Where has more than seven months of intermittent war, economic threats, stalled diplomacy and promises of a ceasefire in Iran left the concept of U.S. strategic credibility?

It is a question that political scientists and security and foreign policy experts like us have had to grapple with at each turn of the conflict.

Some commentators have argued that the bombings and multiple ceasefires actually strengthen American credibility by demonstrating American deterrence capabilities and resolve toward adversaries.

Others cite the lack of a persuasive justification for conflict, the strikes themselves and subsequent fits and starts of peacemaking as evidence that America’s global image has been undermined, as has the persuasiveness of its public claims. And this, in turn, has undercut the credibility of future pronouncements by the U.S. administration.

Either way, most observers insist that for the United States, “credibility is on the line in Iran.” But that has long been a central concern of U.S. foreign policy. As political scientist Stephen Walt observed in 2022, one of the most predictable aspects of virtually any debate over Washington’s involvement overseas is the “ritual invoking of ‘credibility.’”

But what, exactly, is “American credibility”? And why is there apparently so much groupthink about the concept and practice?

Vietnam and the credibility discourse

For policymakers, diplomats and scholars the technical definition is straightforward: Credibility refers to the perceived likelihood that a country will reliably keeps its promises, carry out its threats and deliver on its pledges. In this manner, a country is credible if allies and adversaries alike will believe it the next time. But as suggested by contemporary debates and usage, credibility, in practice, often means something more than simply keeping up with commitments.

Credibility is not only about whether nations successfully signal........

© The Conversation