The recent, surprising strikes on Iran’s key missile sites and strategic installations, amid intense negotiations over a deal, perhaps caught Iran off guard, as the US had been engaging in rhetoric and show-of-force tactics, extending threats of strikes against Iran if a deal was not reached. However, the credibility of this threat was established within forty-eight hours when Iran was hit by back-to-back US strikes. These strikes have placed the deal in an even more fragile position. Moreover, the US’s decision to carry out consecutive targeted strikes on Iran at such a crucial juncture perhaps marks the first serious kinetic engagement since the ceasefire was announced in April and later extended indefinitely. More than the timing, the decision to conduct such strikes reflects the US’s desperation, the fragility of the deal, and concerns about being labelled the loser of the war. Yet, the strategic value of these strikes may form part of a broader US plan.
The Three Dilemmas
Even after months of repeated exchanges and negotiations, the deal remains at a standstill, with only a faint glimmer of hope at the end of the tunnel.
The deal’s fragility rests on two crucial factors. First, it stems from Iran’s rigid stance on control of the Strait of Hormuz and the nuclear issue, alongside the US’s unwillingness to concede on any major demands, including sanctions relief. Second, US desperation is becoming increasingly evident, as the deadlock has placed Washington in a difficult position. The US is neither able to negotiate entirely on its own terms nor, at least from a position of strength, achieve the objectives of the operation launched on February 28, particularly in terms of military effectiveness.
To make matters more complicated, multiple reports cite US aircraft losses and economic costs, placing Washington under increasing public scrutiny. More importantly, Iran has been capitalising on the opportunity to rebuild its missile and strategic capabilities. Alongside this, a series of resignations has emerged from the US national security and strategic community. First came the departure of US Counterterrorism Chief Joe Kent, followed by the recent resignation of Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. Fragility and desperation now cast the shadow of potential defeat. This realisation appears to have become increasingly apparent within the US over the past few months, given growing internal tensions and mounting costs. All three dilemmas are now pushing Washington towards risky gambles that could renew the conflict.
Exhausting Options
Coercive diplomacy failed to compel Iran to negotiate a deal. A limited containment strategy at the maritime front—restricting access to Iranian ports and employing show-of-force tactics in the Strait of Hormuz—also failed to produce the desired results, whether in coercing Iran to sign a deal or placing the US in a stronger negotiating position. The stalemate in negotiations and the lack of substantive progress regarding the Strait of Hormuz are exacerbating global energy concerns, particularly in Asia.
It now appears that the US may be adjusting its strategy by balancing risks while signalling to Iran the consequences of renewed conflict and escalating costs, all while keeping a potential exit strategy in mind.
The Left-of-Launch Strategy
After the Korean War, during which US-led UN forces devastated much of Korea, the United States pursued decades of coercive diplomacy and economic sanctions. Yet all available options either appeared strategically unfeasible or carried the risk of imposing escalating costs, particularly on South Korea. Under President Barack Obama, a sub-kinetic strategy was adopted, capitalising on a period of political isolation surrounding North Korea. The strategy was straightforward: remain below the threshold of war while disrupting and degrading North Korea’s strategic capabilities, including its ballistic missile and cyber programmes, through covert sabotage campaigns.
The “left-of-launch” initiative became the first tier of the broader US missile defence strategy, aiming to neutralise missiles before they could threaten the United States or its allies. Alongside this covert approach, Washington aggressively lobbied for North Korea’s political isolation through multiple sanctions regimes, including secondary sanctions. Similar approaches were later employed against Syria and Iran after sanctions and military measures failed to achieve their intended objectives.
The Sub-Kinetic Shift in the Iran War
After exhausting coercive diplomacy and economic sanctions—often described as “economic fury”—the US’s recent back-to-back preventive or self-defence strikes against Iran may indicate a gradual shift towards limited kinetic operations aimed at pressuring Tehran into a deal while remaining below the threshold of full-scale war.
Alongside these limited military actions, Washington appears to be considering politically driven sub-kinetic measures, such as encouraging Middle Eastern states to sign the Abraham Accords. Such efforts could further isolate Iran and contribute to a broader geopolitical realignment in the region over the long term. Consequently, these limited strikes should be viewed through a broader strategic lens. Through calibrated military action, the US may be attempting to construct an exit strategy that allows it to claim that Iran ultimately accepted a deal under pressure.
Overall, the US’s careful strategy of escalation management through strength—combining limited strikes with pressure for a negotiated settlement while framing an honourable exit—may represent an implicit blueprint for disengagement. A similar pattern was observed in 2020, when the US assassinated Major General Qasem Soleimani, the architect of Iran’s proxy network, in response to a series of proxy attacks carried out throughout 2019. Iran responded with limited ballistic missile strikes against a US base in Iraq, resulting in no reported fatalities. Both sides claimed victory, accepted an exit from the immediate crisis spiral, and ultimately de-escalated. A comparable pattern may now be unfolding in the current US-Iran confrontation, with both sides conducting limited strikes while preserving the possibility of a negotiated exit under the framework of a deal.
The Deal Conundrum
If some reports are to be believed, the proposed deal appears ambitious yet highly complicated. For Iran, the two principal non-negotiable issues remain the nuclear question and control of the Strait of Hormuz. While the US has announced the end of the military blockade, it continues to insist on the demand for a non-nuclear Iran.
As President Trump’s final decision is awaited, reports indicate that the White House Situation Room has convened to deliberate on the deal’s final terms. Washington effectively faces two options: pursue escalation management through strength and a gradual exit strategy, or approve the deal currently on the table. Iran’s response—which could potentially undermine the US’s escalation-control strategy—will ultimately shape Washington’s exit path. That path remains vulnerable to a renewed cycle of conflict should negotiations fail to produce an agreement.
