Dr Abed Akbari (Deputy Head, Center for Strategic Studies of the Presidency of IR Iran)

Amid the media noise and constant speculation about the possibility of a large-scale military confrontation with Iran, what unfolds inside situation rooms and high-level strategic circles looks markedly different from sensational headlines. Viewed through the cold, calculating logic of power politics, it becomes clear that the principal obstacle to any direct military action in the short term is not merely the conventional balance of arms, but a far more complex and decisive factor: the unquantifiable costs generated by strategic ambiguity.

Despite aggressive political rhetoric, states—especially major powers—are inherently cautious actors. They resort to military force only when they can predict, with a high degree of confidence, the adversary’s response, the trajectory of escalation, and the likely endpoint of the conflict. Iran’s security puzzle emerges precisely at this juncture. Tehran’s behavioral patterns do not fit neatly into classical crisis-management models, and this very unpredictability has evolved into its most effective deterrent.
For Western military planners and some regional actors, the fundamental challenge lies in the fact that Iran does not adhere to a linear, easily modelled doctrine. In this framework, a limited strike does not automatically invite a symmetrical or purely defensive response. Current assessments confront a “black box” in Iranian decision-making—one that simultaneously contains a spectrum of options, ranging from calibrated restraint to horizontal escalation across multiple theaters.
This ambiguity means there is no guarantee that a limited attack would remain limited. By leveraging its regional networks and asymmetric tools, Iran could expand the scope of confrontation well beyond the initial battlefield, targeting more vulnerable and strategically sensitive interests of its adversaries. The inability to accurately map the “escalation ladder” has turned any military scenario into a high-stakes gamble—one in which the initiator of hostilities would not necessarily control the course or conclusion of the conflict.
In today’s deeply interconnected world, where global economic stability and energy security have become critical vulnerabilities for major powers, this risk acquires even greater complexity. Fears of innovative and unconventional Iranian responses—responses that could disrupt energy flows, threaten key maritime chokepoints, or destabilize global markets—push the cost of war beyond what decision-makers consider acceptable. When a state cannot be confident that a conflict will remain confined to military targets and must assume that the rules of the game could abruptly change, strategic logic dictates restraint rather than confrontation.
From this perspective, the current situation should not be mistaken for durable peace. What has prevented war is a form of balance rooted in fear and uncertainty—a condition in which adversaries avoid entering a dark tunnel with an unknown end, opting instead for political, economic, and diplomatic pressure. As long as ambiguity surrounding the timing, nature, and intensity of Iran’s potential responses is preserved, the likelihood of a full-scale war in the near term will continue to be outweighed by rational cost–benefit calculations.