Washington: A renewed exchange of military strikes and threats between the United States and Iran has raised fresh fears of a wider Middle East war. But Jacob Stoil, a research professor of Middle East security studies at the US Army War College, argues the more important story may be what has not happened. According to Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty, Stoil explains why the latest escalation still appears to be calibrated, how Iran is using missiles, drones, maritime pressure, and information warfare to gain leverage, and the indicators that could signal whether the crisis is moving toward a broader regional conflict or renewed negotiations. The views expressed in this interview are strictly those of Jacob Stoil and do not reflect the official policy or position of the US Army, the Department of Defense, or the US government. Stoil noted that the recent US strikes were in retaliation for an Iranian surprise attack against US facilities despite a renewed cease-fire. This was marked by an Iranian surprise at tack followed by a limited US retaliation. Neither side escalated the situation to a point of no return; both could have targeted more expansively but chose not to. Noteworthy is the absence of direct Iranian attacks on Israel in this round of escalation. Stoil elaborated that although the current scenario appears like rapid escalation, both Washington and Tehran are deliberately staying below the threshold of an all-out regional war. He pointed out that both countries possess the capacity to intensify their strikes and expand target lists but have refrained from doing so. Iran has the capability to coordinate attacks across multiple nations in the region and reach as far as Israel, while the US has significant military power that remains untapped in this conflict. The focus of Iran on using missiles, drones, and regional partners rather than conventional warfare reflects a strategic choice. Iran's conventional military might is relatively weak, especially after recent US and Israeli strikes. Instead, Iran leverages its strengths in information warfare and its missile and drone capabilities to attack civilian and economic targets throughout the region. Stoil also discussed Iran's strategy in the Strait of Hormuz, where Tehran aims to use its capacity to close the strait as leverage at the negotiation table. By launching attacks on its neighbors and controlling the Strait of Hormuz, Iran seeks to normalize its aggressive actions as part of the Middle East's day-to-day reality. Information warfare has become central to Iran's strategy, with the goal of raising the political and economic costs of the conflict for the US. By undermining US public support and attacking the will of American partners, Iran aims to make the conflict too costly for the US to maintain. Stoil concluded by highlighting that military analysts should watch indicators rather than headlines to assess whether the region is moving toward renewed negotiations or a broader conflict. Violence, in this context, is used as a language to negotiate tolerances. Each retaliatory strike by the US is a message, indicating where red lines lie, while Iran attempts to push those boundaries.