For decades, the United States and Iran have cautiously avoided direct military conflict.
Successive US presidents refrained from military action against Iran, fearing a potentially devastating Middle Eastern war.
Now, the current president, despite a campaign promise of peace, has authorized direct military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities—a momentous decision in his second term.
This unprecedented move has sparked global alarm.
Iran’s response is crucial. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, reportedly sheltering in a bunker, faces a difficult choice. He has spent decades carefully maneuvering against the US to protect the Islamic Republic.
An inadequate response would damage his prestige; an excessive one could jeopardize his regime.
Sanam Vakil, Director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at Chatham House, states, “Khamenei’s next moves will be pivotal not only for his survival but for his historical legacy.” She adds, “His predicament is potentially more perilous than Khomeini’s in 1988,” referencing the ceasefire in the Iran-Iraq War.
Recent Israeli strikes have inflicted more damage on Iranian military infrastructure and command than the eight-year Iran-Iraq War. These attacks have eliminated numerous high-ranking security officials and leading nuclear scientists, significantly increasing the pressure with the US now directly involved.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has vowed retaliation, warning of “lasting regret” for the US. However, underlying this strong rhetoric are urgent calculations to prevent catastrophic miscalculations.
“This isn’t a war Iran desires,” explains Hamidreza Aziz of the Middle East Council on Global Affairs. “However, regime supporters argue that, regardless of the actual damage, Iran’s image as a strong regional power has been severely compromised, demanding a response.”
Retaliation carries significant risks. A direct attack on US bases in the Middle East, or US troops, would likely trigger a massive US response.
Closing the Strait of Hormuz, vital for 20% of global oil transport, could also backfire, alienating Arab allies and China, Iran’s major oil customer. Western naval forces might intervene to protect this critical waterway and prevent major economic disruption.
Furthermore, Iran’s regional proxy network, previously considered a “forward defense,” has been significantly weakened by Israeli actions over the past 20 months.
Finding a response that allows Iran to retaliate without provoking full-scale US conflict remains uncertain.
A similar situation occurred five years ago when the US assassinated IRGC commander Qasem Soleimani. While fears of escalation were high, Iran’s response, channeled through Iraqi officials, targeted US bases while avoiding significant casualties or damage.
This current situation, however, is far more significant.
President Trump, who previously favored diplomacy, now firmly supports Israel, characterizing Iran as a “bully” intent on acquiring nuclear weapons—a conclusion not universally shared by previous US intelligence assessments.
Intelligence agencies are assessing the results of what the Pentagon calls the “largest B-2 operational strike in US history,” causing “extremely severe damage” to Iranian nuclear facilities at Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow. Only “bunker-busting” bombs could penetrate the deeply buried Fordow facility.
President Trump is urging Iran to seek peace. However, Iran views this as a demand for surrender. In Geneva, Iran’s Foreign Minister conveyed a strong message rejecting Washington’s demand to cease nuclear enrichment.
Iran sees President Trump’s diplomatic overtures, including talks led by envoy Steve Witkoff, as deceptive. Israel launched its military campaign two days before the sixth round of negotiations, with the US joining two days after Trump stated his intention to allow a two-week window for diplomacy.
Iran refuses to return to the negotiating table while attacks continue. “The US, not Iran, betrayed diplomacy,” Araghchi declared, also securing a condemnation of Israel’s actions from the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation.
Iran emphasizes the violation of international law and the IAEA’s warnings against attacking nuclear facilities.
European leaders urge de-escalation and mediation, but insist Iran cannot acquire nuclear weapons, viewing its 60% uranium enrichment as alarming.
Ellie Geranmayeh of the European Council on Foreign Relations suggests Iran may downplay the damage, while the US may overstate it for political gain.
President Trump faces pressure from both Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu, whose attacks will likely continue, and domestic critics who question his actions and commitment to avoiding prolonged wars.
The situation is expected to reinforce Iran’s determination to restore deterrence, while seeking to avoid becoming a direct target.
“Ironically,” warns Geranmayeh, “Trump’s attempt to eliminate the nuclear threat from Iran may paradoxically increase the likelihood of Iran becoming a nuclear state.”
Lead image: A demonstrator holds a portrait of Iran’s Supreme Leader. Photography credit: Reuters
BBC InDepth provides in-depth analysis and reporting on major global issues.
The BBC gathered Texan opinions on President Trump’s decision to bomb Iranian nuclear sites.
A Pentagon briefing detailed the complex mission timeline.
Downing Street reported close communication between the Prime Minister and President Trump.
BBC security analyst Gordon Corera assessed the likely damage to Iran’s nuclear facilities.
The US strikes present lasting challenges for the Prime Minister.