its geopolitical significance and the interconnection of its security with energy and maritime routes. In the short term, the region may see heightened defense readiness and enhanced security coordination, especially in air defense and maritime corridor protection.

However, managing a strike within the threshold could, over the medium term, help redefine engagement rules, reduce risk margins, and strengthen relative stability—giving Gulf states more space to focus on development priorities away from recurring crises.

Regional and International Implications
This approach reflects a broader shift in U.S. strategy from military decisiveness to managing balances through smart deterrence and flexible alliances. Globally, it signals a selective and strategic use of force within a multipolar world that increasingly rejects open wars.

Conclusion: The Struggle Over the Threshold, Not Victory
The declared U.S. strategy does not aim to topple the Iranian regime, but to redirect its behavior within controllable parameters. Nevertheless, cumulative economic pressures, political isolation, and limited strikes may gradually weaken Iran’s ability to manage internal crises and raise the cost of continued stalemate.

Ultimately, the essence of the current confrontation is not a struggle for victory but a contest over who can manage the strategic threshold between deterrence and escalation. Within this narrow margin lies the future of Iran, the stability of the Gulf, and the shape of regional balances.

Iran on the Brink of Transformation: Domestic Pressures, an Adverse Regional Environment, and Washington’s Role in Shaping Regional Dynamics

Our Pashto-Dari Website

  Donate Here