The Middle East has experienced a period of relative calm following United States military strikes against Iranian targets in June, a move that was initially met with warnings of potential regional escalation and even global conflict. Four months later, attacks by Iranian proxies have decreased, tensions in the Gulf have eased, and a fragile ceasefire between Israel and Hamas has been brokered, leading some former critics to credit the strikes with restoring deterrence.

Supporters of a more forceful foreign policy argue that the decisive action imposed real costs on Iran and its allies, prompting them to recalibrate and step back from confrontation. Others, however, caution that the outcome may not be a clear endorsement of military intervention, noting that the strikes were carefully signaled to avoid casualties and escalation, and that such results may not be replicable in future scenarios.

Some analysts warn that the operation came at the expense of diplomatic efforts, particularly ongoing negotiations over Iran's nuclear program, and suggest that the apparent success could lead to dangerous overconfidence in the effectiveness of limited military action. The debate continues over whether the quiet is a result of restored deterrence or simply good fortune.