DID Press: Five days into direct clashes between Iran, US, and Israel, it has become clear that what we are witnessing is more than a conventional military confrontation. The roots of this conflict run deep, and the current escalation exposes the collapse of a long-standing U.S. strategic calculation—one that assumed Iran could be coerced into compliance through unilateral pressure and maintained global dominance.
The “Maximum Pressure” Framework
The Trump-era “maximum pressure” policy rested on three pillars:
Crippling economic sanctions
Diplomatic isolation
Credible military threats
The underlying assumption was that this triad would either force Iran to fundamentally change its behavior or cause internal erosion. Yet, recent developments reveal that this strategy not only failed to achieve its stated objectives but has actually strengthened Iran’s active deterrence.
Miscalculations in Assessing Iran’s Power
- Overreliance on economic indicators: Sanctions applied significant pressure, but national power is not reducible to GDP or access to global financial systems. Iran occupies a critical geopolitical position—linking energy and trade routes—where instability can impact global oil markets, strategic waterways, and supply chains. This location alone imposes natural costs on adversaries considering risky moves.
- Asymmetric deterrence: Over four decades, Iran has developed regional capacities and asymmetric tools that complicate conventional war equations. Limited military actions can escalate into multi-layered crises, as seen in recent days, forcing U.S. decision-makers to account for consequences far beyond the battlefield.
- Changing global order: Unlike the 1990s, today’s world features emerging powers redefining global balances and new multilateral frameworks for economic and security cooperation. Iran has leveraged regional partnerships and engagement with rising powers to mitigate unilateral pressure and reduce the impact of sanctions.
The Limits of Domestic Pressure
Maximum pressure also assumed that internal divisions in Iran would quickly lead to political collapse or behavioral change. Tehran’s emphasis on long-term resilience, historical identity, and structural continuity has disproven this assumption, showing that the erosion scenario envisioned in Washington has not materialized.
A Strategic Dilemma for the U.S.
The U.S. now faces a difficult choice: withdrawal risks signaling weakened global deterrence, while escalation could deepen the crisis and raise economic and security costs, particularly amid great power competition and domestic challenges. A new protracted conflict appears risky, with no guaranteed gains.
Iran’s Multifaceted Response
Iran is signaling that the confrontation is not purely military. By leveraging regional ties, strategic geography, and multilateral channels, it is converting external pressure into an opportunity to consolidate its position in a shifting global order. Meanwhile, Israel, traditionally focused on hard containment of Iran, is increasingly at the frontline. The expansion of the crisis raises the likelihood of additional actors entering the conflict and further complicating regional security dynamics.
Broader Implications
This confrontation is not merely a test of one policy but a test of a vision of world order. The assumption that a dominant power can impose its will through sanctions, alliances, and military threats has been challenged. Multipolar networks and more autonomous regional actors mean that unilateral coercion can deepen resistance rather than enforce submission.
Conclusion: The calculus for dealing with Iran has fundamentally changed. Strategies based on unilateral pressure and conventional war, effective three decades ago, are no longer sufficient. The coming period will test not just U.S. policy but the adaptability of the global order itself.
By Ehsanollah Samim — DID News Agency