Military superiority without ...
Page 1
The developments of 2026 in the military confrontation involving the United States, Israel, and Iran have once again highlighted the importance of this distinction. Analyses of the consequences of the war suggest that the use of military force, even on an extensive scale, does not necessarily resolve fundamental political and security disputes. Under such circumstances, the parties’ ability to absorb costs, manage escalation, and reach a sustainable agreement becomes as important as the outcomes on the battlefield. (See analyses by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, April 20, 2026, and Chatham House, September 14, 2026.)
This reality is particularly significant in the Persian Gulf, where regional security is closely intertwined with global energy markets, vital maritime shipping routes, and the economic stability of numerous countries. The Strait of Hormuz is not merely a geographical passage; it is part of a complex strategic equation in which the interests of Iran, the Persian Gulf Arab states, major Asian powers, and the global economy are deeply interconnected. Any military escalation in this region could generate consequences far beyond the immediate theater of conflict, ranging from heightened uncertainty in energy markets to disruptions in trade and declining investor confidence. Persian Gulf security, therefore, cannot be reduced to the military protection of maritime routes or the deployment of foreign forces.
The US military presence may serve as a deterrent for some regional governments. However, if confrontation intensifies, that same presence could expose host countries to the consequences of a wider conflict. Reports concerning Arab states’ reassessment of their security arrangements following the recent war suggest that reliance on external security guarantees is no substitute for regional dialogue. This does not mean that the Persian Gulf Arab states’ defense relationships with Washington have become irrelevant. Rather, it underscores the limitations of any security framework that seeks to protect some actors’ interests while disregarding the concerns of other principal regional stakeholders.
In this context, Iran cannot be excluded from the Persian Gulf’s security equation. Its geography, population, military capabilities, economic connections, and proximity to one of the world’s most strategically sensitive energy chokepoints give it a position that cannot be ignored without considerable cost. What matters is the recognition of a principle of reciprocal security: no country can reasonably expect its own security concerns to be acknowledged while those of other states are consistently disregarded.
The way out of this impasse lies in establishing a regional mechanism for reducing tensions, managing military incidents, safeguarding maritime security, and maintaining reliable channels of communication. Such a mechanism must be founded on the participation of Iran and the Persian Gulf Arab states and should draw on the potential mediating role of actors such as Pakistan. External powers can help facilitate agreements, but they cannot manufacture political legitimacy or mutual trust on behalf of the countries of the region.
Ultimately, the central question facing Washington is not whether it possesses the capability to strike Iran militarily. It is whether the United States can control the political and security consequences of such strikes and construct a stable order in their aftermath. Military superiority may alter the balance of power, but a durable regional order requires mutual recognition of geopolitical realities. The future of Persian Gulf security will be shaped not by Iran’s exclusion, but by the creation of a framework capable of accommodating strategic competition, managing disputes, and safeguarding shared interests.
If the United States genuinely seeks lasting stability in the region, it must recognize that military power alone is insufficient to build such an order. Iran’s participation, with due consideration for reciprocal rights and legitimate security concerns, is an indispensable component of any sustainable solution.