When Force Comes Before Peace: The Price of Power in the Escalation Between the US, Israel, and Iran
- CERES
- 5 hours ago
- 6 min read
Júlia Saraiva
The United States' attack against three nuclear installations marks a turning point in contemporary international politics. This is not merely an isolated episode, but a movement that highlights the progressive collapse of multilateral norms, the erosion of International Law, and the supremacy of the logic of force in the conduct of international relations.
In light of the main theoretical frameworks of international security, this event confirms the centrality of realist paradigms in the analysis of US foreign policy. Offensive realism, proposed by John Mearsheimer, maintains that great powers, operating within an anarchic international system, continuously seek to maximize their power, functioning under the logic that security is only guaranteed by material supremacy. This inevitably generates cycles of insecurity, escalations, and security dilemmas, where the strengthening of one actor results in a perception of threat by the others.
Alongside this perspective, neoclassical realism, theorized by Gideon Rose, offers an indispensable lens for understanding how domestic variables condition the way States respond to systemic pressures. In the specific case of the United States under the leadership of Donald Trump, foreign policy cannot be dissociated from internal dynamics. The US president faces a growing domestic crisis involving investigations, allegations, and a potential impeachment movement. Thus, the attack on Iran responds both to imperatives of the international system and to the need to reinforce his internal legitimacy and mobilize domestic support.
This dynamic is reinforced by the two-level game theory, developed by Robert Putnam, which demonstrates how leaders simultaneously negotiate in domestic and international arenas. In this sense, Trump seeks, on one hand, to reaffirm American hegemony in the Middle East and, on the other, to shift the focus of domestic public opinion—weakened by his own scandals—toward an external agenda capable of generating national cohesion.
Furthermore, it is impossible to ignore the contribution of Carl von Clausewitz's classical thought, which defines war as the continuation of politics by other means. However, in the specific case of Trumpist foreign policy, this concept is radicalized: war does not merely continue politics, but becomes, itself, a central instrument for maintaining internal power. The decision to attack without authorization from the US Congress demonstrates an open disregard for domestic institutional limitations and the norms of International Law, in a move that subverts both democratic practices and the principles governing the global order.
The attack evidences an absolute prioritization of force over any diplomatic attempt. The destruction of Iranian nuclear facilities does not respond to an imminent threat, nor to a scenario of self-defense—the only criteria that could justify, even partially, the action within the scope of 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.
However, what appeared to be an isolated surgical strike took on new dimensions following the official US government press briefing held on June 22, 2025. During the briefing, the Department of Defense spokesperson confirmed that the attacks are not limited only to the three Iranian nuclear installations. According to the statement, the US is now considering "additional actions should Iran fail to back down from its nuclear activities and its support for allied groups in the region, particularly Hezbollah and militias in Iraq and Yemen". The briefing also revealed that the US government is mobilizing more military assets to the region, including warships and air defense batteries, clearly signaling a readiness for a broader escalation of the conflict.
This public declaration lays bare the US's willingness to transform the initial operation into a prolonged military campaign if its demands are not met. Furthermore, the discourse carries the same coercive rhetoric already present in Trump's remarks: "Iran knows exactly what it needs to do. They either choose peace, or they choose to face the consequences," reinforcing the idea that any way out inevitably requires the adversary's surrender to the use of force.
From a strategic standpoint, Trump's decision reveals three central objectives. The first is to contain Iran's nuclear advancement, weakening its deterrence capability and limiting its regional influence. The second is to strengthen the alliance with Israel, which adopts an equally hawkish political line and shares the view that "force comes first, then comes peace," as stated by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The third, and perhaps most decisive, is the domestic objective: to divert the attention of American public opinion away from internal scandals, economic instability, and growing social polarization.
Yet, in pursuing these objectives, Trump dangerously increases the risk of a regional escalation of catastrophic proportions. The Iranian response is an unavoidable variable, which could include direct attacks against Israel, operations against US military bases in the Middle East, and the use of proxies such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Houthi groups in Yemen. Iraq, already deeply unstable, finds itself on alert, fearing it will once again become a battlefield for rival powers.
The global impact was also felt immediately. The sharp rise in oil prices, the calling of emergency meetings by powers like South Korea, and the statement by UN Secretary-General António Guterres expressing that he is "gravely alarmed" are clear signs that the conflict has transcended bilateral logic and entered a geopolitical chessboard of global reach.
The unpredictability of Trumpist foreign policy, characterized by a preference for informal channels like social media to the detriment of traditional diplomatic avenues, further aggravates international uncertainty. This pattern is not merely stylistic; it represents a profound rupture with the principles of institutional liberalism and with the US diplomatic tradition itself. The ostentive use of media as an instrument of threat and intimidation reinforces the logic of war as a spectacle, where the construction of narratives serves both to mobilize domestic support and project external power.
From an international security perspective, the episode reaffirms that the system remains essentially anarchic, where force continues to be the most valuable currency. By ignoring Congress and disregarding international normative frameworks, Trump reaffirms a historical pattern in US foreign policy, wherein the defense of a rules-based order is selective and instrumental—valid only when it aligns with American strategic interests.
Trump’s phrase—"There will either be peace, or there will be tragedy for Iran"—brutally synthesizes the coercive logic driving his administration. Peace, here, is not presented as the fruit of a negotiated process, mutual recognition, or international mediation, but rather as the result of the imposition of force, intimidation, and the destruction of the adversary's capabilities. This conception points directly to the Hobbesian logic of an anarchic international system, where the quest for security translates into power maximization, even if it deepens security dilemmas and global instability.
What is observed, therefore, is an accelerated weakening of the liberal international order, replaced by a logic of hawkish unilateralism and a growing disdain for multilateral institutions. The United States' intervention, without Congressional approval and bypassing International Law, reaffirms a historical pattern of American foreign policy, now conducted in an even more aggressive, unpredictable, and personalized manner under Trump's leadership. The escalation of the conflict is neither a deviation nor an isolated episode; it is the most concrete expression of the consolidation of a doctrine where the use of force is not the exception, but the method itself.
Faced with this scenario, one must ask: how high will the cost of force go before it becomes unsustainable itself?
"The statements expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author."
Júlia Saraiva
Júlia Saraiva
Graduated in International Relations from UniLaSalle-RJ. Her academic research focuses on United States and Middle East policies, with an emphasis on the influence of lobbies, military strategies, and diplomatic relations in the region. Commercial Assistant at the company Rio de Negócios, internationalization consultant for companies, and researcher at the Center for International Relations Studies (CERES).
Bibliographical References
CLAUSEWITZ, Carl von. On War. São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 2001.
FERNANDA MAGNOTTA. "Trump, o Irã e a crise em torno do poder de guerra nos EUA" (Trump, Iran, and the crisis surrounding war powers in the US). CNN Brasil. 2025. Available at: https://www.cnnbrasil.com.br/blogs/fernanda-magnotta/internacional/trump-o-ira-e-a-crise-em-torno-do-poder-de-guerra-nos-eua/. Accessed on: June 22, 2025.
G1. "Governo dos EUA faz coletiva e ameaça novas ações contra Irã após ataques" (US Government holds press conference and threatens new actions against Iran after attacks). G1 Mundo, June 22, 2025. Available at: https://g1.globo.com/mundo/noticia/2025/06/22/coletiva-eua-ataque-ira.ghtml. Accessed on: June 22, 2025.
MEARSHEIMER, 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.
UN. Charter of the United Nations, 1945. Available at: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter. Accessed on: June 22, 2025.
UN. 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