Nournews: Hakan Fidan, Turkey’s foreign minister, disclosed that Marco Rubio contacted him during the 12-day war between Iran and the Zionist regime, revealing an important reality—one that does not align with the official narrative of an imminent U.S. attack. Washington’s preemptive notification to Tehran about the possibility of an attack indicates deep American concern over the consequences of military action. This behavior is less a sign of power than an implicit admission of Iran’s effective deterrence and Washington’s fear of a harsh and uncontrollable response from Tehran. The United States, which consistently seeks to present itself as the dominant actor, attempted at this juncture to manage tensions and prevent an Iranian outburst of retaliation—exposing the hollowness of the war rhetoric voiced by American officials.

From Military Exaggeration to an Admission of Iran’s Deterrence

Repeated claims by Trump and other U.S. officials about the military option against Iran are less a reflection of genuine willingness to go to war and more a tool of psychological and political pressure. Field evidence—including the behavior of the U.S. special envoy in West Asia and the symbolic praise for the downing of an Iranian drone—shows that Washington has been forced to acknowledge Iran’s military capabilities. The experience of the 12-day war and Iran’s responses to the Israeli regime’s aggressions clearly conveyed the message that any military action against Iran would rapidly turn into a regional war—one that would seriously endanger the interests of the United States, its allies, and the Israeli regime.

Perceptual Warfare as a Substitute for Real Confrontation

U.S. behavior during the nuclear talks confirms its focus on “perceptual warfare” rather than actual battlefield engagement. The display of naval movements, the highlighting of military threats, and media framing are part of Washington’s combined pressure strategy—aimed at extracting concessions at the negotiating table without paying the cost of war. However, U.S. security assessments clearly show that Iran, relying on national resolve and defensive capabilities, can turn any limited threat into a wide-ranging crisis. Thus, the slogan “all options are on the table” has been reduced to a propaganda tool rather than an operational reality.

Elements of Strategic Failure and the Logic of Active Deterrence

Fidan’s revelations are not merely a diplomatic anecdote; they are evidence of the failure of the threat-based strategy against Iran. Iran’s strategy—based on an intelligent combination of diplomacy and the battlefield, alongside full military readiness—has significantly increased the cost of aggression for the adversary. Public mobilization, national cohesion, and a clear deterrence message have disrupted U.S. calculations. Under such circumstances, any retreat in the face of Washington’s demands would be far more costly than resistance. The enemy’s strategic failure not only prevents war but also elevates Iran’s position in the emerging global order.