June brought with it an unprecedented display of military prowess, showcasing three landmark maneuvers on the global stage: Ukraine’s targeted eradication of the Russian bomber fleet, Israel’s neutralization of key Iranian leaders and air defense, and America’s long-range bunker disruption at Iranian nuclear sites. Each demonstration was characterized by their audaciousness, scale, and the surprising swift and detailed disclosure of operational data. Moving beyond the selective press briefings or narrow military summaries typical of high-profile missions, these were subsequently enriched by inclusive briefings from the top defense officials of those countries, presenting sharable media like drone footage, confirmatory imagery, and mission graphics.
Historically, warfare has been a performance, where the means of executing the military actions have had significance beyond their immediate destructive or tactical impacts. However, the June operations were distinguished not by the act of war itself, but by the way they communicated after the fact. Not unlike the ‘shock and awe’ of the 2003 Iraq War or CNN’s Gulf War coverage, the June missions garnered worldwide attention through the innovative use of social media, real-time distribution, and comprehensive information disclosure.
This trend isn’t limited to these three operations. Russia’s expanded drone attacks against Ukraine, for instance, have heavily featured comprehensive drone footage dissemination. Such material exchanges have effectively supplanted Russia’s previous strategy of nuclear deterrence aimed at discouraging more direct and effective Western intervention. Furthermore, the American strike on Iran led to a response that seemed more symbolic than substantial, demonstrating a show of domestic strength without actual escalation.
This raises a pivotal question: are we witnessing the emergence of a more performative style of warfare? Major powers have, in the 21st century, generally distinguished their high-profile operational plans from their strategic signaling activities to limit and control their military actions. Real-world operations prioritize a specific and explicit mission end state, while signaling and geopolitically relevant messaging operate in different, distinct channels. This separation harks back to the logic of safeguarding strategic military capacities while ensuring clear, controlled messaging to avoid unintentional escalation.
Examples of strategic signaling abound, from nuclear signaling—like Russia has employed against the West to deter intervention in Ukraine—to military exercises such as Freedom of Navigation Operations, China’s massive joint drills around Taiwan, or NATO’s combined maneuvers. Revealing technological capabilities or announcing major platforms captures public and policy-maker interest, encouraging influence. On the other hand, actual military operations—single covert missions or widespread warfare campaigns—are centered on achieving military objectives. When countries execute limited high-level operations, they prioritize mission success, with any explicit signaling lying in the action itself.
The June operations blurred these lines by utilizing operational channels as their primary strategic signaling mechanisms. Desert Storm demonstrated early examples of presenting conflicts in real time, but left viewers on the outside of the planning process. In contrast, the June operations not only showcased conflict, but also the methodologies employed to execute it. The operational details were provided not from talking heads or pundits but directly from high-authority figures.
Three high-profile operations from three different nations, all showcasing a similarly remarkable level of detail, indicate this wasn’t a one-off event but rather a pattern that may be defining a new approach to strategic information operations. The focus is shifting towards merging military operations with strategic communication, potentially sacrificing useful military intelligence for immediate strategic communication gains. In this transforming landscape, the calculus for revealing mission-critical details—somewhat at odds with preserving operational security—has also become more nuanced.
While it may seem counterintuitive to sacrifice operational security for strategic communication, there can be justifiable circumstances. For instance, the cadence of evolution in Ukraine’s drone technology could render specific drone operational methods redundant within a few months. Similarly, the US strike aimed for comprehensive destruction of Iranian nuclear facilities, reducing the need to secure those methods for future operations. In such situations, immediate strategic communication could be perceived to outweigh traditional security concerns, despite the calculable risks.
The strategic communication gains likely justify these trade-offs, even though it is challenging to fully comprehend perceived benefits within rival power structures. Ukraine’s disclosure of its drone coordination across vast Russian territories offered undeniable evidence of Russian vulnerabilities while enhancing Ukraine’s domestic morale and international standing. Israel’s revelations regarding its infiltration into Iran would likely bolster regional deterrence. For the United States, demonstrating the complexity and scope of Operation Midnight Hammer served to reassert the message of American technological superiority and reach—a message intended for audiences far beyond the Middle East.
The progression towards performative warfare aligns with the evolution of modern information operations. As traditional information operation campaigns struggle to retain attention in today’s saturated information environments, capturing the audience’s focus requires increasingly dramatic and credible demonstrations. A prime example of this strategic necessity is Ukraine, where after numerous setbacks, the demonstration of credible deep capabilities changed the dynamics and reestablished their strategic position.
Similar geopolitical imperatives faced Israel. Due to declining international support for operations in Gaza and increasing pressure from Iranian progression in regional power structures, Israel needed to act decisively and strategically to change the focus from Gaza to their precise and calculated actions based on robust intelligence. The United States also faced its unique set of challenges, particularly in its perceived struggles with China in the ‘grey zone.’ However, the publicized details of American operations served to reinforce that their core military strengths remain dominant.
Historically, extraordinary military methods tend to diminish in effectiveness upon repetition. For example, during World War I, armed merchant ships called Q-ships initially succeeded, but lost their effectiveness once german U-boats adapted their strategies. Similarly, the psychological impact and media attention due to precision drone strikes in the early phase of the ‘Global War on Terror’ faded away by the turn of the decade. Despite these limitations, the June operations exhibited potential benefits of providing detailed disclosure strategies, making the operations more performative across different power levels.
The future of warfare is likely evolving towards greater integration of tactical execution with strategic messaging, as demonstrated by these June operations. It now falls on major powers like the United States to recognize and utilize this evolution deliberately. By planning integrated disclosures from an operation’s inception, the U.S. can lean into its existing operational superiority and enhance its influence—an advantage rivals will find difficult to replicate.
The post June’s Missions: A New Era of Performative Warfare appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
