The Geopolitics of 'Aggression': A Convenient Label
Actors and Their Messaging The primary actors are the US military (represented by CENTCOM, likely speaking through a spokesperson), the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and a US-flagged oil tanker targeted near the Strait of Hormuz. The US military's accusation of 'unnecessary aggression' was issued immediately following the drone incident and the tanker approach. This phrase activates a
specific narrative frame: Iran as an unpredictable, dangerous actor requiring a firm response—or, at minimum, diplomatic containment. The Funding and Its Influence The US military, primarily funded by the US taxpayer (with a 2026 budget exceeding $900 billion, Congressional Research Service ), directly benefits from and justifies its substantial presence in the Arabian Sea through such incidents.
The deployment of an F-35, a multi-million-dollar asset (an F-35A costs approximately $80 million Lockheed Martin, 2023 ), near Iranian airspace underscores this operational footprint. The IRGC, a branch of the Iranian armed forces, is funded by the Iranian state and plays a critical role in projecting Iranian power and protecting its interests in the Persian Gulf. For both sides, these encounters
reinforce their respective mandates and justify continued defense spending and strategic posturing. Incentives and Narratives For the US, framing this incident as Iranian aggression serves several purposes. Firstly, it justifies the continued deployment of significant naval assets, including aircraft carriers like the USS Abraham Lincoln, in a region far from US shores, ostensibly to protect