Amirhossein Shirzad – Public Law Researcher

The US strategy towards Iran has always fluctuated between hard deterrence, diplomacy, and economic pressure. As we enter the third decade of this century, the concept of smart deterrence has replaced traditional models as a multi-layered and complex approach.

Traditional deterrence, as reflected in the classic works of Thomas Schelling and Glenn Snyder, was based on the threat of using hard and military power if international red lines were crossed. However, in the present era, smart deterrence, by utilizing a combination of hard and soft power, attempts to send more effective deterrent messages by accurately understanding the behavior and motivations of the other party. This approach has three key axes:

1) Smart Power: In 2009, Joseph Nye introduced this concept, calling for an effective combination of hard and soft power components for crisis management and deterrence. In his opinion, the result of using complex tools such as military threats and sanctions is complete when cultural influence, public diplomacy, and narrative creation are used.

 2) Adaptive Deterrence: According to Michael Mazar, deterrence in the modern era and considering the conditions and situations is designed based on a precise understanding of the opponent or enemy, tailoring messages and responses, and selecting appropriate tools.

3) Targeted Deterrence: his approach emphasizes matching and tailoring deterrence tools to the specific characteristics of each actor.

The components of smart deterrence are as follows:

1) Targeted Deterrence: Targeted deterrence is achieved through precisely understanding the audience, analyzing the sensitivities of power institutions within it, and tailoring deterrent messages accordingly. The United States seeks to identify vulnerabilities, such as the economic dependence of military institutions or gaps between elites in Iran, to tailor its response accordingly.

2) Hybrid Deterrence: This refers to the simultaneous use of targeted economic sanctions, cyber operations, public diplomacy such as shaping public opinion in the audience through social media, and the display of limited military threats such as the symbolic presence of American ships in the Persian Gulf. This approach is designed to influence the calculations of decision-makers and officials on the other side and prevent potentially threatening actions.

3) Flexibility in messaging: Messages sent to the other side cover a wide range. Strategic ambiguity and, at the same time, clarity in the content of messages to reduce the predictability of messages can be considered examples of this.

4) Managing deterrence at the regional level: This concept refers to creating deterrence through proxy forces and allies at the regional level against another country by managing the type of presence and resources around the world. This cooperation includes information exchange, military support, and coordination in response to common threats.

The US smart deterrence strategy is a symbol of the structural adaptation of power at the global level. In the West Asian region, the US has included a combination of limited and verbal threats, media pressure, and covert public diplomacy by strengthening the approach of control and influence through balance from afar and without presence and permanence in the region by strengthening the military capabilities of partners and allies, and networking deterrence in its operational plan.

In the face of US smart deterrence, Iran can, instead of reacting passively, seek to design a model of “resistant deterrence” based on the strategy of honor, wisdom, and expediency. This model is based on combining domestic and regional hard and soft power, increasing economic resilience, and multi-layered resistance to Western pressures. This approach, while preserving the value principles of the Constitution, offers a realistic response to US smart deterrence.