When Force Comes Before Peace: The Price of Power in the Escalation Between the U.S., Israel, and Iran
- CERES
- Jun 23
- 6 min read
By Júlia Saraiva
The United States’ attack on three nuclear facilities marks a turning point in contemporary international politics. This is not just an isolated episode but a move that exposes the progressive collapse of multilateral norms, the erosion of international law, and the dominance of power politics in the conduct of international relations.
In light of the main theoretical frameworks of international security, this event reaffirms the centrality of realist paradigms in analyzing U.S. foreign policy. Offensive realism, as proposed by John Mearsheimer, holds that great powers, operating within an anarchic international system, continuously seek to maximize their power, based on the belief that security is only ensured through material supremacy. This inevitably leads to cycles of insecurity, escalation, and security dilemmas, where the strengthening of one actor is perceived as a threat by others.
Alongside this perspective, neoclassical realism, as theorized by Gideon Rose, offers an essential lens for understanding how domestic variables shape states’ responses to systemic pressures. In the specific case of the United States under Donald Trump’s leadership, foreign policy cannot be dissociated from domestic dynamics. The U.S. president is facing a deepening domestic crisis, with investigations, allegations, and potential impeachment proceedings. Thus, the attack on Iran responds not only to international imperatives but also to the need to reinforce his domestic legitimacy and mobilize internal support.
This dynamic is further illuminated by Robert Putnam’s two-level game theory, which shows how leaders negotiate simultaneously in both domestic and international arenas. In this sense, Trump seeks, on the one hand, to reaffirm American hegemony in the Middle East and, on the other, to divert the attention of the American public—shaken by his own scandals—to a foreign policy agenda that could foster national unity.
Additionally, the classical thought of Carl von Clausewitz—who defined war as the continuation of politics by other means—remains relevant. However, in Trump’s foreign policy, this concept is radicalized: war does not merely continue politics—it becomes a central tool for maintaining internal power. The decision to strike without Congressional authorization demonstrates a blatant disregard for internal institutional constraints and international legal norms, subverting both democratic practices and the principles underpinning the global order.
The attack illustrates a complete prioritization of force over any diplomatic attempt. The destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities does not respond to an imminent threat nor to a scenario of self-defense—the only criteria that could, even partially, justify such an act under international law. The operation therefore constitutes a flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter, deepening the credibility crisis of multilateral institutions and exposing the fragility of normative structures in the face of great power unilateralism.
What seemed to be a standalone precision strike took a new turn following the official U.S. government press briefing held on June 22, 2025. During the briefing, the Defense Department spokesperson confirmed that the attacks were not limited to the three Iranian nuclear facilities. According to the statement, the U.S. is now considering “additional actions” should Iran refuse to scale back its nuclear activities and support for allied groups in the region, particularly Hezbollah and militias in Iraq and Yemen. The briefing also revealed that the U.S. is deploying more military assets to the region, including warships and anti-aircraft defense systems, signaling a clear willingness to escalate the conflict further.
This public statement lays bare the U.S. government's readiness to transform the initial strike into a prolonged military campaign if its demands are not met. Moreover, the rhetoric echoes Trump’s familiar coercive tone: “Iran knows exactly what it has to do. Either they choose peace, or they choose to face the consequences,” reinforcing the idea that any solution must inevitably involve the adversary’s capitulation in the face of overwhelming force.
From a strategic standpoint, Trump’s decision reveals three core objectives. The first is to curb Iran’s nuclear advancement, weakening its deterrent capacity and limiting its regional influence. The second is to strengthen the alliance with Israel, which follows a similarly aggressive policy line and shares the view that “first comes force, then comes peace,” as stated by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The third—and perhaps most decisive—is a domestic objective: diverting public attention from internal scandals, economic instability, and growing social polarization.
However, in pursuing these objectives, Trump dangerously raises the risk of a catastrophic regional escalation. Iran’s response remains a critical variable, potentially including direct attacks on Israel, operations against U.S. military bases in the Middle East, and proxy warfare involving groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen. Iraq, already deeply unstable, is on high alert, fearing it could once again become a battleground for rival powers.
The global impact is immediate. The dramatic spike in oil prices, emergency meetings convened by countries like South Korea, and U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres’s statement expressing that he is “gravely alarmed” are all clear indicators that the conflict has moved beyond bilateral logic and now plays out on a global geopolitical chessboard.
The unpredictability of Trump’s foreign policy—marked by a preference for informal channels like social media over traditional diplomacy—further exacerbates global uncertainty. This is not merely a matter of style; it reflects a profound break with institutionalist liberalism and with the United States' own diplomatic tradition. The overt use of media as a tool for threats and intimidation reinforces the notion of war as spectacle, where narrative construction serves both to rally domestic support and project external power.
From the perspective of international security, the episode reaffirms that the system remains fundamentally anarchic, where power continues to be the most valuable currency. By bypassing Congress and disregarding international legal frameworks, Trump reinforces a long-standing pattern in U.S. foreign policy: defending a rules-based order only when it aligns with American strategic interests.
Trump’s statement—“There will either be peace, or there will be tragedy for Iran”—brutally encapsulates the coercive logic driving his administration. Here, peace is not the product of a negotiated process, mutual recognition, or international mediation, but the result of imposed force, intimidation, and the destruction of the adversary’s capabilities. This conception directly recalls the Hobbesian logic of an anarchic international system, where the pursuit of security is synonymous with the maximization of power—even if it deepens insecurity and global instability.
What we are witnessing, therefore, is the accelerated weakening of the liberal international order, replaced by a belligerent unilateralism and growing contempt for multilateral institutions. The U.S. intervention, carried out without Congressional approval and in defiance of international law, reaffirms a historical pattern in American foreign policy—now pursued in a more aggressive, unpredictable, and personalized manner under Trump’s leadership. This conflict escalation is not an aberration or an isolated episode—it is the clearest expression yet of a doctrine where the use of force is not an exception, but the method itself. And in the face of this scenario, one must ask: how far can the price of force go before it becomes unsustainable?
“The views expressed here are the responsibility of the author.”
About the Author – Júlia Saraiva Bachelor’s degree in International Relations from UniLaSalle-RJ. Her academic research focuses on U.S. and Middle Eastern policies, with an emphasis on the influence of lobbying groups, military strategies, and diplomatic relations in the region. She works as a Commercial Assistant at Rio de Negócios, an international business consulting firm, and is a researcher at the Center for the Study of International Relations (CERES).
Bibliography
CLAUSEWITZ, Carl von. On War. São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 2001.FERNANDA MAGNOTTA. “Trump, Iran, and the Crisis Over War Powers in the U.S.” CNN Brasil. 2025. Available at: CNN Brasil ArticleG1. “U.S. Government Holds Press Conference, Threatens Further Action Against Iran Following Attacks.” G1 Mundo, June 22, 2025. Available at: G1 ArticleMEARSHEIMER, John J. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. Updated Edition. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2014.MEARSHEIMER, John J.; WALT, Stephen M. The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2007.UNITED NATIONS. Charter of the United Nations, 1945. Available at: UN CharterUNITED NATIONS. Statement by Secretary-General António Guterres on the escalation of the conflict between the United States, Israel, and Iran. New York, June 21, 2025.PUTNAM, Robert D. “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games.” International Organization, vol. 42, no. 3, Summer 1988, pp. 427–460.ROSE, Gideon. “Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy.” World Politics, vol. 51, no. 1, Oct. 1998, pp. 144–172.
Comments