US–Iran: Between Deterrence Signalling and Controlled Escalation

CONTRADICTORY SIGNALS IN THE US–IRAN FILE

According to the information summarized in the brief, Secretary of State Marco Rubio reportedly stated that further US military action against Iran was not necessary. At the same time, Iran’s IRNA news agency reportedly cited a Revolutionary Guard statement regarding the attack on the US radar system in Bahrain.

These messages can be interpreted as an example of strategic deterrence. Each side seeks to demonstrate capability and resolve while attempting to avoid uncontrolled escalation.

There are three communication levels to monitor:

1. Operational — justifying military actions or defensive responses.

2. Political — sending messages to allies, adversaries and the public.

3. Psychological — shaping perceptions of the potential cost of retaliation.

The main risk is that deterrence signals may be interpreted as preparation for a broader operation. OSINT analysis should therefore compare official statements with observable military movements, diplomatic activity and changes in the alert status of regional bases.

A public message of restraint does not necessarily rule out operational preparation. Similarly, a military claim does not automatically confirm every reported detail.