DIPLOMATIC WESTERN DETERRENCE
Diplomatic Western deterrence
Tanya Vatsa assesses US efforts to balance its domestic concerns with exerting a sobering influence on Tel Aviv and reducing tensions in the Middle East
The war on Gaza seems to be perpetual, with no end in sight. The stakeholders, however, have multiplied since it began, with the active involvement of the Iran-led Axis of Resistance having opened several war fronts for Tel Aviv. The prospects for peace have significantly decreased with recent military operations, diplomatic standoffs, and the launch of hundreds of missiles, bringing the region closer to a potential large-scale war.
Now, the latest Israeli military manoeuvre has only added to the already tense relationship between Israel and Iran.
Tel Aviv has killed some prominent leaders of the Axis, including chairman of the Hamas Political Bureau Ismail Haniyeh and Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, as well as Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah. Tehran’s retaliatory, though limited, missile attack on Israel was neither necessary nor significant in the scope of its damage. It was conciliatory, meant specifically to pacify its political allies and domestic audience.State-run media in Iran have hailed the missile attacks as a demonstration of Iran’s regional influence and military prowess, portraying the country as a defender of oppressed groups across the Middle East. This rhetoric has mobilised Iranian citizens, many of whom support the government’s position, viewing the strikes as a justified response to what they perceive as Israeli encroachment.
However, Iran’s escalating involvement also risks increasing domestic pressures as economic sanctions and the potential for international isolation continue to strain the country’s economy. Despite being a very calculated move, it only bolstered Israel’s uber-aggressive defensive stance, prompting the US to issue a word of caution against targeting Iranian nuclear and oil installations.
While committed to Israel’s security, the US has opposed any direct Israeli attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities, wary of the consequences for Middle Eastern stability and American political dynamics. The Biden administration has emphasised diplomacy to address Iran’s nuclear ambitions, driven by both regional concerns and domestic political calculations. Given the 2024 election and Biden’s potential transfer of leadership to Vice President Harris, the administration is keen to avoid new conflicts, focusing instead on a legacy of stability.
The latest Israeli military manoeuvre has only added to the already tense relationship between Israel and Iran
The US fears that a unilateral Israeli attack could escalate into a regional war, potentially drawing in American forces at a time when Biden aims to redirect resources domestically and towards other geopolitical concerns, such as the Asia-Pacific. The administration has increased its naval presence in the eastern Mediterranean to act as a deterrent rather than a prelude to engagement, sending a signal of commitment to Middle Eastern allies without risking direct conflict.
Biden’s reluctance also aligns with American voters’ growing disapproval of foreign entanglements, especially in the Middle East. In addition, the administration is facing economic pressures, particularly around inflation and energy prices, both of which could be further aggravated by any instability in oil-producing regions.
As the administration weighs up the delicate transition of leadership, it is cautious about actions that could damage public perception or complicate Harris’s path in the presidential run. Through a stance of restraint, Biden seeks to balance support for Israel with domestic priorities and long-term diplomatic stability, potentially shaping the future US approach in the Middle East beyond his term. Washington is aware of the game of deterrence between major rivals Israel and Iran, and has therefore declared support for a proportionate response by the hawkish Tel Aviv.
Iran’s escalating involvement risks increasing domestic pressures
As forecasted, Israel launched ‘Operation Day of Reckoning’ in response to Iranian actions, targeting key locations in Syria and Lebanon that serve as logistical and operational bases for Iranian proxies. This operation included a series of airstrikes on Damascus and Aleppo airports, as well as munitions depots and Hezbollah strongholds in southern Lebanon. As for Iran, the attack reportedly hit around 20 sites, focused on missile manufacturing and storage facilities but notably avoided nuclear and oil infrastructure. Iran stated its air defences intercepted some of the attacks, though limited damage occurred in areas including Tehran, Khuzestan, and Ilam.
Israeli officials have described the operation as a necessary countermeasure to neutralise threats from the Axis of Resistance and to protect Israeli sovereignty. However, the collateral damage from these strikes has sparked significant international concern, especially as civilian areas have been affected, leading to a sharp rise in casualties.
The future of the Israel-Iran conflict and the U.S.’s involvement in the Middle East is fraught with uncertainty and potential shifts. Regional escalation remains a serious risk, with ongoing hostilities possibly evolving into a full-scale conflict involving Israel, Iran, Hezbollah, the US, the larger West and the Arab peninsula..
At the same time, diplomatic interventions could play a significant role. Russia and China, with interests in maintaining stability, may push for de-escalation to protect their investments and influence. However, historical tensions and ideological divides make these resolutions challenging and often temporary, as seen in previous Middle Eastern conflicts. US strategic calculations are complex, particularly with the Biden administration’s focus on avoiding new military engagements in an election cycle where domestic issues dominate public opinion. While the US will likely sustain defensive support for Israel, it is unlikely to endorse aggressive actions that could trigger broader hostilities. This stance reflects the administration’s intent to balance regional stability with the need to maintain approval among voters cautious about overseas conflicts.
Iran, meanwhile, faces its own internal pressures. Though it may continue its involvement to avoid appearing weak, the economic toll of protracted conflict, paired with the threat of renewed sanctions and international isolation, may eventually push Tehran to reassess its strategy. For the US, maintaining influence in the Middle East without sparking new conflicts will be a delicate balancing act, with both global and domestic implications impacting how it navigates the fracturing regional dynamics.
Tanya Vatsa is currently the Geopolitical and Predictive Intelligence specialist at Inquest Advisories in India, as well as Editor at the Journal of Indo-Pacific Affairs, Dept of Defence, United States of America. She completed her Master’s in Legal Studies at the University of Edinburgh after obtaining a law degree from Lucknow’s National Law University, India.