This previous week, Tehran sent a direct strike of ballistic missiles to Iraq. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps executed the strike to attack U.S.-controlled territory in the region. This directness marks a shift in Iran’s typical military strategy, which usually involves applying military pressure through proxy militias. According to the Revolutionary Guard Corps, the strike targeted Israeli “strategic centers,” such as a building in proximity to the U.S. consular team in Erbil. The general reason for this attack likely stems from an incident earlier this month where Israel attacked Syria and killed two Iranian Revolutionary Guards.

Tensions in the Middle East are high as the region experiences a shift in its balance of power. Israeli groups on Iraqi soil have initiated missile attacks against Iran due to their desire to separate themselves from Iranian influence. Iraqi officials in Baghdad are contemplating the formation of a new government in order to break off Iranian influence, in addition to the new Iranian nuclear deal being discussed and the ongoing conflicts between Iran, Israel, and the United States. Essentially, Iran is using military and ballistic weapons to denounce the United States, Israel, and Gulf Arab States that wish to diminish its influence.

Iran’s adversaries in Iraq – such as Muqtada al-Sadr, a Shia Muslim leader who opposes Iranian influence and is the chief rival to fellow Shias aligned with Iran – have vowed to pursue a government free of Iranian influence. An anonymous senior official from al-Sadr’s office told Reuters that Iran’s bold statements would just incite more violence. “You get into this tit-for-tat again. Whatever happens next, it’s more instability for Iraq,” the official said.

As tensions increase, hard power (i.e., military) responses are common, as the players involved do not want to appear weaker than other nations. Iran has been increasing its hard power through direct action and straying away from using proxies. The United States has also relied on hard power tactics, such as its 2020 assassination of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani in Baghdad. These actors have neglected soft power negotiation, as demonstrated by the fall-through of Washington and Tehran’s 2015 nuclear deal, which would have created sanctions relief for the region. The United States continues to feign diplomatic negotiations by mentioning the re-instatement of potential initiatives to curb Iran’s nuclear program, but no progress has been made. Instead, the talks have led to nuclear uncertainty and the potential for Tehran to develop nuclear weapons.

Many talks have been initiated on behalf of national and international actors, including Iraqi-mediated talks between Iran and Saudi Arabia and the aforementioned 2015 Washington-Tehran nuclear deal, but these have proven unsuccessful. Iran recently stated that it was “up to Washington to resuscitate a deal,” Reuters said.

As diplomatic negotiations are largely ignored and a strong focus on military strategies takes the forefront, violence will inevitably continue to ensue. Both sides will continue to retaliate at an equivalent level, and with Iran’s new and direct approach it seems as if there is no attempt to respond to the problem anymore. This hostility and desire to outdo one another has only escalated problems in the region. It seems as if there is no attempt to come towards an agreement, yet international actors continue to wonder why tensions keep rising.

Idealistic as it may seem, there must be a complete shift away from military force in order to move forward and stabilize relations in the Middle East. Growing concerns about the use of nuclear weapons cannot and will not be resolved through the use of ballistic missiles.

Iran and Iraq tend to justify their use of military power by stating that the opposing side is being hostile towards them and threatening their sovereignty. To limit this kind of rhetoric between nations, talks between opposing groups must be initiated and there must be stricter guidelines for participants to adhere to in order to ensure that the talks do not fall through. In order to advance conversations and avoid significant bias, it would be best if these talks were mediated by a neutral party.

To take negotiations further and increase success rates, using non-state/multilateral actors as negotiators could allow for a more level playing field. Parties tend to feel more inclined towards resolution if they believe that their mediator does not have a personal connection to either party. If a state actor such as the United States were to negotiate, the resulting power imbalance would affect the actions of the negotiating parties.

If Iran does not initiate any peace talks or further negotiations, it is in the world’s best interest for Washington to resuscitate these conversations as Iran stated, instead of continuing the “tit-for-tat” game. The moral authority of our major world leaders should shine through in the current moment.