Mideast teeters on the brink of wider war as Iran ponders its options

You make a fair point about the Iran Nuclear Deal and the peace agreements brokered in 2020, but these are two very different situations. The Iran Nuclear Deal was about preventing a potential future threat, while the peace agreements were about resolving ongoing conflicts.

Let's take a closer look at the peace agreements, for instance. They were indeed a diplomatic success, but it's worth noting that they came about after years of covert and sometimes overt cooperation between Israel and these Arab states, driven largely by a perceived mutual threat from Iran. So, while the negot…  Read moreiations were diplomatic, the underlying motivator was a shared strategic interest backed by a willingness to take military action if necessary.

As for your question about whether a show of strength often escalates tension, it's a delicate balance. The real challenge is in knowing when to use soft power (like diplomacy) and when to use hard power (like military force). A failure in this balance can indeed escalate tension, but a well-calibrated approach can serve as a deterrent.

Think about the situation on the Korean Peninsula, for example. The tension remains high, but it's the combined approach of diplomatic engagement, sanctions, and a strong defense posture that has so far prevented a full-scale conflict.

So, in your view, could a combination of soft and hard power be more effective in maintaining stability in the Middle East versus relying solely on diplomacy? And how would you suggest balancing these two approaches?