Defense Priorities Defense Priorities
  • Policy Topics
    • Ukraine-Russia
    • Israel-Hamas
    • NATO
    • China
    • Syria
    • North Korea
  • Research
    • Briefs
    • Explainers
    • Reports
  • Programs
    • Grand Strategy Program
    • Military Analysis Program
    • Asia Program
    • Middle East Program
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Media
  • About
    • Mission & Vision
    • People
    • Jobs
    • Contact
  • Donate
Select Page
Home / Iran / Iranian escalation is a predictable outcome of maximum pressure, not justification for U.S. military strikes
Iran, Deterrence

June 20, 2019

Iranian escalation is a predictable outcome of maximum pressure, not justification for U.S. military strikes

By Benjamin Friedman

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
June 20, 2019
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org

WASHINGTON, DC—On Thursday, the White House briefed Members of Congress on Iran’s recent shoot-down of an unmanned U.S. drone in international airspace near its coastline. Defense Priorities Policy Director Benjamin H. Friedman issued the following statement in response:

“We don’t need to absolve Iran of any blame to admit its recent escalation is a predictable result of maximum pressure. Iran interventionists, led by National Security Advisor John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, have pushed Tehran toward desperate acts that create a pretext for conflict.

“Since pulling out of the JCPOA, despite Iran’s compliance, Washington has reimposed nuclear sanctions to reduce Iran’s oil exports to zero and strangle its economy.

“It does not surprise foreign policy realists that Bolton and Pompeo’s approach has resulted in Iran acting desperately to escape maximum pressure and economic devastation, not surrender. These are predictable outcomes of unrealistic U.S. policies, not justification for military strikes or war.

“The U.S. should not take massive risks for minor deterrence gains or confuse the safety of drones with vital U.S. security interests. Nor should we fight wars to protect foreign shipments, especially when those governments oppose war.

“Despite Iran’s misdeeds, military strikes would be futile and reckless. Even so-called ‘limited’ or ‘targeted’ airstrikes could escalate to outright war with Iran, which could leave the U.S. military embroiled in an occupation far more bloody than Iraq. Strikes would also prevent any chance of negotiations with Iran, the president’s stated goal. We need not match Iran’s desperation with our own.”

Author

Photo of Benjamin Friedman

Benjamin
Friedman

Policy Director

Defense Priorities

More on Middle East

op-edIran, Middle East, Nuclear weapons

Maximalism will doom diplomacy with Iran

By Rosemary Kelanic

May 8, 2025

op-edGrand strategy, Middle East

As Donald Trump prepares for Middle East visit, his efforts there aren’t inspiring

By Daniel DePetris

May 6, 2025

Press ReleaseHouthis, Air power, Middle East, Military analysis, Yemen

Ending strikes on Yemen: Good news if it sticks

By Rosemary Kelanic

May 6, 2025

op-edIran, Middle East

Trump needs his team on the same Iran page

By Daniel DePetris

May 5, 2025

op-edYemen, Air power, Houthis, Iran, Middle East

In Yemen, Trump risks falling into an ‘airpower trap’ that has drawn past US presidents into costly wars

By William Walldorf

May 5, 2025

ExplainerMiddle East, China, Europe and Eurasia

China can’t dominate the Middle East

By Rosemary Kelanic

May 5, 2025

Events on Iran

See All Events
virtualHouthis, Iran, Israel‑Hamas, Middle East, Yemen

Past Virtual Event: Houthi conundrum: defend, degrade, or defer

March 28, 2024
virtualGrand strategy, Iran, Middle East, Syria

Past Virtual Event: Keeping the U.S. out of war in the Middle East

January 16, 2024
in-personGrand strategy, Iran, North Korea, Nuclear weapons

Past In-Person Event: Managing nuclear proliferation crises

October 30, 2017

Receive expert foreign policy analysis

Join the hub of realism and restraint

Expert updates and analysis to enhance your understanding of vital U.S. national security issues

Defense Priority Mono Logo

Our mission is to inform citizens, thought leaders, and policymakers of the importance of a strong, dynamic military—used more judiciously to protect America’s narrowly defined national interests—and promote a realistic grand strategy prioritizing restraint, diplomacy, and free trade to ensure U.S. security.

  • About
  • For Media
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Contact
© 2025 Defense Priorities All Right Reserved