It is not only the armies clashing, but the struggle of strategic will, legitimacy, and normative order that eventually decides the direction of conflict, and this is exactly what is happening between Iran, the United States, Israel, and the Gulf states. 

The first and most obvious consequence of this escalation is that it was the United States and Israel that illegally assaulted the sovereignty of Iran what can be termed a preemptive strike, more specifically a decapitation strike, at Iran, at its high values targets case in point is the target on the leadership,  critical infrastructure, command and control, missile and drone sites,  which  Tehran sees as an illegitimate and unjustified use of force, which is outright violation of Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter that prohibits the threat and use of force. In response, Iran retaliated with countermeasures by raising the cost of war by attacking the US military bases in the Gulf with heavy drones and missiles.

Of particular interest in this case is that these are not merely reactionary measures, but are the instruments of coercive diplomacy and deterrence signaling, which are strongly entrenched in realist conceptions of the security dilemma, the balance of power, and the survival of the regime. Also, it is essential to mention that the conflict is being fed by various strategic interests of the major actors, where the United States is driven by the necessity to restore deterrence and avoid aggravation, Israel by the long-term aim of regime change in Iran, and the Gulf States by the regional stability and the safety of economic and energy infrastructure. This difference of purpose and objective, rather than its capabilities has led to the long strategic stalemate, in which, though far ahead in military superiority, the United States and its allies are restricted by the politics of escalation, legal issues, and even political price, and Iran continues to question the validity of the aggression, Iranian nation is united on the Iranian nationalism. The war is thus not a traditional war of decisive battle, but a long-term war over control of the regional order, legal principles, and strategic stamina, where the boundaries of power are tested not by lack, but by restraint that has limitations of its deployment.

In addition, the Strait of Hormuz problem has led to a rise in the anxiety of US policy and its influence on international security, and the US policy appears to be reactive and unplanned, and Iran is becoming more effective in disrupting the trade at a low cost. As the US is being perceived as an untrustworthy partner, European and Gulf countries may be considering finding their own, multilateral way out. A looming risk in case of failure in diplomacy is economic turbulence, such as stagflation. Thus, the change in military policy, smaller states use low-cost technologies to break the traditional military hegemony, changing the balance of power in the world.

The many facets of this war are discussed in the subsequent paragraphs below. Nevertheless, since war is a highly dynamic and fluid process, it is exceptionally hard to predict where the strategic course will eventually stabilize or how the situation will change over time.

A Realist Lens: Power, Prestige, and Credibility

Viewed through the prism of realism, the conflict is not merely about Iran’s capabilities or nuclear aspirations; it is more about authority, reputation, and status. Specifically, great powers are not easy to withdraw in realist thought, not because they lack the........

© Paradigm Shift