In the increasingly complex climate shaped by President Trump’s escalating threats against Iran, the recent remarks of Ali Shamkhani—senior advisor to the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei—should not be viewed as a spontaneous reaction. Rather, they reflect a strategic pivot. For the first time, a senior official overseeing Iran’s nuclear dossier has openly referenced options that, until now, fell within the realm of "unlikely deterrents": from halting cooperation and expelling inspectors to transferring enriched materials to secure and undisclosed locations. This shift in tone carries a clear message to the opposing side: if the rules of the game are broken, Iran will no longer feel bound by its previous commitments.

Trump’s Threat Strategy: Walking to the Edge of the Cliff

Since entering the White House for his second term, Trump has pursued a policy best described as “threat-based deterrence”: maximizing military rhetoric to coerce Iran into a strategic retreat without incurring the costs of actual war. Even in his secret letter to Tehran, he emphasized two options: “complete agreement” or “full-scale military confrontation.” Nevertheless, the use of war’s shadow is of greater importance to Trump than war itself. In fact, the emergence of war depends less on a premeditated plan and more on the trajectory and impact of threats—making its occurrence unpredictable.

Iran Enters the Phase of Active Signaling: Shamkhani’s Message to US

In this context, Shamkhani’s recent stance takes on even greater significance. Iran, which for years followed a strategy of “tension management and intelligent restraint,” is now speaking of tools that not only raise the cost of military threats for the US, but also fundamentally push the game into an unpredictable realm. The threat to cease cooperation and expel inspectors—given the agency’s legal role in maintaining nuclear agreements—amounts to removing the umbrella of oversight and taking the nuclear program into a realm of strategic opacity. This shift sends a clear message not only to the US but also to Europe and Washington’s regional allies: Tehran’s determination to use all its available means to eliminate threats is unwavering.

Redefining Deterrence: From Defensive Passivity to Preemptive Defense

One of the most critical yet underappreciated aspects of this strategic pivot is the reference to the concept of “preemptive defense”—a notion that has rarely been officially discussed in the military doctrine of the Islamic Republic of Iran. However, under the current circumstances, it is now being presented as a legitimate option. This strategy entails taking deterrent action before a threat materializes; meaning, if the US military threat shifts from potential to imminent, Iran may—through its own initiative—disrupt the enemy’s calculations, whether in the nuclear sphere or on other fronts. Elevating this approach to the level of declared policy—particularly on the eve of Iran-US negotiations scheduled for Saturday in Oman—can be interpreted as a direct and serious signal.

Enemy Reactions to Preemptive Defense Strategy: Anxiety in Calculations

The core feature of a preemptive defense strategy is that it creates uncertainty for the enemy. Both the US and Israel heavily rely on accurate intelligence, precise timing, and predictability of the opposing side. When Iran talks about undisclosed locations for nuclear materials and preemptive action, it effectively opens the door to unknown and high-risk scenarios. This is precisely where the psychological balance of the game shifts. In game theory, the party that disrupts the predictability of the rules gains the initiative—even if it appears to be in a defensive posture.

Active Deterrence: Iran’s New Language in the Face of Threats

It appears Iran is transitioning from traditional deterrence (based on tension management) to a phase of active deterrence and reciprocal threats. This shift—bolstered by diplomatic cohesion, domestic public support, and practical demonstrations of power—has the potential to significantly impact the resolve of Iran’s adversaries. In this context, real power lies not in threats alone, but in the ability to change the rules of the game—and this is exactly what Washington should be worried about.