The recent U.S. decision to delay the delivery of Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine extends beyond mere logistics; it reflects a significant shift in the dynamics of great power politics, reminiscent of the ‘classic logic of containment.’
This move subtly hints at an unwritten understanding forming between Washington and Moscow.
Officially, the postponement is framed as an effort to prevent direct escalation, but its influence extends beyond Europe, particularly into the Persian Gulf and Iran, where Tehran is closely observing the maneuvers of global powers.
Washington’s move seems to be delineating expressions of red lines that go beyond the Ukrainian conflict and send important messages regarding constraints of power in the Middle East.
So, what prompted the U.S. to delay the Tomahawk shipment to Ukraine?
The roots of this decision can be traced back to evolving relations concerning Iran.
On October 16, Ali Larijani, now head of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, conveyed a letter from Ali Khamenei to Putin.
This correspondence reportedly requested the procurement of Su-35 fighter jets and S-400 missile defense systems, which are critical for Iran’s deterrence strategy against Israel.
This situation complicates the bigger picture, where Iran’s defense acquisitions become a variable that Putin can use to influence U.S. decisions regarding arms for Ukraine.
Moreover, by limiting Ukraine’s access to specific weaponry, the U.S. aims to signal red lines to Russia while demonstrating its capability and willingness to contain tensions without directly engaging in conflict.
Washington’s choice to withhold Tomahawk missiles epitomizes a strategy of “strategic restraint,” highlighting the effectiveness of self-restraint as a tool of pressure.
This approach aligns with the unwritten rules of great power politics, where maintaining leverage without leading to direct confrontation is crucial.
Such tactics evoke the fragile balance maintained during the Cold War and its contemporary implications.
Iran, in this context, navigates a dual challenge: it seeks improved deterrence against Israel through military acquisitions, while also finding itself caught in Moscow’s geopolitical calculations — especially for the first time in over thirty years.
A plausible link arises between Iran’s desire for nuclear capabilities and the Kremlin’s geopolitical stance, signifying an active control over a weaker partner.
Unlike technical or legal barriers, Russia’s delay in arm deliveries and its resistance to Iran’s nuclear aspirations point towards an intention to manage this partnership while keeping Iran dependent.
Likewise, for years, Russia has engaged in maintaining Iran as a limited, tactical ally to leverage against Western powers, especially the U.S., blocking Iran’s independent military advancements.
In parallel, the U.S.’s behavior in Ukraine illustrates a shared strategy of indirect power projection.
Putin skillfully capitalizes on tensions between Jerusalem and Tehran, thereby ensuring that Iran remains reliant on promised military support while concurrently pursuing its own interests in Ukraine amidst geopolitical turbulence.
Putin aims to leverage Iran’s request for advanced military technology to project influence on Washington’s actions.
The message seems clear: any delivery of advanced armaments to Ukraine comes with significant ramifications for Iranian military acquisition, which Moscow has been cautious to avoid disrupting.
As such, Ukraine’s fight for sovereignty is constrained through warfare, while Iran’s struggle for autonomy plays into a game of calculated control.
In the landscape of international relations, it becomes apparent that the ‘operational independence’ of regional players like Iran and Ukraine is inherently limited in the backdrop of global power dynamics.
Both countries, despite their appearances of agency, remain confined within a framework defined by the choices of greater powers.
Secondary entities are thus utilized as instruments for mutual containment.
Ultimately, the events unfolding in Ukraine and Iran, coupled with decisions from the U.S. and Russia, illustrate how crisis management has supplanted crisis resolution in contemporary geopolitics.
Great powers cleverly orchestrate tensions, utilizing calculated control not for outright conflict but to sidestep escalation in a manner advantageous to their own strategic interests.
The U.S.’s decision regarding Tomahawks and Russia’s hesitance in supplying Iranian military needs symbolize two facets of the same geopolitical reality.
In today’s world, true power resides not in offensive strikes, but rather in the art of deliberate restraint.
Both Ukraine and Iran today exemplify the complex reality where political independence is quantified not by intrinsic strength but by the degree of autonomy allowed by great powers.
In this intricate global landscape, red lines are no longer drawn on maps; they exist within the perceptions of key international players, where strategic restraint becomes more critical than warfare.
image source from：dailynewshungary
