Iran and the US concluded another round of indirect nuclear talks amid unprecedented US military buildup in West Asia. The situation prompts inquiry into whether the two sides have weighed escalation costs or would deter each other by convincing that aggression would fail or cost more than it’s worth.
Iran and the US concluded the third round of indirect talks in Geneva on February 26 amid unprecedented US military buildup in West Asia. US President Donald Trump last week (February 19) warned that the world will likely find out within the next 10 days if a deal on Iran’s nuclear programme is reached or military action follows.
In the meantime, Iran appears defiant and has responded by saying it would “immediately and powerfully respond” to any new US attack. According to media reports, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) launched a maritime drill in the Strait of Hormuz on Monday (February 16).
The situation prompts inquiry into whether the two sides have weighed escalation costs or would deter each other by convincing that aggression will fail or cost more than it’s worth. This is how deterrence on ground works, with each side demonstrating credible resolve to impose unacceptable costs and thereby maintaining stability through mutual fear of failure.
Deterrence in international relations refers to a form of persuasion in military strategy. It aims at dissuading potential aggressors by convincing them that the cost of an attack would be greater than its benefits.
In an article titled Understanding Deterrence,Michael J Mazarr, based on several studies of deterrence, mentioned three essential factors for the success or failure of deterrence strategies:
1. Level of aggressor motivation.
2. Clarity about the object of deterrence and actions the defender will take.
3. Aggressor must be confident that the deterring state has the capability and will to carry out threats.
Story continues below this ad
Hence, alongside perception, credibility of threat plays a crucial role in the success and failure of deterrence.
As a strategy, deterrence is often contrasted with defence. While the former is premised on intention and perception, the latter focuses on military capabilities. Martin Griffiths and others point out that while deterrence works by the threat of punishment, defence works by denying the enemy’s ability to achieve its objectives once an attack has begun.
Deterrence became significant during the Cold War, with the US and the Soviet Union deterring each other with their nuclear arsenals of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). Early deterrence theorists like Bernard Brodie, Thomas Schelling, and Glenn Snyder, drawing on the tenets of rational choice theory, explained that “assured destruction” would prevent the nuclear war between the US and the Soviet Union that many had feared.
Has the US identified outcome?
For years, Iran’s nuclear programme has been at the centre of dispute with the US. Tehran has rejected the “principles of zero enrichment for ever, dismantling of nuclear facilities and transferring uranium stocks to the US”, according to media reports.
Story continues below this ad
Against this backdrop, Syed Ata Hasnain argues that while “Iran’s enrichment advances and missile inventory provide it with bargaining leverage; America’s overwhelming conventional superiority provides it with coercive options.”
Now the question is not “whether the US can strike Iran. It is whether it has identified an outcome that can be achieved at acceptable human and strategic cost. Until that answer is articulated, the crisis is unlikely to tip,” he adds.
Click Here to read the UPSC Essentials magazine for January 2026.Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week.
Story continues below this ad
Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – IndianExpress UPSC Hub, and follow us onInstagramand X.
Ashiya Parveen is working as Commissioning Editor for the UPSC Section at The Indian Express. She also writes a weekly round up of global news, The World This Week. Ashiya has more than 10 years of experience in editing and writing spanning media and academics, and has both academic and journalistic publications to her credit. She has previously worked with The Pioneer and Press Trust of India (PTI). She also holds a PhD in international studies from Centre for West Asian Studies, JNU. ... Read More