The increased military rhetoric from American officials against Iran might initially seem like a sign that the country is moving closer to a direct confrontation; however, a closer examination of Washington’s behavior reveals that these threats are more a product of America’s inability to choose an effective option against Iran than a prelude to war.
Over the past two decades, the United States has employed a range of tools to contain Iran – from crippling sanctions and diplomatic pressure to intelligence operations, assassinations, cyber warfare, and creating internal unrest. The result of this multi-layered strategy is clear: Iran has not been weakened and has not been removed from regional equations. Under these circumstances, military threats have become the latest “show” tool for America; a tool that has more psychological and media consumption than practical function and is a key component of its cognitive warfare against Iran.
American military maneuvers in the region – the deployment of ships, the flight of bombers, and demonstrative exercises – alongside the continuous threats from the country’s president against Iran, convey a clear message: the impression of readiness for war, without incurring the actual costs of it. Washington knows well that a war with Iran would not be a limited operation, but a multi-layered and uncontrollable conflict; a conflict that could put the interests of America and its allies at direct risk from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean.
Experiences from recent regional conflicts have also reinforced this calculation. Israel, as America’s closest military ally in the region, despite benefiting from extensive intelligence and arms support, was unable to achieve its declared goals in a limited confrontation. This experience has made the potential costs of any direct conflict with Iran even more apparent to Washington.
From this perspective, American ships are more likely to play the role of a “psychological deterrent lever” than tools for initiating war. However, this lever is fragile. America is a country where a significant portion of its power is based on the creation of an image of military superiority. Any damage to this image – even at a symbolic level – can have far-reaching strategic consequences; a matter that has caused Washington to be extremely cautious in the actual use of this tool.
In contrast to these limitations, what is pursued with greater seriousness is the strategy of psychological attrition through the implementation of all-encompassing cognitive warfare. The goal is not to change the balance in the field, but to influence the minds of Iranian society; to create a chronic sense of insecurity, to instill the perception of economic deadlock, and to strengthen the idea of “the costliness of resistance.” This strategy is less costly than war, less risky than direct conflict, and yet, time-consuming and continuous.
However, this project also has a serious weakness. Psychological attrition is only effective if the dominant narrative is the narrative of the opposing side. A careful re-examination of the realities on the ground – from the military failures of the enemy to the actual limitations of America for entering a war – can neutralize this project. Experience has shown that whenever the narrative of the field is properly conveyed, Iranian society can manage pressures and even shift the equation to the detriment of the opposing side.
What is happening today is not a “war threshold,” but a “stage of deterrence stabilization.” America is in a position where it threatens in order not to fight, and displays in order not to retreat, and if it can achieve the project of surrender with the least cost. In such circumstances, managing public opinion and the battle of narratives has become as important as military power – a component of national security.
NOURNEWS