Examining the Transformation of Deterrence Patterns and Iran’s Regional Position

According to a number of military experts, the nature of the current conflict is no longer centered on who advances in a particular battlefield or front. The central issue instead is which side succeeds in imposing the rules of engagement and redefining the boundaries of political and military action across the region. In this context, Islam Times conducted an in-depth interview with Egyptian military expert Major General Nasr Salem. In his assessment, he believes that the region has entered a phase of comprehensive reengineering of the deterrence system, and that what is being described as “Iran’s victory” is, in reality, a symbol of a broader transformation in the structure of the regional and international order.
Major General Nasr Salem believes that speaking of “Iran’s victory” should not merely be reduced to the outcomes of limited military confrontations. Rather, it should be understood as a cumulative and long-term process that has reconfigured Iran’s position within the region’s power equations. According to his analysis, the indicators of this transformation are not confined solely to the nature of field operations; they are rooted in Iran’s ability to move beyond the position of a “reactive actor” to that of an "actor capable of influencing the very rules of engagement" themselves. In this sense, Iran is no longer merely a party that receives pressure or responds to it, but has become an actor that actively participates in determining the pace of escalation and defining its limits.
He further adds that the most prominent manifestation of this transformation is the shift from the doctrine of “strategic patience” to a strategy that may be described as “calculated initiative.” Under this new framework, waiting or merely containing pressure is no longer the dominant characteristic of Iran’s behavior. Rather, managing timing and exerting pressure have themselves become part of the country’s strategic instruments of action. From the perspective of this Egyptian expert, such a transformation does not appear temporary or transient; rather, it is the product of long-term accumulation within Iran’s military and political thinking, making it a stable and continuous strategic trajectory, even if its pace changes in accordance with regional circumstances and requirements.
Regarding the implications of this transformation for the rules of engagement, Major General Salem believes that the region has effectively entered a new phase of “unstable deterrence equilibrium.” At this stage, the fixed red lines of the past no longer exist; instead, flexible ceilings have emerged that shift according to the nature of the actions and reactions of the parties involved. He notes that breaking what were previously regarded as the “taboos of direct confrontation” does not necessarily mean an inevitable slide toward all-out war. However, it undoubtedly increases the likelihood of the gradual and non-linear expansion of conflicts. This, in turn, has made crisis management far more complex and unpredictable than before.
He believes that the strategic messages Iran intended to convey through this transformation lie in establishing a new equation — one carrying the clear message that deterrence is no longer a one-sided phenomenon, and that any attempt to impose political or military will through force will entail costs whose outcomes are by no means guaranteed. From this perspective, “Iran’s victory” goes beyond triumph in a specific battle; it is, in fact, a victory in redefining the function and concept of deterrence itself.
Concerning the concept of the “unity of fronts,” Major General Nasr Salem emphasizes that this phenomenon constitutes one of the most important and decisive transformations in the structure of regional conflicts, as it has shifted the region from the logic of separate and disconnected fronts to the logic of a single and interconnected theater. According to him, this transformation has fundamentally altered the calculations of adversaries, because from now on, no tension can be isolated or contained within a specific geographical area. Rather, it possesses the potential to expand and simultaneously generate interaction across more than one front. He stresses that this growing interconnectedness may gradually elevate the concept of the “unity of fronts” from an operational tactic into something resembling an unwritten doctrine for conflict management.
When examining the scene of developments on the Israeli side, Major General Salem explains that what this regime is currently grappling with is not merely limited to direct military pressure; rather, it is facing a far deeper challenge in the form of the gradual erosion of the deterrence function itself — the very function that, for decades, constituted the foundation and cornerstone of Israel’s security doctrine. The image of the “invincible army,” as he describes it, is now undergoing an extremely severe test in both regional and international public opinion. This failure stems not only from the nature of the recent confrontations, but also from the regime’s inability to achieve rapid decisive resolution and overwhelming victory, which had previously always been regarded as one of Israel’s most important elements of superiority.
He also notes that another of the most prominent recent developments has been the emergence of the “home front” as a key and pressure-generating element within the equation of conflict. This transformation has shifted the nature of the war from a merely external and limited confrontation into a state of “compound pressure” encompassing both domestic and external dimensions simultaneously. In Major General Salem’s view, this development reflects a strategic transformation whose depth extends far beyond simple tactical failures, because it directly targets the essence and core foundation of the regime’s security doctrine.
Regarding the role of the United States, Major General Nasr Salem believes that the ongoing events cannot be interpreted as a complete American withdrawal from the region. Rather, the situation signifies a retreat and decline in Washington’s ability to manage the regional order in the manner that had prevailed in the past. Despite maintaining its military superiority, the United States is no longer capable of imposing long-term stability on the region or exercising complete control over the outcomes of conflicts.
He believes that this reality is closely intertwined with the policies adopted during the presidency of Donald Trump — policies fundamentally based on the logic of “maximum pressure,” without designing corresponding sustainable and stabilizing balances. Instead of controlling and containing the situation, this approach led to further complications within the regional landscape and accelerated the erosion of America’s ability to manage regional balances.
Major General Nasr Salem concludes his remarks by emphasizing that the region is entering a phase of “reconstruction of regional deterrence.” In this new era, no single center any longer possesses absolute dominance over the rules of the game. Instead, a complex network of intertwined powers has emerged which, although capable of influencing events and disrupting the plans of rivals, do not necessarily possess the power to achieve ultimate decisive resolution. It is precisely this characteristic that transforms the current period into a prolonged transitional phase during which the true meaning of power, the boundaries of deterrence, and even the outward structure of the regional order itself will be completely redefined.