Reconciliation, negotiation processes and the recent Memorandum of Understanding, which have been on the agenda from time to time between the United States and Iran, are at first glance an attempt to reach a treaty that includes elements of classic peace processes such as ending the war, diplomatic normalization and economic reintegration. Dec. However, analyzing the behavior of states in international relations only through apparent diplomatic processes can often lead to incomplete and misleading results. As a matter of fact, the realist perspective suggests that while states explain their foreign policy preferences on the axis of power, security and interests, great powers often use agreements with rival actors to achieve broader strategic goals rather than the goal of a final compromise.
In this context, the main issue for Washington is to control Iran’s regional and global strategic capacity and limit its range of action, rather than establishing a permanent and comprehensive peace with Iran. Therefore, viewing the reconciliation efforts between the US and Iran as a treaty in the traditional sense is not sufficient. On the contrary, these processes are an extension of Washington’s multi-dimensional policy of pressure, containment and power management, which has been maintained for many years, supported by diplomatic means. In this context, the concept of the Octopus Strategy (or Octopus Tactic) reveals that the US policies towards Iran are not only composed of military and economic elements, but also based on a multi-layered strategic approach covering diplomatic, technological, intelligence and regional balances of power. Thus, while these agreement and negotiation processes appear to stand out as instruments promoting diplomatic compromise; in reality, they are becoming elements of a more comprehensive geopolitical engineering aimed at limiting Iran’s regional influence and strategic capacity.
The Octopus Strategy is an approach that refers to the encirclement of a state’s opponent not from a single front, but by simultaneously using economic, political, diplomatic, military, technological and psychological means. Similar to how an octopus envelops its prey with its numerous arms, limiting its mobility, the target country is subjected to simultaneous pressure in different areas. In this strategy, the goal is not to eliminate the opponent through direct combat, but on the contrary, to narrow the field of action by constantly putting him under pressure and forcing him to behave within the established limits. As a matter of fact, the fact that the great powers today avoid costly direct wars and turn to hybrid methods has further increased the importance of such strategies.
Within this context, when examining the US policy towards Iran, it is possible to clearly see many elements of this approach. While the Washington administration sits at the negotiating table in order to limit Iran’s nuclear activities on the one hand, it maintains heavy economic sanctions on the other. In addition, the Washington administration is trying to limit Iran’s regional influence, maintain its military presence in the Gulf, and constantly create a mechanism of pressure on Tehran through Israel and its Arab allies. If the goal was only to bring the nuclear program under control, it would be expected that relations would normalize after the agreement and sanctions would be largely lifted. However, in practice, the exact opposite situation is observed. Because while the diplomatic negotiations are continuing, economic pressures are continuing, attempts to reduce Iran’s regional effectiveness are continuing simultaneously, and military deterrence mechanisms are being maintained. Therefore, this situation shows that the agreements made are one of the tools of a broader strategy rather than being a consensus document alone.
The most obvious reflection of the Octopus Strategy on the diplomatic plane is that the negotiation processes are carried out through a narrower, controlled and centralized channel, in contrast to the simultaneous introduction of pressure tools within a multi-centered and multi-layered structure. Although the war and conflict processes are actually carried out with the coordination of the United States-Israel, the construction of the peace and negotiation process only on the axis of the United States-Iran constitutes a typical example of the asymmetric negotiation structure in international relations. This structure positions Israel as an active war actor at the operational level, while making it invisible on the diplomatic plane, and makes the United States both the leader of the military bloc and the only diplomatic representative. Thus, Iran is forced to negotiate through a single interlocutor against a multi-actor pressure system. Although Israel does not take a direct part in the text of the Memorandum of Understanding, it is positioned as an indirect determinant at the center of the process, that is, as a strategic background actor. Iran’s commitment that it will not produce nuclear weapons, the provisions aimed at ending regional conflicts and neutralizing proxy actors produce results that directly strengthen Israel’s security architecture. This situation demonstrates that the United States positions Israel as a fundamental security reference point rather than a diplomatic partner in its Middle East strategy.
According to the fundamental logic of the octopus strategy, the target state is encircled not only from the center but also from all surrounding areas. Especially in recent years, the US policy of encircling Iran has not been limited only to Iranian territory, but pressure on Iran-backed actors in countries such as Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen has been increased, security cooperation developed with Gulf Countries has been strengthened, and explicit or implicit support for Israel’s operations against Iran has been provided. Thus, not only Iran’s economic capacity but also its regional influence was directly targeted. For this reason, the process faced by Iran is a comprehensive containment strategy in which multi-actor, multi-tool and multi-layered elements are simultaneously put into operation instead of a one-dimensional conflict line. The text of the agreement also shows that Iran is treated not only as a conflict actor, but also as a state that needs to be restructured in a controlled manner. The lifting of the naval blockade, the gradual relaxation of sanctions and the conditional release of economic funds give Iran a restricted area of movement, not a full area of sovereignty. This approach is not a classical peace order but a strategy of controlled normalization and managed relaxation. In other words, the aim is not Iran’s full integration into the international system, but a system of dependency in which its behavior is constantly monitored.
The economic dimension constitutes one of the most critical components of this strategy. The reduction of Iran’s oil revenues, the restriction of its access to the international financial system and the blocking of foreign investments point to a multi-layered pressure mechanism aimed at weakening Tehran’s economic capacity. However, economic sanctions alone are not considered sufficient. These tools are supported simultaneously with diplomatic isolation and security pressures. In this context, the $ 300 billion reconstruction and development package, which on the surface seems to be aimed at Iran’s economic recovery, is actually a tool aimed at deeper integration of the country into the Western-centered financial architecture. Thus, economic development transforms from a process that produces independence into a restructuring mechanism that produces dependency. Thus, economic instruments create a political sphere of influence that operates through indirect guidance rather than direct intervention.
The negotiations conducted around Iran’s nuclear program and the arrangements put in place also carry a similar strategic logic. Within this framework, the negotiations are turning into a mechanism aimed not at fully integrating Iran into the international system, but at keeping it within certain limits. Iran’s commitment that it will not produce nuclear weapons indicates the creation of a permanently negotiable area, rather than a radical solution of the problem. Leaving the technical details and uranium enrichment processes in the framework of the final agreement reveals that the nuclear issue has been transformed into a strategic pressure tool that is constantly kept open, rather than being a closed file. This situation indicates an understanding of the international system in which security issues are managed rather than resolved. In other words, the agreement in question turns into a management tool in which this capacity is limited in a controlled manner, rather than a normalization process that allows Iran to increase its power capacity. Therefore, the agreement constitutes only one of the components of the Octopus Strategy. In this context, diplomacy is not an alternative to coercion but an element that complements it.
On the military level, the search for agreements indicates that the parties have reached a point of mutual wear and exhaustion. The logistical and operational intensity experienced since the beginning of the war has placed a significant military and financial burden, particularly on the United States and Israel. The significant decrease in the missile and ammunition stocks of Israel’s air defense systems and the US military elements in the region reveals the need for an urgent tactical Decoupling and resupply process on the frontline. This military weariness is accompanied by a strategic crisis that is shaking the global economy. In the process, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz blocked the global energy corridor and led to a rapid escalation of oil prices around the world.
This exorbitant increase in energy costs has produced a tremendous mechanism of political and economic pressure on the Washington administration, which is both struggling with inflationary pressures in the domestic Sunday and has to protect global economic stability. When the sustainability of the regional military capacity of the United States and Israel and the costs created by Iran’s asymmetric response capacity and proxy networks are juxtaposed, it seems that the conflict has reached a certain level of saturation for both sides. In this context, the principle of preserving the current situation that has emerged between the parties is a multidimensional pause and breathing mechanism that has been activated in order to replenish ammunition stocks on the one hand and alleviate the economic Decadence caused by the oil crisis on the other, rather than a deep-rooted will for peace.
On the other hand, this process is not only accompanied by military and economic dynamics, but also by increasing international diplomatic pressures on the United States. In particular, the demands of the European Union countries for the revival of nuclear negotiations and the relaxation of the sanctions regime, the criticism of unilateral sanctions by the countries of the Global South, calls for a diplomatic solution within the framework of the United Nations and global concerns about energy security are among the main elements that narrow Washington’s policy maneuvering space.
As a result, it is insufficient to evaluate the agreements and reconciliation initiatives that have emerged in US-Iranian relations only as a diplomatic reconciliation document or an independent peace project. When the process is examined in its entirety, it is seen that a large number of elements such as economic sanctions, regional containment policies, military deterrence, financial articulation and diplomatic pressures are used simultaneously. This situation indicates that the agreement is part of a broader strategic encirclement policy rather than an independent peace project. Therefore, the decisive factor in the current course of US-Iranian relations is not the treaty itself, but the multi-layered diplomatic and geopolitical pressure networks that surround and support it. While the agreement constitutes only the legal and visible side of this strategy, the main goal is to limit Iran’s economic, political and geopolitical movement space and keep it at a manageable power level. For this reason, the current process reveals a multidimensional and multi-armed containment strategy in which modern great power competition is carried out simultaneously with the tools of diplomacy, economy and security, rather than a classical diplomatic compromise.
