As the United States amplifies its naval presence in the Gulf, concerns are mounting over a potential military confrontation with Iran. President Donald Trump has issued stern warnings about “serious consequences” should Tehran fail to comply with his demands regarding uranium enrichment and missile programmes. However, experts argue that the current situation may be less about imminent conflict and more about strategic posturing.
The Context of Escalation
The backdrop of these tensions is Trump’s historical stance against prolonged military engagements, often referred to as “forever wars.” Since his initial campaign in 2016 and his return to the political arena in 2024, he has consistently advocated for a foreign policy focused on restraint. This makes the prospect of a full-scale war with Iran particularly paradoxical, given that such a conflict would likely draw the US into a protracted and multifaceted struggle.
Iran’s military doctrine has been shaped by decades of preparation for external threats, especially since the 1979 revolution. Rather than building a conventional army capable of engaging the US directly, Iran has strategically invested in asymmetric warfare capabilities. These include advanced missile systems, cyber operations, and the use of regional proxies. As a result, any military action against Iran could swiftly escalate into a costly and sustained conflict, with significant repercussions across the Middle East.
Misleading Comparisons to Iraq
The tendency to draw parallels between Iran and Iraq’s situation in 2003 is fundamentally flawed. Iran is a larger and more populous nation with a cohesive internal structure and a robust military strategy designed to withstand foreign attacks. An assault on Iranian territory would not signal the beginning of regime collapse but would likely trigger a fierce and coordinated defence.
The United States possesses the military capacity to initiate conflict, with defence spending nearing US$900 billion (£650 billion) annually. However, sustaining such a conflict would present significant challenges. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan serve as cautionary tales, costing the US an estimated US$6 to US$8 trillion when accounting for long-term care for veterans, interest, and reconstruction. A military entanglement with Iran could follow a similarly disastrous trajectory, draining resources at a time when the US should be focusing on rising global competition, particularly with China.
The Economic Implications
Iran’s strategic geographic location also poses a threat to global energy security. The Strait of Hormuz, a crucial shipping lane, could be disrupted by Iranian military actions, leading to a significant spike in oil prices and subsequent inflation worldwide. For the US economy, this could mean increased consumer prices and diminished economic resilience, further complicating an already fragile recovery.
Moreover, military pressure could inadvertently bolster the Iranian regime’s domestic standing. While there is considerable discontent within Iran, the government’s ability to rally nationalist sentiment in response to external threats has been well-documented. Historical precedents show that military actions from the US and its allies have often failed to yield the desired strategic outcomes, resulting in an adaptable Iranian response that retains its regional influence.
The Call for Diplomacy
Trump’s desire to be perceived as a peacemaker conflicts with the potential for war with Iran. His administration’s previous successes, such as the Abraham Accords, highlight the importance of regional stability, which a military engagement would jeopardise. Gulf states, despite their own tensions with Iran, have favoured de-escalation, understanding the risks of instability in the region.
The idea that Iran’s internal unrest presents an opportunity for external pressure is misleading. While the Islamic Republic faces genuine challenges, including economic difficulties, it remains well-armed and capable of defending its sovereignty. Thus, current US military movements and rhetoric might better be understood as coercive signalling rather than preparations for invasion.
In this complex landscape, the greatest danger lies not in a deliberate decision to engage in warfare, but in potential miscalculations that could trigger unintended escalations. To avoid such outcomes, it is imperative to pursue diplomatic avenues and recognise that, despite any threats, some conflicts may be too costly to engage.
Why it Matters
The prospect of military action against Iran raises critical questions about the United States’ strategic priorities and its ability to navigate a rapidly evolving global landscape. Engaging in conflict could undermine the resources needed to address emerging challenges, particularly in relation to China and other rising powers. As the geopolitical environment shifts towards multipolarity, prioritising diplomacy over military action is essential for both regional stability and the long-term interests of the United States.
