Iran's talking tough after US attack. But the regime has run out of options
In the end Israel's leader Benjamin Netanyahu got what he wanted – America involved in his aerial campaign against Iran. And in a timeframe determined by Israeli, rather than US, calculations.
It is an extraordinary turn of events. Neither the International Atomic Energy Agency nor his own Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard supported Netanyahu's claim about the 'golden information' possessed by Israel indicating an imminent threat posed by any weaponised nuclear program. Yet US President Donald Trump has variously told reporters not to listen to Gabbard, and later simply that 'she's wrong'. Once again, the White House has committed its forces to a conflict in the Middle East without making the case as to why it needed to.
The world now waits for Iran's response to the attacks by the United States. Its options are limited. It is relatively weak militarily and Israel has air supremacy. Iran's armed non-state supporting actors have either been degraded – as is the case with Lebanese Hezbollah – or internal political or broader national considerations have forced them to critically re-evaluate that support. A wariness about President Trump's unpredictability also makes support for Iran more challenging than was the case before October 7.
Iran's own conventional capabilities have taken a hit through Israel's military campaign and have been depleted as a result of Tehran's week-long response to those attacks. Their remaining stockpiles and what, if any, ability they have to replenish them, will be one of the pieces of intelligence most keenly sought by its adversaries. One can have the greatest intent to retaliate but, if you possess limited capabilities, then your military options remain constrained.
The regime's ultimate aim is, and always has been, survival. Their ambiguity regarding their nuclear program was a means to that end, not necessarily an end in itself. Suspicions about its nuclear capability or intent was seen as a way of securing the regime from direct attack, but the economic sanctions that secrecy over the program brought with it constrained its own economic development and put pressure on the regime. The nuclear program then became the means by which it could negotiate sanctions relief without entirely giving up its strategic ambiguity. The Iran Nuclear Deal (or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) was the result of this approach.
Loading
Nuclear ambiguity worked as long as Iran's policy of 'forward defence' worked. Tehran's reliance on its so-called 'axis of resistance' – a network of armed non-state actors in the region – was ultimately a strategic miscalculation.
These groups destabilised the countries in which they operated. Iran's use of these affiliates made Gulf states suspicious of Tehran's motives in the region. When Israel degraded them as part of their post-October 7 response, few tears were shed in the region. Without them, and with a new and unpredictable president in the White House, Iran's strategic nuclear ambiguity quickly became a millstone around Tehran's neck.
The question now is, what Iran will do in response to the US attack? If regime survival remains the priority, it is quite possible that its best chance for achieving that comes from limiting and focusing – rather than broadening – their response. Tehran knows that Washington can deliver an overwhelming response to any Iranian retaliation, while any Iranian response against US interests is going to achieve limited results. A largely symbolic military response may be carried out, if only for appearance's sake.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
West Australian
an hour ago
- West Australian
Scott Morrison: Donald Trump's strikes on Iran a necessary measure to achieve peace, not war in Middle East
The recent strike by the United States on Iran's nuclear facilities marks a critical turning point in global security. It is not just a matter for the Middle East or for U.S. foreign policy. It is a test for all nations that rely on the strength and credibility of the international rules-based order and the western alliance for their security, Australia included. Let me be clear, this strike was not an act of provocation. It was a necessary measure, undertaken as a last resort by a President who wants peace, not war. The purpose was clear, to disrupt the capabilities of a brutal authoritarian regime that has openly defied international norms, supported terrorist proxies, and pursued nuclear weapons with increasing brazenness. In times of geopolitical crisis, clarity of purpose and principle is essential. That is why I was compelled to speak out following the U.S. operation. What we have seen instead from the Australian government is a concerning lack of clarity and a reluctance to define where Australia stands when it matters most. It is in times like this when allies look around to see who is with them. For a country like ours, deeply integrated into global economic and security networks, reliant on open trade routes and US led allied deterrence, strategic ambiguity is not a strength. It is a vulnerability. Throughout my time as Prime Minister, I took the view that Australia's interests are best served when we speak plainly and act decisively in defence of our values. That is why we stood firmly with our allies against China's economic coercion. It is why we invested in AUKUS, strengthening our sovereign defence capabilities and deepening our technological integration with the U.S. and UK. it is why we worked so closely with our Indo-Pacific partners through the Quad to uphold regional stability. It is why we stood with Israel against those who sought their annihilation. In this context, the U.S. strike on Iran's nuclear facilities must be understood for what it is: an act of strategic deterrence, grounded in the reality that Iran has long been operating outside the bounds of good faith diplomacy. It is what President Trump meant when he spoke of peace through strength. For years, Iran has methodically violated its obligations under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), enriching uranium well beyond civilian thresholds, restricting IAEA inspections, and hardening its facilities in preparation for exactly this kind of confrontation. Attempts to revive the nuclear deal have failed, not because the West abandoned diplomacy, but because Tehran refused to comply with the very terms it had previously accepted. The question facing policymakers in Washington and, indeed, in Canberra is not whether we prefer diplomacy over conflict. Of course we do. It is whether diplomacy alone can halt a regime that has no intention of negotiating in good faith. At a certain point, the cost of inaction outweighs the risk of confrontation. That is precisely where the United States found itself. Given Iran's refusal to cooperate with international monitors and its aggressive posture across the region, including arming Hezbollah, enabling Hamas to commit atrocities on innocent Israelis, supporting Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping, the Trump administration concluded that a targeted strike was the only viable option left. Only the US could have taken this step and President Trump should be commended for his courage and leadership, especially by allies. This was not a broad campaign. It was a calibrated operation aimed at degrading the most advanced elements of Iran's nuclear infrastructure specifically, targeting Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow. The objective was not regime change. It was to halt Iran's progression toward nuclear weapons capability and to send a clear message that the West's red lines still mean something. Yet here in Australia, the official response from the government has been muted. No strong statement of support for the United States. That silence is telling. It suggests a reluctance to confront difficult choices and to support our most important ally in the righteousness of the actions that have taken. I believe that such an approach is short-sighted and fundamentally misjudges the nature of the challenge we face. Australia cannot afford to be passive in moments like this. Our voice matters, not just because we are a U.S. ally, but because we are a middle power with global responsibilities. We sit at the intersection of East and West, of advanced democracies and rising developing powers. Our stance sends signals across the region, from Beijing to Moscow, Jakarta to Seoul. We must make the case for resistance against authoritarian arrogance. That doesn't mean we should follow Washington blindly. It means we must be clear, consistent and credible in how we support a global order that has protected our prosperity and security for generations. This is a time for strategic clarity, not importantly, we must ensure our own defences are fit for purpose. AUKUS is not a theoretical construct. It is a practical framework for dealing with the kinds of threats we are now seeing unfold. That means accelerating delivery timelines, investing in sovereign capabilities, and ensuring that deterrence in our own region is not eroded by distraction or delay. The world is entering a more dangerous phase. The era of risk aversion is over. Strategic competitors are testing our resolve, our alliances, and our willingness to act in defence of shared values. The choices we make now will define the kind of world our children inherit. We must choose clarity over confusion. Strength over silence. And principle over passivity. We must know who we stand with. That is the standard Australia has upheld in the past. And it is the standard we must uphold again now Scott Morrison was Australia's 30th Prime Minister.
AU Financial Review
an hour ago
- AU Financial Review
Iran vows retaliation after Trump ‘obliterates' nuclear ambitions
Canberra | Washington | Iran has vowed to hit back hard against Donald Trump's air raids on the regime's nuclear program and launched a fresh wave of missiles against Israeli cities, as the US president promised more attacks if American interests in the Middle East were targeted. In the most consequential decision of his presidency, Trump defied the advice of allies, including Australia who had advocated for diplomacy, leaving the Middle East at risk of spiralling into further conflict, destabilising global markets and piling pressure on oil prices.
Perth Now
an hour ago
- Perth Now
Remains of three Israeli hostages recovered from Gaza
The Israeli military says it has recovered the remains of three hostages held in the Gaza Strip. It identified them as Yonatan Samerano, 21; Ofra Keidar, 70; and Shay Levinson, 19. All three were killed during Hamas' October 7, 2023, attack into Israel that ignited the ongoing war. The militant group is still holding 50 hostages, less than half of them believed to be alive. Kobi Samerano said in a Facebook post that his son's remains were returned on what would have been Yonatan's 23rd birthday. "The campaign to return the hostages continues consistently and is happening alongside the campaign against Iran," Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a statement. Hamas-led militants killed some 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and abducted 251 people in the October 7 attack. More than half the hostages have been returned in ceasefire agreements or other deals, eight have been rescued alive and Israeli forces have recovered dozens of bodies. Israel's retaliatory offensive has killed over 55,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza's Health Ministry, which has said that women and children make up more than half of the dead. It does not distinguish between civilians and combatants.
