Deterrence Strategy: Why is the world heading to war?
Afrasianet - Dr. Hisham Okal - International politics in the time of Donald Trump seems to be being managed as mood swings are.
A sudden escalation. An open threat. Then a declaration of complete victory before the war even began.
And when he asks why all this military build-up.
The ingenious answer comes. A deterrence strategy for the sake of doubt.
But deterrence in strategy is based on clarity, not ambiguity.
Deterring suspicion is to keep everyone—adversary, ally, markets, and even soldiers—in constant tension.
No confirmed war. No reassuring peace. Nerve management, nothing more.
The question here is not could a war occur.
Has the tension itself become an instrument of governance?
Does the world need a war for Israel?
The short answer that speeches don't like. No.
The world does not need a new war for Israel. Nor does it need a new war for the sake of any country whose security is outside the global cost balance.
Wars fought to protect the supremacy of one side do not make security. Until the leak of the Jeffrey Epstein Island documents, by analyzing the timing of their release, and its geostrategic context, serves whom?
Losses are in the language of the market, not slogans.
Any broad clash with Iran starts with energy.
Just two corridors. The Strait of Hormuz and Bab al-Mandeb. They pass through about twenty percent of the world's oil trade daily.
Their disruption does not mean a transient crisis. It is a long shock.
Oil prices rise to a range of one hundred and ten to one hundred and twenty dollars. Global inflation. Supply chain disruptions.
Energy estimates suggest that stabilization after a widespread disruption could take up to two years.
That's why gold jumped. The market doesn't trust reassurance when it mentions the word war.
The Gulf is not out of the picture.
The Gulf states are not on the sidelines.
Bases, ports, and energy are potential targets by virtue of geography and alliances.
Talking about neutralizing the Gulf in such a war is political marketing, not strategic reading.
American soldiers and the last shot.
The heavy American presence at seas and bases puts soldiers at the center of the calculation.
Iran does not need a comprehensive victory. It is enough to raise the cost.
Maritime accident. Minute strike. Or temporary closure.
The question that is not clearly said. Does Iran keep the last shot to turn the tables?
Or was what we witnessed in the past nothing more than blows to the face?
Aerial bombardment does not settle wars.
Military history is clear. Aerial bombardment opens the battle, not decides it.
Decisiveness requires troops on the ground. And that's what Washington fears.
Any land presence in Iranian geography means a strategic quagmire.
That is why the policy of deterring suspicion of the decision to go to war is taking place.
Surrounded by rules. But is that reassuring?
Iran is surrounded by a network of U.S. bases.
Prince Sultan in Saudi Arabia.
Many in Qatar.
The Fifth Fleet in Bahrain.
Bases in Turkey.
presence in Iraq and Jordan.
Theoretically superior. Practically a list of goals.
China and Russia are a cold read.
China sees the Gulf as an artery of energy and prefers to prevent an explosion.
Russia is investing in tension politically but does not want an uncontrolled collapse.
There is no international enthusiasm for a war of regime change by force.
Nuclear and why Iran specifically.
The world is full of reactors.
Pakistan.
India.
France.
and China.
Israel, which is the owner of the explosion in the region, is full of reactors, why is the problem reduced to Iran?
The realistic answer. Because the compass is controlled by Israel's security.
Internal change is key to the Iranian people, not missiles.
Absent interests and present energy.
Years ago, Iran exported to Europe like Russia.
Today the language of interests was absent and the discourse of sanctions, war and attrition was present
A legitimate question. Is the energy map re-engineered to deprive Europe of Iranian and Russian alternatives under the guise of security?
A sharp angle asks, "?
If it is said that the reactor is completely destroyed, the war is meaningless.
If not, confrontation is not inevitable.
The world is not run by mood or by exhibition wars.
Managed tension is more dangerous than war because it terrifies everyone and postpones solutions.
Symbols disappear and countries remain. The world has changed. And whoever ignores it will be hit by it
- Professor of Crisis Management and International Relations
