The Israel-Iran conflict that began on June 13, 2025, is not merely a military struggle between two states; it also reflects the strategic rivalries of major powers on both regional and global levels. Within this framework, the stance of the United States (U.S.) plays a decisive role in shaping the trajectory and potential outcomes of the conflict. The behavior exhibited by the U.S. during this process has evolved into a multilayered and multidimensional model of intervention that goes beyond traditional patterns of military involvement. This model represents a distinctive form of strategic communication in which political rhetoric, civilian evacuation operations, and psychological warfare techniques are integrated.
Statements made by U.S. President Donald Trump, such as “Israel is about to win,” “Tehran is falling,” and “Iranians want to come to the White House,” may at first glance appear as populist declarations of support. However, it should not be overlooked that such rhetoric is often employed as a strategic tool during times of crisis. These statements are not merely aimed at providing moral support or sending symbolic messages to the American public; they also serve as psychological instruments of influence targeting the Iranian public and regional actors. In this context, Trump’s discourse can be seen as part of a “sharp power” strategy—one that seeks dominance not through conventional hard power tools, but through perception management and psychological manipulation.
The concept of “soft power,” developed by Joseph Nye, prioritizes influence through attraction, cultural appeal, and persuasion. In contrast, “sharp power” seeks to penetrate the cognitive domain of target audiences through disinformation, manipulation, and directed messaging. In this context, Trump’s statements represent an example of power projection that is not soft in nature, but neither conventionally hard; rather, it is coercive and psychologically driven. Especially during periods of international crisis, the rhetoric of political leaders is not solely intended for domestic consumption but also designed to generate strategic outcomes on the international stage. Therefore, Trump’s discourse constitutes more than mere populism; it reflects a deliberate act of strategic communication. Such statements must be understood as indicative of new-generation power instruments in crisis management.
The United States’ evacuation of its citizens from Israel, moreover, cannot be interpreted merely as a humanitarian or precautionary security measure. Such evacuations carry significant symbolic and strategic weight, particularly in the context of pre-military operational preparations. Evacuation, in this sense, serves as a mechanism through which the state clears its own field of operation and creates maneuvering space, while simultaneously sending an implicit message to the adversary: “We are prepared to use force if necessary, having minimized the risk of civilian casualties.” This move also reinforces the image of the U.S. as a responsible and regulating global actor in the eyes of the international community. However, in the context of psychological warfare, such a strategic evacuation may function as a form of “pre-emptive clearing”, a signal that, while non-military in nature, can become a far more effective tool of deterrence than direct military action.
The core dynamic at play here is not whether the United States will intervene militarily in the conflict, but rather to what extent it can influence the outcome through strategic communication. Within the framework of “extended deterrence”, the U.S. seeks to prevent a direct Iranian attack and to ensure that regional actors maintain their current positions and preserve the status quo. This strategy has become a frequently employed tool in U.S. foreign policy, particularly in the post-Cold War era.
However, deterrence cannot rely solely on declarations of intent. On behalf of such messages to be effective, they must be underpinned by a degree of credibility. If rational but bold actors such as Iran perceive these strategic signals from the U.S. as mere bluff, the deterrence mechanism may collapse, potentially making the escalation of the conflict inevitable.
All of these developments are multifaceted from the perspective of psychological warfare doctrines. Psychological warfare is a form of conflict in which victory is pursued not merely through weapons, but through perceptions, information, and discourse. The recent stance adopted by the United States exceeds classical war scenarios, aiming instead to weaken the adversary’s resolve, reinforce the morale and cohesion of allies, and sway international public opinion in favor of its position. In this context, media narratives, evacuation decisions, and political statements function as integrated components of a comprehensive strategy of “war without warfare.” In modern military literature, such tactics are often referred to as “non-kinetic warfare”, and they have proven particularly effective in environments where major powers seek to avoid direct confrontation.
The U.S.’s multidimensional approach can also be interpreted as part of a broader effort to reassert its position within the global power structure. The power vacuum observed in recent years has triggered increasing scrutiny over the extent of U.S. influence in the Middle East. The Israel–Iran conflict, in this regard, may also represent a strategic opportunity: without engaging in direct warfare, the U.S. is attempting to demonstrate its capacity to shape the regional balance of power in its favor. However, the sustainability of this strategy will depend not only on rhetorical consistency but also on developments on the ground, alignment with allies, and the nature of Iran’s responses.
The United States’ attitude toward the Israel–Iran conflict represents a form of intervention shaped less by traditional military reflexes and more by strategic communication, psychological warfare, and extended deterrence. This approach shifts the focus from the physical battlefield to the cognitive domain, where perceptions, messages, and expectations are shaped. In this new era where wars are won not through weapons but through meanings, the U.S. position holds the potential to reshape both regional dynamics and the broader global security order.
