SECURITY DILEMMAS: THE U.S. IN THE UKRAINE AND IRAN CONFLICTS

10 March 2026 . #2601 . International Affairs Perspective .

Mayilvaganan Muthumariappan examines how U.S. security policies have shaped the strategic actions of Russia and Iran. The expansion of NATO in Europe and the establishment of U.S. military partnerships in the Middle East, which aim to promote stability, have inadvertently created perceptions of encirclement and insecurity. These dynamics explain Russia’s incursion into Ukraine and Iran’s pursuit of nuclear capabilities. Recognizing these unintended consequences, the analysis suggests that adopting strategic restraint and reinvigorating diplomatic engagement may help reduce the risk of escalation in both regions.

Introduction

In contemporary geopolitics, the actions of great powers often produce unintended strategic consequences. When one state seeks to enhance its security, it can inadvertently threaten others, prompting them to strengthen their own military capabilities. This dynamic creates a cycle of tension and arms races, as states increasingly perceive one another as potential threats. The security dilemma thus highlights the persistent challenges of trust and cooperation in a competitive international system, where states prioritize survival and often generate outcomes they did not intend.

In this context, the United States’ long pursuit of a global security strategy based on alliance expansion, forward military presence, and deterrence, with the aim of strengthening international security and maintaining regional stability, has generated insecurity among rival states. The conflicts in Ukraine and Iran illustrate how U.S. strategic posture can shape the behavior of opposing powers, prompting responses that sometimes escalate tensions.

This argument does not imply that Russia and Iran act as benign actors within their respective regions. Both nations actively pursue their strategic interests and readily employ coercive measures to further these aims. Nonetheless, broader security dynamics shape their actions, with U.S. alliances and military presence playing a significant role. In both Europe and the Middle East, U.S.-led security frameworks provoke strategic responses from Russia and Iran, thereby exacerbating regional tensions.

NATO Expansion and the Ukraine War

The conflict in Ukraine cannot be understood without examining the broader security dynamics in Europe. Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has actively supported the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) eastward, incorporating several former Soviet and Eastern European states into the alliance. From Washington’s perspective, NATO expansion aimed to stabilize Europe, consolidate democratic governance, and deter potential aggression.

However, from the perspective of Russia, NATO’s expansion has been perceived as a gradual encroachment on its strategic sphere of influence. Russian policymakers have long expressed concern that the alliance’s military infrastructure could eventually reach their borders. These fears intensified after discussions regarding potential NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia.

This perception of strategic encirclement contributed to Russia’s increasingly assertive posture toward Ukraine. While the invasion of Ukraine cannot be justified under international law, it reflects Moscow’s broader attempt to prevent what it perceives as a shift in the regional balance of power. In this sense, the Ukraine war demonstrates how security policies designed to deter conflict can sometimes produce the opposite effect by heightening threat perceptions among rival states.

U.S. Security Architecture and Iran’s Nuclear Calculus

The Middle East shows a similar dynamic. For decades, the United States has maintained an extensive military presence across the region, including bases and security partnerships with key allies such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Bahrain. At the same time, Washington has maintained a close strategic partnership with Israel, which views Iran as its principal security threat.

Within this regional security architecture, Iran increasingly perceives itself as strategically isolated. The combination of U.S. military deployments, Israeli military capabilities, and growing cooperation between Israel and several Gulf states has reinforced Tehran’s perception of encirclement.

While Iran’s progress toward nuclear capability has intensified U.S. military engagement and provoked strong responses from Israel, Tehran also views the expanding security partnerships between the United States and Gulf states as a major factor driving its nuclear ambitions. In this context, nuclear capability is often interpreted by Iranian policymakers as a form of strategic deterrence rather than solely an instrument of power projection.

The breakdown of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action of 2015 complicated the situation by eliminating a key diplomatic framework that had limited Iran’s nuclear program while easing regional tensions. This dismantling not only raised fears about Iran’s potential nuclear ambitions but also eroded trust among regional powers and the international community. Without such agreements, the region faced a heightened risk of escalating confrontation, as nations felt compelled to pursue their own nuclear capabilities to ensure security and deterrence.

Parallel Security Dilemmas

Ukraine and Iran’s cases reveal a broader pattern in international politics often described as a security dilemma. When one state takes measures to increase its security—such as expanding alliances or deploying military forces—others may interpret those actions as threats. This dynamic can provoke countermeasures that ultimately increase instability.

In Europe, NATO expanded to enhance collective defense, but this expansion caused Russia to perceive strategic vulnerability, which created mistrust and tension with the West. In response, Russia engaged in military posturing and aggressive actions that reflected broader insecurity.

Similarly, in the Middle East, U.S. security partnerships and military presence aim to deter Iran through strategic alliances and military readiness, yet these actions reinforced Tehran’s belief that it needs nuclear deterrence for regime survival. These dynamics complicate international relations and heighten regional security risks, prompting states to adjust their strategies in response to NATO and U.S. actions.

Although the historical and political contexts differ significantly, both cases illustrate how the interaction between great-power strategies and regional security perceptions can generate cycles of escalation.

Conclusion

Ultimately, both Europe and the Middle East may achieve long-term stability not only through deterrence but also by addressing the underlying security dilemmas that shape state behavior. Reassessing the pace and scope of U.S.-led alliance expansion and military deployments could help reduce rival powers’ perceptions of encirclement.

Such an approach does not imply abandoning allies or weakening deterrence. Rather, pursuing strategic restraint and renewed diplomatic engagement may play an important role in reducing tensions. By acknowledging how its policies influence the security perceptions of other states, the United States may be better positioned to pursue a more sustainable approach to global stability.

Dr. Mayilvaganan M., Director of CHSIA, is a visiting professor at MIT-WPU, independent consultant and an international affairs specialist.

Views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the CHSIA, an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan organization.