Deterrence happens in the mind of the enemy. The US fails to deter Iran by attacking its Arab proxies because Iranian culture views Arabs as expendable. To be effective, deterrence must threaten what the target culture actually values. In Iran's case, this means threatening Persians, not their proxies.
The author argues that the American left suffers from a 'moral paralysis' when oppressors are non-Western, as in Iran. This selective silence on human rights abuses prevents a unified national stance and leads to squandered opportunities for regime change, such as during the 2022 women-led protests.
A destabilized Iranian regime is more dangerous, not less. Israeli intelligence fears Tehran might launch a strike on a foreign enemy like Israel to distract its populace, create a "rally 'round the flag" effect, and restore military pride after recent setbacks.
Authoritarian leaders who publicly mock or dismiss threats risk triggering a military response driven by personal pride. Venezuelan President Maduro's televised dancing was reportedly perceived by the Trump administration as calling their bluff, demonstrating how avoiding the appearance of being a 'chump' can become a primary motivator for military action.
PGIM's Daleep Singh argues that the risk of mutually assured destruction prevents direct military conflict between nuclear powers. This channels confrontation into the economic sphere, using tools like sanctions and trade policy as primary weapons of statecraft.
Agencies like Mossad strategically allow or even promote media about their successful operations (e.g., films like "Munich"). This acts as information warfare, shaping a global perception of their omnipotence. This cultivated mystique serves as a powerful deterrent, even if their true capabilities are more limited.
Trump's 'hokey pokey' with tariffs and threats isn't indecisiveness but a consistent strategy: make an agreement, threaten a severe and immediate penalty for breaking it, and actually follow through. This makes his threats credible and functions as a powerful deterrent that administrations lacking his perceived volatility cannot replicate.
While the operation occurred in Venezuela, its primary psychological impact may be on Iran. The Iranians are reportedly "terrified," viewing the successful removal of a hostile leader as a direct threat and a plausible preview of future U.S. action against them.
Geopolitical solutions based on earthly incentives like economic development are bound to fail when dealing with an ideology focused on martyrdom. If people believe the ultimate goal is paradise after death, they won't compromise for a better life for their children now.
Geopolitical adversaries with long-term leadership, like Iran, view the U.S.'s frequent changes in administration as a temporary inconvenience rather than a fundamental policy shift. They see the U.S. as an "obnoxious guy on the bus" whom they can simply ignore and outlast by staying their course.
Despite widespread internal protests and instability, history shows that an external attack is one of the few things that can unify the Iranian population. A potential Israeli strike, meant to weaken the regime, could backfire by creating a 'rally 'round the flag' effect that shores up support for the Ayatollah.