Iran’s Strategic Dept Why Gulf Security Is Becoming Harder to Control
DOHA, QATAR — The security landscape around the Persian Gulf and wider Middle East is being shaped by more than conventional military strength.
According to Dr. Luciano Zaccara, an Iran and Gulf analyst and adjunct associate professor at Georgetown University in Qatar, Tehran’s influence in the region is closely connected to what he describes as strategic depth—the ability to maintain leverage beyond Iran’s own borders through regional relationships, political influence and asymmetric capabilities.
His analysis comes as security concerns continue to focus on two of the world’s most important maritime corridors: the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab-el-Mandeb.
The two waterways sit at critical points in international trade and energy transportation. Disruption in either location can have consequences extending well beyond the Middle East.
Iran’s Strategy Goes Beyond Territorial Control
Zaccara’s analysis suggests that Iran and groups aligned with Tehran do not necessarily need to control territory outright to influence the regional balance.
Instead, pressure on maritime routes and strategic infrastructure can create uncertainty for governments, shipping companies and outside military powers.
The approach can be understood as a strategy of denial—making it difficult for an opponent to establish complete and uninterrupted control over a particular area.
This is particularly significant around maritime chokepoints.
The Strait of Hormuz connects the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea, while Bab-el-Mandeb links the Red Sea with the Gulf of Aden. Their geographical importance gives developments around either passage significance for regional security and international commerce.
For Gulf governments, the challenge is therefore not simply preventing a conventional military attack. It is also maintaining reliable trade and energy routes when relatively limited disruptions can create wider economic and security concerns.
The Houthi Factor
The conflict in Yemen has added another dimension to the regional security picture.
The Houthis, who control significant territory in Yemen and are aligned with Iran, have developed capabilities that allow them to exert pressure around the Red Sea and surrounding maritime areas.
From Zaccara’s perspective, this demonstrates how regional actors can influence security calculations without possessing the conventional military capabilities of major states.
The result is an uneven contest.
A powerful military can deploy expensive aircraft, naval vessels and defensive systems, while a smaller armed group may be able to impose costs through comparatively less expensive asymmetric methods.
That imbalance complicates efforts to achieve lasting security through military means alone.
Why Military Power Has Limits
Zaccara argues that conventional military strength remains important but cannot, by itself, resolve the political problems underlying regional conflicts.
“Military power can determine rules of the game,” he said in the analysis, while emphasizing that military power alone is insufficient.
In his assessment, strategic depth also involves negotiation, political relationships and the ability to bring other parties to the negotiating table.
That perspective helps explain why military campaigns can produce tactical successes without necessarily creating a permanent political settlement.
An air campaign, for example, may damage military infrastructure or alter an adversary’s capabilities. But it does not automatically resolve disputes over political authority, regional influence or long-term security arrangements.
For Gulf states, that distinction is particularly important.
Gulf States Face a Difficult Calculation
The Gulf Cooperation Council states have invested heavily in national defense and maintain close security relationships with major international powers.
Yet regional instability can still create economic vulnerabilities.
If shipping companies face higher insurance costs or reroute vessels to avoid dangerous waters, the consequences can spread through supply chains. Energy exporters may also face pressure when transportation routes become less predictable.
This creates an incentive for Gulf governments to explore multiple approaches at the same time.
Military deterrence remains one element. Diplomatic engagement is another.
The two approaches do not necessarily have to be mutually exclusive.
For governments in the region, maintaining dialogue with Iran can provide another channel for reducing misunderstandings and managing crises, even while those same governments continue strengthening their defensive capabilities.
The Importance of the Strait of Hormuz
Few locations illustrate the dilemma more clearly than the Strait of Hormuz.
The narrow waterway has long been central to discussions about Gulf security because of its importance to energy transportation.
Any prolonged instability around the strait can attract the attention of regional governments, the United States and other international powers.
That creates a complicated security environment in which military deployments can themselves become part of the escalation cycle.
The more outside powers increase their presence to protect shipping, the greater the possibility of confrontation with forces opposed to them.
At the same time, reducing that presence could create concerns about deterrence and freedom of navigation.
A Regional Security Problem Without an Easy Solution
Zaccara’s analysis points toward a broader conclusion: the Gulf’s security challenges cannot be understood solely through the balance of conventional military forces.
Iran’s regional relationships, the Houthis’ position in Yemen, maritime geography and the economic importance of international shipping all interact.
That makes the region difficult to stabilize through military pressure alone.
For Gulf states, the challenge is finding a balance between deterrence and diplomacy while protecting economic interests.
For Iran, maintaining strategic depth provides leverage in negotiations and regional competition.
For outside powers, particularly the United States and its partners, the challenge is preventing disruptions to international commerce without allowing individual confrontations to develop into a much wider conflict.
The result is a regional security equation in which military power remains important—but political influence, geography and negotiation can be just as consequential.
As tensions continue to shape the Gulf and surrounding maritime corridors, the question is increasingly not simply who possesses the strongest military.
It is who can maintain influence, deny an opponent complete control and ultimately shape the political terms of regional security.
