Washington’s current policy approach toward Iran seeks to apply maximum pressure while avoiding open-ended military confrontation. Rather than rushing to resolve the conflict, this American administration prefers to manage tensions within carefully calibrated limits, keeping options for deterrence open without being dragged into clashes. This approach cannot be understood in isolation from a strategic assessment of costs, as well as Washington’s assessment of the regional balance and risks to the relative stability of the region, which has become an objective in itself.
President Donald Trump’s approach to Iran follows a clear pattern: managing global conflicts through economic and diplomatic pressure underpinned by military force as a means for compelling adversaries to adjust their behavior without military confrontation. This policy does not stem from an assumption that war is the ideal option nor traditional negotiation. Instead, it leverages tensions as a political instrument.
Relations with Iran are managed, with the US escalating or de-escalating as the White House sees fit; it is not a crisis to be resolved through a single decisive move. Pressure is a tool to force Tehran to reassess its regional calculations by raising costs but without threatening the integrity of the political system. The objective is not regime change but narrowing Iran’s room for maneuver in the region and altering the balance of deterrence.
This policy relies on keeping the option of escalation present and credible without resorting to it immediately. The threat here is not mere rhetoric; it is an active element in the deterrence equation. The core idea is that possessing the capacity to escalate, while controlling its timing and limits, grants Washington political and strategic leverage without bearing the cost of open war. This explains the combination of harsh rhetoric and severe pressure measures with a calculated restraint from engaging in direct military confrontation.
Within this tension-management framework, limited military escalation aimed at disrupting or temporarily disabling Iranian military capabilities, without sparking a comprehensive war, cannot be ruled out. The scenarios under discussion range from surgical military strikes to high-impact cyber operations that are carefully timed and avoid breaking the controlled escalation ceiling. Such options, if they are taken, would likely be accompanied by continued economic and political pressure, alongside bets on domestic factors, including protests, as part of a long-term strategy of attrition, not a substitute for military options.
For its part, Iran sees this pressure policy as a battle of endurance rather than a clash. Instead of open escalation, Tehran has sought to ensure economic resilience, the development of deterrent capacities, and greater room for maneuver in the region that allows it to absorb pressure without making substantive concessions. This approach has not eliminated the impact of sanctions, but it has created a bulwark against imposed strategic shifts in Iran’s behavior, reinforcing Tehran’s conviction that managing tension, rather than breaking it, is the least costly option.
On the other hand, Iran has managed to maintain cohesion within its political system despite mounting pressures. This cohesion comes at the expense of Iran’s economy and its technological and financial capacities, which have clearly been eroding. As a result, the conflict has evolved into a long-term struggle managed through sanctions, isolation, and indirect pressure rather than a swift military battle.
The prospect of direct conflict remains open within this framework of mutual deterrence. The United States retains the option of using force, and it has shown a willingness to use force when necessary, while Iran has maintained deterrent capabilities without resorting to direct clashes. A gray zone has taken shape; neither war nor a settlement seems imminent: political and military signals are being sent and red lines are being tested.
At the heart of the equation lies Iraq. It is among the arenas most vulnerable to the repercussions of this approach. Baghdad is treated neither as a fully neutral actor nor an open battlefield. Rather, it seeks to ensure balance, absorb the spillover of US-Iranian tensions, and prevent direct confrontation. Iraq’s leadership operates within narrow margins as it seeks to avoid overt alignment with either side and to keep channels of communication open with both, seeking containment rather than confrontation.
This approach reflects a keen understanding of the current phase; preserving domestic stability is now a priority that overrides the articulation of political positions. However, maintaining this containment policy is a constant challenge for Iraq, as increasing friction between Washington and Tehran directly spills over on its security, economy, and political decision-making. This practical approach prioritizes Iraqi national interests and fortifies the domestic front, reducing the cost of this conflict.
Put briefly, Washington’s policy is to manage the conflict rather than resolving it, and to apply calibrated pressure and use deterrence to avoid war rather than to provoke direct confrontations. While this approach could allow for tactical gains, the regional repercussions remain difficult to ascertain, particularly for states situated on the fault lines, foremost among them Iraq.
