Foreign policy |Mahsa Rouhi:�Despite the Trump administration�s assertions, it is increasingly clear that the maximum pressure approach deployed to force Iran to temper its behavior in the Middle East is not working. Iran has allegedly engaged in provocations in the Persian Gulf and has taken concrete steps to scale back its commitments to enrichment limitations under the 2015 nuclear deal. Meanwhile, it hasn�t limited its missile program and has doubled down on its reliance on nonstate actors throughout the region.

Tensions flared again in the Middle East late last month after Israel apparently launched strikes on Iranian forces and their proxies in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq. As this shadow war moves into the light of day, Israeli officials argue that these attacks are meant to curb Iran�s expanding regional influence through its support and training for nonstate actors�which is a growing threat from Israel�s perspective. The most recent exchange between Israel and Iran highlights the security challenges Iran poses to U.S. interests and partners in the region, and, more importantly, why the U.S. government needs a new and innovative strategy to effectively engage with Iran.

While the United States and its regional partners have legitimate concerns about Iran�s exploitation of nonstate actors, they don�t appear to understand Iran�s motivations. Thus, they have adopted policies that have proved ineffective and counterproductive.

Today, Washington is seeking to force Iran to forgo all three pillars of its deterrent capabilities: its nuclear program, its missile program, and its proxies.

Washington is seeking to force Iran to forgo all three pillars of its deterrent capabilities: its nuclear program, its missile program, and its proxies.

But from Tehran�s point of view, forgoing all deterrent capabilities would leave the regime defenseless and powerless. It is similar to asking North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons up front with only limited guarantees by the other parties. No state would compromise what it perceives as its means of survival for purely economic benefits.

Indeed, Tehran has not just refused to mitigate its regional activities but has pursued them even more aggressively. This is making Washington increasingly agitated. The question is: What, after decades of sanctions and pressure, would it really take for Iran to change its behavior in the region?

The first step would be for Washington to understand Tehran�s strategic thinking, which would allow it to craft policies that incentivize Iran to reduce rather than exacerbate its use of proxies in the region.

Iran has three strategic objectives: to deter military strikes by the United States and its partners, to build its strength as a regional power, and to pursue the first two while maintaining nonalignment and self-reliance. These aims speak to Iran�s quest for survival and power, which any state in Iran�s geopolitical position would pursue.

To meet these objectives, Tehran has resorted to asymmetric warfare tactics to compensate for its limited and outdated conventional military forces. However, this strategy has become a double-edged sword. The United States and its regional partners rightly feel threatened by Iran�s asymmetric warfare tactics, which, in turn, only increases the military threat to Iran. These dynamics constitute a classic security dilemma.

The question is: What, after decades of sanctions and pressure, would it really take for Iran to change its behavior in the region?

Iran has had to deal with this challenge with a weaker hand. A straightforward comparison of military spending reveals the massive disparity between the United States and Iran. In June, U.S. President Donald Trump tweeted that Iran�s leadership did not �understand reality� when it came to its military power imbalance with the United States. The United States is �by far the most powerful Military Force in the world, with 1.5 Trillion Dollars� invested over the past two years, he reminded readers. If one adds to the equation military spending by Saudi Arabia, which exceeded $67 billion in 2018, and Israel, with nearly $16 billion, Iran�s $13.2 billion spending during the same time period pales by comparison. In fact, even these numbers fail to capture the magnitude of the asymmetry, given that this imbalance has persisted for four decades. Iran knows this and doesn�t need a reminder from Trump.

Because Iran lacks normal means of deterrence and power projection, it has developed an unusual strategy. This approach includes nuclear hedging for deterrence in the long term, a sophisticated missile program for defense and deterrence today, and the build-up of regional proxies such as Hezbollah to give it depth.