The Great Conversation: Rethinking Iran’s Strategy

Hello everyone, and welcome to The Great Conversation.

Today, we’re exploring a critical question in global security:what happens when deterrence fails?

For decades, Iran built its strategy around a simple idea —that the threat of retaliation would prevent its enemies from striking it directly.

This is what strategists call deterrence: You don’t win wars by fighting them… you win by making sure they never happen.

But according to a recent Foreign Affairs analysis, that system has now broken down in a dramatic way.

During the recent conflict, the United States and Israel carried out direct strikes on Iranian territory — something that Iran had long tried to prevent.

And despite its arsenal of missiles, proxies, and regional influence, Iran was unable to stop or limit that escalation.

That’s the key point:

deterrence didn’t just weaken — it failed.

So why did this happen?

Part of the answer lies in miscalculation.

Iran relied heavily on indirect power — militias, regional allies, and the threat of retaliation across the Middle East. But when faced with a direct and coordinated military campaign, those tools proved less effective than expected.

Another factor is depletion.

The conflict forced Iran to use significant portions of its military capabilities, exposing limits in its ability to sustain long-term pressure.

And then there’s perception.

Deterrence depends not just on what you can do —but on what your opponent believes you are willing and able to do.

Once that perception cracks, the entire system becomes unstable.

And that leads to the most important takeaway from this analysis:

A failed deterrence doesn’t create peace — it creates danger.

When a country can no longer rely on fear to protect itself, it may look for other options.

That could mean escalating conflict. It could mean rebuilding military capabilities more aggressively. Or, in the most concerning scenario, it could mean reconsidering more extreme forms of deterrence — including nuclear options.

In fact, recent developments already suggest that Iran is still capable of responding and escalating, even after setbacks, highlighting how instability can increase risk rather than reduce it.

So the paradox is this:

A weaker deterrent doesn’t calm a conflict — it can make it more unpredictable.

And that brings us to the central question for today:

If the old system of deterrence is breaking down…what replaces it?

A new balance of power? A more dangerous cycle of escalation? Or a push toward diplomacy under pressure?

That’s the reflection we invite you to consider today in The Great Conversation.

Thanks for being a part of The Great Conversation. If you found this episode useful, consider sharing it with someone else.

And now, in light of this reflection, please click the link and then continue with the article below from Foreign Affairs for a deeper understanding of today’s discussion.

The Stunning Failure of Iranian Deterrence | Foreign Affairs