This threat, which explicitly talks about “harsh military attacks on Iran” in case an agreement is not reached between Tehran and Washington, differs from the previous U.S. political literature both conceptually and legally.

This threat can be analyzed as a move in a multi-phased game within the framework of game theory. However, the key point is that such a threat must be considered as a certain threat in the real world and from a strategic perspective, even though it is only probable. This means that even if, from the perspective of game theory, the likelihood of executing such a threat is very low, the other player must take it seriously and prepare to counter it.

First Phase: Direct and unprecedented threat - the weight of a new card

For the first time, a president of the United States has directly threatened Iran with a military attack and bombardment. In this framework, the Pentagon has attempted to show that the U.S.'s threats are serious by sending an aircraft carrier to the region and deploying B2 bombers to the Diego Garcia base in the Indian Ocean. The threats have been expressed while, according to Article 2 of the United Nations Charter, any threat or resort to force against the territorial integrity or political authority of a country is forbidden. However, the global community has fueled concerns regarding the continuation of such behaviors from the U.S. by keeping silent in the face of the U.S.'s actions.

The interesting point is that after the presentation of Trump’s threats, no meeting was held in the UN Security Council to examine the threats; this silence is a sign of the weakening of international legal order and the inaction of international entities in the face of the U.S.'s unilateral display of power more than anything else.

Within the framework of game theory, the threat can be placed in the category of “valid but costly threats.” By displaying its military capabilities and its presence in the region, the U.S. is trying to communicate to Iran that in case of crossing Washington’s one-sided red lines, a military attack will be on the table. However, Iran is not the sole audience of this threat; regional countries, Europe, Russia, China, and even domestic oppositions to Trump are also part of the audience for this aimed show.

The second phase: Iran’s reaction – compound deterrence and strategic restructuring

In response to the U.S.’s threat, Iran has adopted a multidimensional approach with different phases, which is not merely confined to diplomacy. One of the most important moves is creating extended defense readiness and restructuring the country’s military capabilities in four fields: defense, missile, marine, and asymmetrical warfare. The restructuring has been designed not only in the form of maneuvers but also in the real reinforcement of defensive infrastructures and fresh composition of forces in accordance with probable threats.

Simultaneously, deterrence, of the nature of the resistance axis, plays a fundamental role in Iran’s strategy of response, which completes this military readiness. Unlike many narratives presented by Western media, which use the term “proxy forces,” Iran emphasizes the potential of the network of its allied forces in the region – from Lebanon to Yemen, Syria, and Iraq. A network of aligned players that are considered part of the deterrence equation against foreign interference, due to their common strategic interests.

From the field perspective, Iran is sending a clear message to the White House by warning about the possibility of the extension of war to the entire region, the vulnerability of the U.S.’s bases in the region, and the possibility of disruption in the traffic of oil tankers in the Persian Gulf: That the costs of performing this threat are much greater than its probable profits. This approach is equal to the “injection of uncertainty” into the rival’s calculations; which means that the U.S. cannot decide to initiate an attack with full certainty about being able to control its implications.

Besides these field measures, the Islamic Republic of Iran’s diplomatic machinery is consulting with friendly countries, reinforcing the region’s axis, and holding talks at the highest levels with influential governments in a parallel and active manner.

Diplomatic visits and telephone consultations at the level of presidents, foreign ministers, and military commanders during the past week indicate that Iran is simultaneously stabilizing its position in the region and making concealed and open coalitions ready for a likely conflict with a war scenario.

All in all, Iran’s strategy in the face of the U.S.’s threats is based on “compound deterrence,” which means operational readiness at different military levels accompanied by the smart application of regional and political potentials. Such an approach has been designed not only as a reaction to Trump’s recent threats but also as the foundation for countering military adventurism in the future.

The third phase: The U.S. and the multidimensional game of signaling

One of the obvious strategies of the U.S. against Iran is sending messages to several players at the same time. Within this framework, the military threat not only affects Iran’s decision but also sends messages to Israel, Persian Gulf littoral Arab states, and European powers. The message relayed to Israel is that Washington still believes in the military option to counter Iran’s nuclear progress; Arab countries will become hopeful with the U.S.’s guarantee for security support; European nations will enhance their collaboration to increase pressure on Iran, hoping it will help revive diplomacy; and China and Russia will act with more caution as they calculate the high cost of supporting Iran against the U.S.’s excessive greed.
Within the framework of game theory, this multidimensional signaling is a classic tactic for enforcing coalitions and increasing pressure on the main rival simultaneously.

The fourth phase: Iran and the point of nuclear decision
Perhaps the most significant reaction of Iran to this threat occurs not on the battlefield but in the room of nuclear strategic decision-making. Ali Larijani, the advisor to the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, has explicitly warned that “If Americans want to drag Iran into a threat to its existence, it is natural that Iran’s calculation will also change, and the strategy of not building nuclear weapons may be revised.”

These remarks, within the framework of game theory, represent a “reciprocal deterrence threat”; which means Iran is trying to create a preemptive obstacle against likely U.S. actions by announcing that if its existence is threatened, it would enter the phase of constructing nuclear weapons. Under the theory of games, this situation can be considered a “reciprocal red line”; if the U.S. goes beyond its threats, Iran may also abandon its peaceful strategy.

Playing on the edge of the cliff with the spice of threat and calculation

In the final analysis, the U.S.’s military attack against Iran, which may be just a tactic to increase pressure, must be taken as a serious and potential threat. Since the threat has been expressed very frankly and by a president of the United States, it cannot be classified in the same category as past cliché threats.

Under these circumstances, Iran has no choice but to put a combination of regional deterrence, political warnings, and strategic preparedness on the agenda with precise calculations. At the same time, the weakness of international entities in reacting to the obvious military threat shows that solely relying on global legal mechanisms is not enough to contain the threats.

Within the framework of game theory, playing on the edge of the cliff means that the two sides force each other to retreat by threatening each other with serious actions without entering an operational phase. But the harsher the tone of threats gets, the greater the possibility of mistakes or misunderstandings. With a wrong move, the game can shift from a game into reality; a reality that neither party wants to experience.