How Iran could retaliate after US bombs its nuclear program
Iran has spent decades building multi-tiered military capabilities at home and across the region that were at least partly aimed at deterring the United States from attacking it. By entering Israel's war, the U.S. may have removed the last rationale for holding them in reserve.
Thet could mean a wave of attacks on U.S. forces in the Middle East, an attempt to close a key bottleneck for global oil supplies or a dash to develop a nuclear weapon with what remains of Iran's disputed program after American strikes on three key sites.
A decision to retaliate against the U.S. and its regional allies would give Iran a far larger target bank and one that is much closer than Israel, allowing it to potentially use its missiles and drones to greater effect. The U.S. and Israel have far superior capabilities, but those haven't always proven decisive in America's recent history of military interventions in the region.
Ever since Israel started the war with a suprise bombardment of Iran's military and nuclear sites on June 13, Iranian officials from the supreme leader on down have warned the U.S. to stay out, saying it would have dire consequences for the entire region.
It should soon be clear whether those were empty threats or a grim forecast.
Here's a look at what Iran's next move might be.
Targeting the Strait of Hormuz
The Strait of Hormuz is the narrow mouth of the Persian Gulf, through which some 20% of all oil traded globally passes, and at its narrowest point it is just 33 kilometers (21 miles) wide. Any disruption there could send oil prices soaring worldwide and hit American pocketbooks.
Iran boasts a fleet of fast-attack boats and thousands of naval mines that could potentially make the strait impassable, at least for a time. It could also fire missiles from its long Persian Gulf shore, as its allies, Yemen's Houthi rebels, have done in the Red Sea.
The U.S., with its 5th Fleet stationed in nearby Bahrain, has long pledged to uphold freedom of navigation in the strait and would respond with far superior forces. But even a relatively brief firefight could paralyze shipping traffic and spook investors, causing oil prices to spike and generating international pressure for a ceasefire.
Attacking US bases and allies in the region
The U.S. has tens of thousands of troops stationed in the region, including at permanent bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, Arab Gulf countries just across the Persian Gulf from Iran — and much closer than Israel.
Those bases boast the same kinds of sophisticated air defenses as Israel, but would have much less warning time before waves of missiles or swarms of armed drones. And even Israel, which is several hundred kilometers (miles) further away, has been unable to stop all of the incoming fire.
Iran could also choose to attack key oil and gas facilities in those countries with the goal of exacting a higher price for U.S. involvement in the war. A drone attack on two major oil sites in Saudi Arabia in 2019 — claimed by the Houthis but widely blamed on Iran — briefly cut the kingdom's oil production in half.
Activating regional allies
Iran's so-called Axis of Resistance — a network of militant groups across the Middle East, is a shadow of what it was before the war ignited by Hamas' Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel out of the Gaza Strip — but it still has some formidable capabilities.
Israel's 20-month war in Gaza has severely diminished the Palestinian Hamas and Islamic Jihad groups, and Israel mauled Lebanon's Hezbollah last fall, killing most of its top leadership and devastating much of southern Lebanon, making its involvement unlikely.
But Iran could still call on the Houthis, who had threatened to resume their attacks in the Red Sea if the U.S. entered the war, and allied militias in Iraq. Both have drone and missile capabilities that would allow them to target the United States and its allies.
Iran could also seek to respond through militant attacks further afield, as it is widely accused of doing in the 1990s with an attack on a Jewish community center in Argentina that was blamed on Iran and Hezbollah.
A sprint toward nuclear arms
It could be days or weeks before the full impact of the U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear sites is known.
But experts have long warned that even joint U.S. and Israeli strikes would only delay Iran's ability to develop a weapon, not eliminate it. That's because Iran has dispersed its program across the country to several sites, including hardened, underground facilities.
Iran would likely struggle to repair or reconstitute its nuclear program while Israeli and U.S. warplanes are circling overhead. But it could still decide to fully end its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency and abandon the the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
North Korea announced its withdrawal from the treaty in 2003 and tested a nuclear weapon three years later, but it had the freedom to develop its program without punishing airstrikes.
Iran insists its program is peaceful, though it is the only non-nuclear-armed state to enrich uranium up to 60%, a short, technical step away from weapons-grade levels of 90%. U.S. intelligence agencies and the IAEA assess Iran hasn't had an organized military nuclear program since 2003.
Israel is widely believed to be the only nuclear-armed state in the Middle East but does not acknowledge having such weapons.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Rhyl Journal
17 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
Plaid to PM: 'Don't follow Trump into Middle East conflict'
Rhun ap Iorwerth, MS for Ynys Môn, and Liz Saville Roberts, MP for Dwyfor Meirionnydd, welcomed Prime Minister Keir Starmer's calls for diplomacy and de-escalation, but voiced concerns that he had fallen short of roundly condemning President Trump's authorisation of US strikes against Iran overnight. The Plaid Cymru politicians said that the pursuit of peace should take priority over any UK loyalty to the US and warned against repeating history where the UK entered a regional conflict in the Middle East as 'America's puppet.' In a joint statement, Mr ap Iorwerth and Ms Saville Roberts said: 'President Trump's decision to launch US strikes against Iran is potentially catastrophic for an already destabilised region. 'Whilst Prime Minister Keir Starmer's calls for diplomacy and de-escalation are to be welcomed, it is concerning that he has fallen short of roundly condemning President Trump's actions. 'The pursuit of peace should take priority over any UK loyalty to the US. We all remember the disastrous consequences of being dragged into a regional conflict in the Middle East as America's puppet. 'It is essential therefore that Parliament has the opportunity to veto any UK military involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict should Keir Starmer yield to any pressure from President Trump and propose some form of intervention. 'In the same way the US Democrats are divided on the issue, Keir Starmer may well face pressure from Labour hawks to follow President Trump's lead. 'Air strikes were launched against Syria in 2018 without granting Parliament an opportunity to vote on military action. At the time Plaid Cymru accused then-Prime Minister Theresa May of showing complete disregard towards democracy. 'We stand firmly by that view and reiterate our calls for restraint before more innocent civilian lives are lost.' The US strike on Iran has fuelled fears that Israel's war with Tehran could escalate to a wider regional conflict. World leaders have reacted with calls for diplomacy and words of caution. US President Donald Trump had said on Thursday that he would decide within two weeks whether to get involved. In the end, it took just days, and Washington inserted itself into Israel's campaign with its early attack early on Sunday, reports the Press Association (PA).
The Independent
20 minutes ago
- The Independent
Starmer warns of ‘risk of escalation' following US strikes against Iran
Sir Keir Starmer warned there was a risk of the Middle East crisis spiralling beyond the region after Donald Trump ordered US planes and submarines to attack Iran's nuclear programme. The Prime Minister urged all sides to return to negotiations but said he had taken 'all necessary measures' to protect British interests in the region if the conflict escalates. There was no British involvement in the action but the Government was informed before the US strikes. Tehran has threatened to retaliate and Mr Trump has warned of further US action if necessary, saying: 'There will either be peace or there will be tragedy for Iran.' Speaking at his Chequers country retreat, the Prime Minister said there was a 'risk of escalation' adding: 'That's a risk to the region. It's a risk beyond the region, and that's why all our focus has been on de-escalating, getting people back around to negotiate what is a very real threat in relation to the nuclear programme. 'In relation to the UK, we were not involved in the attack. We were given due notice, as we would expect, as close allies to the US, and we have been moving assets to the region to make sure we're in a position to protect our own interests, our personnel and our assets, and, of course, those of our allies.' The US action comes just days after Sir Keir, who attended the G7 summit in Canada with Mr Trump, said on Tuesday there was 'nothing' from the president to suggest he was about to get involved in the conflict. Mr Trump pushed ahead with the action anyway, which he claimed had 'completely and fully obliterated' key nuclear facilities. Asked if he had been left looking foolish by the UK's closest ally ignoring his calls for de-escalation and pushing ahead with military strikes, the Prime Minister said: 'It's clearly a fast-moving situation and there's been a huge amount of discussion in the days since the G7 ended.' The Prime Minister sought to dodge questions about whether the UK could get dragged into the conflict if Iran targeted the bases of the US, a Nato ally. 'I'm not going to speculate about what may happen, because all of my focus is on de-escalation,' he said. 'But I do want to reassure the public we have taken all necessary measures to protect UK interests, UK personnel and to work with our allies to protect their interests as well.' Extra RAF Typhoon jets have already been moved to the region and Defence Secretary John Healey said 'force protection is at its highest level' following the US strikes. Sir Keir will chair a meeting of the Government's Cobra crisis committee on Sunday afternoon and has held a series of calls with world leaders. The US attacked Fordo, Isfahan and Natanz which are linked to Iran's nuclear programme. The Tehran regime has insisted its nuclear programme is peaceful but its uranium enrichment process has gone far beyond what is required for power stations. The strikes followed a build-up of US military equipment, with B-2 stealth bombers – which are the only aircraft to carry a 30,000-pound bunker-buster bomb – reportedly used to target the underground facilities. The aircraft have previously used the UK-US airbase on Diego Garcia, one of the Chagos Islands, but it is understood that was not involved in these strikes. The attack on Iran also involved US submarines, which launched around 30 Tomahawk cruise missiles. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said: 'By targeting Iran's nuclear sites, the US has taken decisive action against a regime that fuels global terror and directly threatens the UK. 'Iranian operatives have plotted murders and attacks on British soil. We should stand firmly with the US and Israel.' Reform UK leader Nigel Farage also backed Mr Trump's decision to strike Iran. He said: 'Iran must not be allowed to have nuclear weapons, the future of Israel depends on it.' Liberal Democrats leader Sir Ed Davey said 'robust diplomacy' was now needed to eliminate Iran's nuclear threat, adding: 'Following the US strikes, it is essential that we work to de-escalate the conflict and achieve that diplomatic solution.' Scotland's First Minister John Swinney called for diplomacy, saying the Middle East conflict has reached 'an alarmingly greater level of danger after the US attacks on Iran'. Iran launched a ballistic missile barrage against Israel in retaliation to the US action. The foreign ministry in Tehran issued a statement condemning 'the United States' brutal military aggression against Iran's peaceful nuclear facilities'. It added: 'The Islamic Republic of Iran is resolved to defend Iran's territory, sovereignty, security and people by all force and means against the United States' criminal aggression.' Mr Trump said any retaliation would be met with 'force far greater' than that used in the initial strikes.
Spectator
23 minutes ago
- Spectator
Iran is isolated against the US and Israel
America's entry into the war against Iran is the latest step up an escalation spiral that began in October 2023. What started with an attack by a Palestinian Islamist organisation on a poorly defended Israeli border, and then became a fight between Israel and a series of Iran-supported Islamist paramilitary groups by the end of 2023, and then extended to limited exchanges between Israel and Iran itself in April 2024, and then turned into war between Iran and Israel, has now become a confrontation pitting the US and Israel against their longest standing and most powerful adversary in the Islamic world. Now at war with both Israel and the US, it has no major power interested in fighting alongside it. So what are the implications of this latest turn, and what may happen next? While prediction remains unwise regarding the current US president, the notion that the Trump administration will be dominated by isolationism can be laid to rest. In Washington a few weeks ago, I found that much of the talk behind the scenes was worried assessments concerning the rise of isolationism and of individuals professing such views at the top reaches of the administration. People with past associations with hawkish or pro-Israel circles were having trouble getting confirmed for posts. Vice President J.D. Vance and Donald Trump Jr, I heard, were the most senior and influential members of the rising camp. An old friend of mine who has interviewed the President on a number of occasions cautioned against despair. His advice: don't take too much notice of the people around Trump. Pay attention to Trump himself, and to what his track record suggests regarding his views on Israel. Possessing no special insights of my own, I hoped he was right. It appears he was. Over the last two years, much ink has been spilled regarding a supposedly emergent axis of anti-western states. This axis, as usually depicted, is headed by China, with Russia, Iran and North Korea as members. Cooperation between these countries has indeed measurably increased over the last half decade. Chinese purchase of Iranian oil to foil Trump's strategy of 'maximum pressure' on Tehran during his first term is one example of this growing operational closeness. Yearly joint naval exercises between the Chinese, Russian and Iranian navies, the role of Iranian Shahed 136 drones and North Korean ground troops in the Ukraine war, the provision of advanced air defence systems by Moscow to Tehran all support this view. But while the eventual emergence of such an axis may be likely, it is also the case that no such crystallised alliance currently exists. Russia is bogged down in its own forever war in Ukraine. There are no indications that Moscow supports Tehran's ambition for a nuclear weapon, and still less that Russia would jeopardise its own interests, security or relations with other states in support of this goal. Moscow is a rival but not an enemy to US-aligned Israel, and clearly prefers to maintain this ambiguous status, which brings some benefits. As for China, while rumours have abounded regarding mysterious Chinese cargo planes reaching Iran in recent days, Beijing's interest in the region and its growing influence depends on stability and relations with all sides. The mood music from China has shifted over the last two years, with increasingly harsh criticism of Israel. Beijing has strongly condemned Jerusalem's pre-emptive action against Iran. But China has also sought to build diplomatic leverage on the basis of strong commercial ties with all major regional powers. It has no interest in involving itself in conflicts. What all this means is that Iran currently finds itself isolated. Now at war with both Israel and the US, it has no major power interested in fighting alongside it. This is no doubt a matter for concern and consternation on the part of the mullahs. It's a blessing for the rest of us. So, isolated and faced with attacks by powers enjoying massive technical advantage, what are the options now available to Tehran? Tehran could, of course, agree to a new nuclear deal which sees the final abandonment of uranium enrichment on Iranian soil. This would represent a historic victory for the US and for Israel. As of now, Tehran may not yet feel that the regime faces existential danger. Short of this, surrender appears unlikely. If it wants to opt for defiance, Iran has a number of means of possible pressure. It will need to consider carefully, of course, if it wishes to use them, and thus invite further US retribution. Tehran still has its proxies, even in depleted form. The Houthis are likely to recommence attacks on US flagged vessels on the Gulf of Aden-Red Sea route now. The Iraqi Shia militias are relatively unscathed from the last 20 months of regional war. The US has bases in Iraq, at Erbil and ain al-Asad. Iran itself or its client militias might attempt missile or drone attacks on these facilities, or on the remaining US presence in northeast Syria. Theoretically, Tehran could order its once powerful Lebanese Hizballah proxy back into the fray. But to do so would be to risk the final decimation of an organisation that has already been battered by Israel. US bases throughout the region could potentially be targeted by Iranian missiles. Iran might also seek to hit at US allies in the Gulf, and their oil producing capacity as it did in 2019. But Israeli attacks on launch sites and supply chains throughout Iran in recent days have significantly reduced Iranian capacities in this regard. Iran could block the Strait of Hormuz, through which one fifth of global petroleum exports are shipped. This is a potent threat, which would cause oil prices to rise. But this would also almost certainly precipitate a full US entry into the war. Finally, of course, Tehran could accelerate efforts toward the testing of a nuclear weapon. All these potential courses of action bring with them the likelihood of increased global isolation, and increased US counter measures. These, in turn, would lead to deteriorating internal conditions in the country, which could hit at the regime's legitimacy and stability. Then again, acceptance of defeat, and surrender might have a similar effect. Supreme Leader Khamenei and his isolated regime have few good options at present. Whichever one they take, they are likely to be privately cursing the memory of their brother and comrade Yahya Sinwar, deceased former Hamas leader, whose decision to launch the massacres in October 2023 has led directly to Tehran's current predicament.
