Shafaq News

Despite mounting rhetoric, visible military deployments, and sustained unrest inside Iran, the United States has stopped short of issuing direct military strike warnings against Tehran. The restraint, according to analysts and recent US statements, reflects neither indecision nor appeasement, but a deliberate strategy that prioritizes pressure, deterrence, and risk management over total war.

In recent days, US President Donald Trump has intensified his language toward Tehran while stopping well short of authorizing military action. Speaking aboard Air Force One, Trump said the United States had dispatched “a massive force” toward the Middle East, adding, “maybe we won’t have to use it,” a formulation that underscored deterrence rather than imminent attack.

In another statement, Trump stressed that Washington was “watching them very closely,” reiterating opposition to Iran’s nuclear ambitions and its handling of domestic protests, while signaling a preference to avoid escalation.

For many, this balance offers insight into Washington’s current calculus. Political analyst and Dean of the College of Public Affairs at the University of Baltimore, Ivan Sascha Sheehan, described US policy as a form of “strategic paralysis,” arguing that Washington has quietly concluded that military force cannot produce democratic change in Iran, yet failed to fully embrace support for a credible internal alternative.

Speaking to Shafaq News, Sheehan contends that the absence of a recognized democratic opposition capable of assuming power has become the central obstacle preventing decisive action. In his view, the true deterrent is not Iran’s military capabilities, but uncertainty over what follows a strike.

While his assessment frames US hesitation as political failure, other experts interpret the same restraint as a calculated response to hard realities on the ground.

Security and political analyst Munir Adib argues that any US military move, if undertaken, would be tightly calibrated and limited in scope. Rather than a sweeping campaign, he suggests Washington would aim to degrade specific elements of Iran’s power, including missile capabilities and air defenses, without triggering systemic collapse.

Such an approach, Adib notes to Shafaq News, reflects a broader objective: weakening Iran’s strategic posture while avoiding uncontrollable regional fallout. “All scenarios remain possible,” he cautions, “and Iran’s response will be the decisive factor.”

This emphasis on limits resonates across regional assessments, where the fear of destabilizing Iran outright often outweighs the appeal of decisive military action.

Omani political researcher Habib al-Hadi points to a narrowing of Washington’s options, particularly after repeated waves of internal unrest failed to fracture Iran’s governing structures.

In his assessment, the inability of protests to produce a clear political rupture has reinforced caution in Western capitals. Military strikes, he argues, would at best “resize” Iranian power, not guarantee regime change, an outcome that many regional states view as a dangerous gamble.

For Gulf countries and neighboring states, the collapse of Iran’s central authority raises the specter of prolonged instability, fragmented power centers, and cross-border spillover. Containment, however imperfect, is often seen as less risky than the unknown consequences of sudden regime disintegration.

Beyond military calculations, US restraint toward Iran is also shaped by a political dilemma regarding the absence of a credible, internationally recognized alternative capable of managing a post-regime transition.

Sheehan maintained that military force alone cannot resolve the Iranian question without a clear successor, warning that “the true deterrent is not Iran’s nuclear bluff or oil prices– it is the fear of what comes after a military strike if there is no democratic alternative ready to take power.”

The issue has gained renewed attention as exiled opposition figures, most notably Reza Pahlavi, have increased their visibility in Washington and abroad, calling for faster international intervention. Yet heightened exposure has not translated into a broad political consensus. Analysts note that symbolic leadership, while influential in mobilizing attention, has yet to coalesce into a unified alternative with clear internal authority or external recognition.

“History shows that durable regime change in Iran will not come from American missiles or secret deals, but from sustained internal resistance led by an organized democratic movement. Every day Washington hesitates, the Iranian people pay the price,” Sheehan said.

Read more: Escalation without Collapse: Washington’s options against Tehran

This ambiguity is reflected in US political messaging. While President Donald Trump has repeatedly called for change in Iran’s leadership and intensified pressure on Tehran, his statements have stopped short of endorsing any specific opposition figure as a successor. The focus, instead, has remained on deterrence, leverage, and signaling —rather than naming an alternative political outcome.

Taken together, the lack of a recognized successor reinforces Washington’s caution. For US policymakers, the challenge is not only how to confront Iran’s current leadership, but how to avoid a vacuum that could destabilize the region further. Until that question is answered, analysts suggest, military escalation will remain a tool of pressure rather than a pathway to transformation.

Former US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense and State Mark Kimmitt offers a more doctrinal explanation for Washington’s posture, framing potential US military action not as preparation for war, but as deterrent signaling aimed at shaping Iranian behavior.

From this perspective, limited strikes —if they occur— would serve as political-military messages rather than opening salvos in a regional conflict. The goal would be to impose costs, reinforce red lines, and restore deterrence without committing the United States to an open-ended confrontation.

Kimmitt’s view aligns closely with recent US behavior: visible deployments, public warnings, and conditional threats designed to influence Tehran’s calculations rather than overthrow its leadership.

Underlying Washington’s restraint is a sober assessment of Iran’s ability to absorb and respond to military pressure. Beyond its conventional forces, Tehran retains a broad network of regional allies and proxies, including Hezbollah in Lebanon, Ansarallah in Yemen, and Kataib Hezbollah in Iraq, alongside missile capabilities that could draw US partners into a wider conflict.

A direct strike risks triggering retaliation across multiple theaters, from the Gulf to the Levant, complicating US efforts to limit escalation. For US planners, the challenge lies not in initiating force, but in controlling its aftermath.

In addition, Iran is consistently ranked among the world’s top 20 military powers in several global assessments, including the Global Firepower Index.

This reality might help explain why Washington has paired military readiness with diplomatic signaling and economic pressure, seeking leverage without crossing thresholds that could lock both sides into a cycle of escalation.

Recent developments at the United Nations have added another layer to the equation. While the UN Human Rights Council is set to convene an emergency session to address Iran’s crackdown on protests today, backed by more than 50 countries, Tehran continues to rely on diplomatic cover from key allies, particularly Russia and China. Their support does not necessarily block debate within the council, but it helps dilute consensus, challenge investigative mandates, and limit the likelihood of follow-up measures being translated into binding international action through other UN bodies.

For Washington and its allies, multilateral pressure offers an alternative avenue to constrain Tehran while avoiding unilateral military action. It also reinforces a broader strategy that places international legitimacy and collective action alongside deterrence.

Taken together, recent statements and expert assessments suggest that US restraint is less about hesitation and more about design. Washington appears intent on maintaining pressure, preserving deterrence, and avoiding irreversible steps until clearer outcomes —or red lines— emerge.

Whether this approach amounts to strategic patience or prolonged delay remains a matter of debate. For now, however, the absence of a US strike reflects a calculation shared across multiple camps: that war with Iran may be easy to start, but far harder to control or conclude.

Written and edited by Shafaq News staff.