The latest in the US-Israel military campaign against Iran is a peculiar seesaw wherein US President Donald Trump pronounces that the war is ‘nearing its end’ while Iran dismisses such possibilities, claiming that the conflict will end only on its terms. At the core of this paradox is the condition of ‘reputation or credibility trap’ wherein both sides are deeply ensnared in a dangerous cycle of deterrence and dominance narratives, which pushes their leaders towards escalation, irrespective of whether the military objectives – ambiguous in this case – have been fulfilled. The recent years of escalating conflict in West Asia, centered around Israeli responses to its adversaries, culminating in the ongoing war with Iran, lays bare this ‘credibility trap’ that confronts not only these warring states but also the ringside players in the Arab world, points out Professor Swaran Singh in the 19th edition of Asia Watch, and listing ways to exit this trap.
Home page image: A B-2 Spirit stealth bomber on a mission during Operation Epic Fury
Text page image: Fighter aircraft line up the flight deck of an unnamed US aircraft carrier
Banner image: The USS Abraham Lincoln strike group at an unnamed location as part of Operation Epic Fury
Wars are often explained in terms of interests — territory, resources, or security. Yet some conflicts escalate for more elusive reasons: credibility, prestige, reputation. Once leaders publicly commit to deterrence and define their red lines and then launch a shooting war to defend them, backing down can appear costlier than fighting.
Warring parties often become stuck in such mutually hurting stalemates, with military fatigue instead of victory or defeat determining the outcome. Often, violence gradually dissipates and unresolved issues get marginalised and pushed under the carpet.
The unfolding confrontation involving the United States, Israel and Iran since the last day of February increasingly presents precisely the same dynamic with dangerous global consequences.
With nations changing their goal posts, the difficulties of fact-checking their verbose claims and opaque war aims have become a nightmare not just for victims of violence but equally so for the ivory tower analysts. It seems what began as a confrontation ostensibly about Iran’s nuclear programme has since transformed into a war of reputations.
In the language of International Relations theory, such a phenomenon is often conceptualised as the ‘credibility trap’ or ‘reputation trap’ — a situation where states escalate conflict not because their interests demand it but because their reputations are at stake and require war’s continuance.
The present crisis reveals how each of the three actors — Washington, Tel Aviv and Tehran — has become deeply ensnared in its own version of this trap. The result is a dangerous cycle where deterrence narratives are pushing leaders toward escalation even when the underlying strategic aims remain ambiguous or partially achieved.
From a nuclear question to a credibility contest
For decades, the central issue in the standoff between the United States, Israel and Iran has been Tehran’s suspected nuclear ambitions. After sustained diplomatic negotiations by Europeans, the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) had meticulously choreographed constraints on Iran’s nuclear programme through a combination of inspections and sanctions relief.
When the US President Donald Trump, in his first tenure, withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018, calling it a “horrible one-sided deal,” the nuclear question once again resurrected as the centrepiece of the region’s security debates.
In June 2025, the International Atomic Energy Agency had reported Iran having stockpiled over 400 kilograms of over 60 per cent enriched uranium. The Agency had then cautioned that any armed attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities “could result in radioactive releases with grave consequences within and beyond [Iran’s] boundaries.”
Nevertheless, the United States and Israel launched a 12-day-long campaign of air strikes against Iran in June 2025, which ended with President Trump claiming to have ‘obliterated’ Iran’s nuclear capabilities.
President Trump’s red lines have since expanded to ask Iran to stop enrichment, surrender its uranium stocks, abstain from developing long-range missiles and cut ties with its proxies like Hamas, Hezbollah and Houthis.
In the wake of current strikes, regime change was also speculated as a key objective of the Trump Administration. With the US operations in Venezuela just weeks before this war, regime change appeared as a feasible option for Washington.
However, the manner in which the US-Israeli strikes have been unfolding over the last fortnight has little to do with either Iran crossing the nuclear threshold or regime change, which, in principle, has already happened with the assassination of Ali Khamenei and his son, Mojtaba Khamenei, taking over as Iran’s new Supreme Leader.
President Trump, who first wanted to be consulted for this selection process, has since disapproved of this new leader’s choice, confounding an early end to this conflict. If anything, the escalation has since expanded into a contest over his and America's reputation, as to who can demonstrate resolve, who can sustain deterrence, and who can shape the region’s geopolitics.
Such dynamics were famously explored by a famous 1960s American deterrence strategist, Thomas Schelling, who had argued that deterrence relies not merely on capabilities but on perceptions of resolve. This requires clarity of communications for the adversary to believe in that resolve, thereby ensuring deterrence credibility.
Conversely, once states publicly commit themselves to certain red lines, failing to enforce them risks eroding credibility in the eyes of allies and adversaries alike. In practice, however, this logic often creates incentives for escalation even when the original stakes no longer justify it.
America’s credibility crisis
For the United States, the war has become entangled with a broader crisis of its credibility. This has lately been accelerated by President Trump withdrawing from various international organisations, conventions and treaties. Its impact now stretches across multiple theatres — from Europe to the Middle East and the Indo-Pacific region.
The war in Ukraine, triggered by the Russian military operations since February 2022, has already raised fundamental questions about American commitment to defending the international order. To begin with, Washington had mobilised massive economic and military support for Kyiv, but the protracted stalemate has exposed the limits of Western power.
Even before the Iran war, Trump was losing patience and interest in Ukraine. Critics at home and abroad now increasingly question whether the United States can sustain such long-term multi-front commitments.
Simultaneously, the conflict in Gaza between Israel and Hamas had also intensified scrutiny of American policy in the Middle East. Washington’s unwavering support for Israel — with over 75,000 Palestinians killed since October 2023, including 618 killed since the October 10 ceasefire — has triggered humanitarian criticism.
This has complicated American claims of upholding international norms, resulting in increasing reluctance of its friends and allies to support the US-Israeli strikes on Iran.
In the Indo-Pacific as well, the first term of President Trump saw him resurrect the Quadrilateral Security Framework to balance the rise of China. As part of strengthening security frameworks and enhancing military deployments, President Joe Biden launched the AUKUS (Australia, United Kingdom, United States) alliance.
Repeatedly, American policymakers have emphasised the importance of credibility in deterring revisionist powers. However, in his second term, continued uncertainty about President Trump’s availability has inordinately delayed the Quad summit of 2025.
Within this broader strategic environment of uncertainty, any possibility of the US failure to confront risks arising out of the conflict with Iran could be interpreted as a sign of American decline.
The logic becomes circular: Washington must demonstrate strength to reassure allies and deter adversaries, yet the act of demonstrating strength has seen President Trump asking allies for burden sharing. The ‘credibility trap’ has thus converted this regional crisis in West Asia into a test of American global leadership.
US military personnel pay tribute to the bodies of six colleagues killed in action during Operation Epic Fury
Israel’s doctrine of Absolute Deterrence
If the United States is worried about its credibility as a global power, Israel confronts an even more immediate reputational dilemma. Since its founding, Israel’s strategic deterrence doctrine has rested on the principle of preponderance and preemption.
This doctrine was shaped by earlier conflicts such as the Six-Day War of 1967, which had cemented the belief that decisive military superiority was essential for national survival. Surrounded by adversaries and lacking strategic depth, Israeli strategists historically believed that any perception of weakness could invite aggression.
Now, it's 29 months of prolonged conflict with Hamas following the October 7, 2023, attacks, which have profoundly challenged this doctrine, as well as challenged the reputation of the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) and Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency.
Israeli fighter jets during the 12-day military campaign against Iran in June 2025
Being caught off guard on an unprecedented scale by the Hamas attack had since raised uncomfortable questions about Israel’s deterrence credibility. In response, Israeli leaders have sought to restore that reputation through relentless military operations against Hamas, Hezbollah and other militias.
Iran occupies a central place in this narrative of Tel Aviv. Israeli policymakers have long viewed Tehran not merely as a strategic rival but as the orchestrator of a network of militant groups across the region.
For Israel, therefore, confronting Iran directly becomes a way of restoring its reputation by reaffirming deterrence — also called pre-terrence, meaning a combination of pre-emption and compellence strategies — across this entire network of Iran and its proxies.
But, here too, the reputation trap has persisted with no end to violence. Once deterrence becomes tied to reputation, escalation becomes unavoidable. Any element or posture of restraint could risk being interpreted as weakness, encouraging further challenges.
Consequently, Israel’s continued military strikes are evidently intended to restore its reputation through robust deterrence, which instead has deepened the cycle of confrontation.
Iran and the ‘Axis of Resistance’
Iran faces its own reputational dilemma. Over the past two decades, Tehran is believed to have cultivated a network of regional partners often described as the Axis of Resistance. These groups — including Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis and other militias— are believed to form the backbone of Iran’s strategy to project influence without direct confrontation.
For Iran, credibility within this network is essential. In the late 1980s, the perceived capitulation of the Palestinian leadership to the US and Israeli cultivation had opened this new space for Iran to assume the mantle of resistance against Tel Aviv and Washington.
If Iran appears unwilling or unable to defend its allies, the legitimacy of this regime and its entire strategy of resistance will be undermined.
And, in the wake of US-Israeli military strikes last June, and now, this dynamic places Iranian leaders in a difficult position. On the one hand, direct war with Israel and the United States carries enormous risks. On the other hand, failing to respond to repeated attacks could undermine Iran’s standing within its own strategic coalition.
Thus, Tehran, like Washington and Tel Aviv, also finds itself caught in the same ‘credibility trap’ where escalation becomes the price of maintaining reputation.
The Iranian leadership killed in the US-Israeli military campaign, listed in this poster issued by the Israel Defence Force (IDF)
Quiet hedging of America’s Arab allies
Perhaps, the most revealing dimension of the ‘reputation trap’ lies not among the belligerents, US-Israel-Iran, but among the region’s Arab states.
For decades, the security architecture of the Middle East was anchored in American military presence. American military bases across the Gulf symbolised Washington’s role as the ultimate guarantor of regional stability.
Yet, the recent years have witnessed a gradual shift towards Arab assertion of autonomy, which has also been accelerated to redress President Trump’s retreat to the western hemisphere, threatening disorder for this region’s foreseeable future.
Arab governments have, accordingly, pursued hedging strategies, diversifying their partnerships to reduce dependence on the United States. Economic engagement with China — with over USD 407 billion bilateral trade last year and USD 89 billion of China’s investments in the last five years — had expanded China’s influence sufficiently to mediate peace talks between Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Arab diplomacy with Turkey has also intensified. Turkey has come to be the leading source for defence supplies, especially affordable and battle-tested drones, as well as a destination for sovereign wealth fund investments by Arabs.
Even emerging powers like India have become attractive partners in trade, technology and energy. For India, the UAE is now the third largest trading partner, while the UAE is India’s second largest trading partner. India is a founding member of the I2U2 (India, Israel, United Arab Emirates, the United States) forum, and is also closely connected to these countries through its IMEC (India, Middle East, Europe Corridor) initiative of 2023.
This shift reflects a growing perception that American guarantees may no longer be absolute. But instead of abandoning Washington entirely, regional Arab states are seen hedging — maintaining ties with the United States while cultivating others.
In this sense, the ‘credibility trap’ for Arab states can already be seen to be in action and extends beyond the recent military strikes. The ongoing war, of course, risks accelerating these very doubts about American credibility that Washington hopes to dispel.
Oil, bases and the resource curse
Another layer of the credibility dilemma can be understood through the lens of the resource curse theory of International Relations, a concept widely debated within political economy studies. Scholars argue that regions rich in natural resources — gas and oil — have resulted in heightened external intervention and internal instability.
The West Asian region provides a striking illustration where vast hydrocarbon wealth has attracted the sustained attention of global powers for decades, resulting in foreign domination, instability and violence.
Military bases, security guarantees and strategic partnerships have all been shaped around these geopolitics of energy. But these assets have also become liabilities, attracting Iranian strikes on several of these Arab states.
The presence of foreign military forces has reinforced the perception that regional states remain embedded within a Western security framework. In such a context, conflicts like the present military strikes risk reinforcing the narratives of Arab states being nothing but extensions of the United States, which explains why they become the target of continued Iranian retaliation.
If credibility is measured by the ability to shape a stable regional order, then the persistence of external military involvement in this region has paradoxically ended in undermining the very legitimacy of Arab’s regional autonomy and order.
Escaping the ‘reputation trap’
How, then, can states escape this trap? Restoring reputation without perpetuating cycles of destructive violence requires rethinking the relationship between reputation and restraint.
First, diplomacy must regain primacy. The Trump Administration's walking out on the JCPOA, for instance, demonstrated how fragile it was. Yet such deals remain essential for transforming security dilemmas into cooperative arrangements. Hence, reviving the JCPOA should be prioritised, with other signatories of the JCPOA taking responsibility to revive the US-Iran dialogue.
Second, regional security architecture must be more inclusive. Instead of relying exclusively on external guarantees, West Asian states must develop a mechanism for collective security dialogue that incorporates both Arab states and Iran.
The military strikes of last June had triggered some such initiatives for an Islamic NATO, though these were restricted to only Arab states.
Third, the great powers must recognise that credibility does not necessarily derive from escalation. In many cases, restraint and diplomacy can strengthen rather than weaken international reputation. The ability to prevent wars may ultimately prove more valuable than the ability to fight wars and even win some of them.
Finally, the global powers must address the deeper structural drivers of conflict, especially in this region, including the economic dependency on hydrocarbons and geopolitical competition over energy routes. Addressing these vulnerabilities would diminish the incentives for external intervention.
Stakes beyond the battlefield
In the end, the ongoing US-Israel-Iran war illustrates a broader transformation in contemporary geopolitics where violence is becoming normalised. Also, in an interconnected world, conflicts now rarely remain confined to their original causes and geographies. Instead, they become arenas where reputations, alliances and narratives collide.
The US expeditionary force relies on its naval platforms - US aircraft taking off from the flight decks of its aircraft carriers
The danger of the ‘credibility trap’ lies precisely here. Once wars become contests of reputation, compromise becomes politically difficult. Leaders fear that concessions will be interpreted as their weakness, while escalation appears to promise restored prestige.
Yet, history repeatedly demonstrates that wars fought for reputation rarely produce stable outcomes. Instead, they entrench hostility and multiply grievances.
Escaping this trap requires a profound shift in strategic thinking — one that places diplomacy, regional dialogue and cooperative security above the relentless pursuit of reputational dominance.
Only then can credibility be restored – not through demonstrations of force but through the more difficult, yet ultimately more enduring, pursuit of peace through restraint.
Follow us on WhatsApp
Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on X @vudmedia
Follow us on Substack
