Abstract
Since the Islamic Revolution in Iran, the United States (great power) and Iran (regional power) have developed their deterrence strategies against each other in more than four decades. The two sides developed deterrence necessities, represented in A- Rationalizing the deterrence interactions between the two parties by calculating the costs-benefits analysis.
B - Creating a better status quo than an alternative all-out war scenario. C- A clear message of deterrence formulated in media and political levels, whereby each party formulates a clear message about its capabilities and its objectives that defends and does not allow crossing their limits.
D - Finally, credibility in the responses, so that each side draws red lines that require a response if the other party crosses them. The two sides are trying to demarcate deterrence without wanting to go to an all-out war.
Despite the multiplicity of skirmishes between the two parties that have reached the point of targeting senior leaders or military bases with missile attacks, we cannot consider all these operations to be a disruption of deterrence as much as an attempt to draw new rules for this deterrence and confirm its credibility, effectiveness, and rationality of its borders.