Now, Later, or Never: Iran’s Three Choices After US Strikes

Should Iran retaliate now, later, or never? What could be its next move after the successful strikes on three nuclear facilities that Donald Trump described as ‘successful’ and ‘neutralized’? Tehran’s dilemmas bring the Middle East to the brink of dangerous escalation. Despite fiery rhetoric, Iran’s options are limited, and every step hides serious risks. How will Iran respond? The Iranian response to the nighttime airstrikes by the US against its three nuclear installations was one of anger, promising what it called ‘eternal consequences.’ Now, Iran must choose between conflict, delayed retaliation, or diplomacy—with the very survival of the regime at stake. Behind the statements, intense discussions are undoubtedly taking place at the highest levels of Iranian security and intelligence services. Should they escalate the conflict with counterstrikes against American interests, as urged by President Trump, or negotiate, which in practice means abandoning uranium enrichment entirely within the country? This internal debate occurs as many top Iranian military leaders question whether they will be the next targets of precise Israeli strikes or if someone in the room has already betrayed them to Mossad, Israel’s secret service. Broadly speaking, there are three main strategic choices for Iran. None is without risk, and the minds of decision-makers are dominated by the question of the Islamic regime’s survival. Option one involves immediate and hard confrontation. Many seek blood. Iran has endured humiliations, first from Israel and now from what it often calls the ‘Great Satan’—the US. Its conflict with Israel continues into a tenth day, but an attack on the US raises the stakes—not only for Iran but for the entire region. It’s estimated that Iran retains about half of its original 3,000 missile stockpile, having used or lost the rest in conflicts with Israel. It has a list of around 20 American bases in the Middle East, with the most obvious being the headquarters of the US Navy’s 5th Fleet at Mina Salman in Bahrain. However, Iran may hesitate to strike an Arabian Gulf country. More likely, it would activate its paramilitary forces in Iraq and Syria to attack more isolated American bases like At-Tanf, Ain Al-Asad, or Erbil. It has precedent: when Trump ordered the assassination of Quds Force leader Qasem Soleimani in 2020, Iran retaliated against American forces in Iraq but gave warnings to avoid casualties. This time, it might not do the same. It could also launch attacks on American warships using drones and fast torpedo boats—a tactic practiced by the Revolutionary Guards. The aim would be to overwhelm American defenses with sheer force. Simultaneously, Iran might ask its allies, the Houthis in Yemen, to resume attacks on Western ships passing through the Red Sea. There are also economic targets; the most severe would involve Hormuz Strait, through which 20% of global oil passes. It could achieve this through mining, posing enormous risks to both military and commercial vessels. Moreover, Iran possesses advanced cyber warfare capabilities—like North Korea, Russia, and China—an option certainly under consideration. Option two involves delayed retaliation, waiting until tensions subside before striking unexpectedly when the US has relaxed security measures. Such an attack could target diplomatic or commercial offices of the US or take the form of targeted assassinations. However, this risks new attacks from the US, perhaps when Iranians return to their daily lives. Option three involves no retaliation at all, requiring immense restraint but protecting Iran from further attacks. It could opt for diplomacy and restart negotiations with the US. As the Iranian Foreign Minister emphasized, Iran never left negotiations—it was Israel and the US that abandoned them. Restarting talks in Muscat, Rome, or elsewhere would only make sense if Iran accepted the red line set by the US and Israel: maintaining its nuclear program only if all uranium is sent abroad for enrichment. Ultimately, making no move after such a strike could make the Iranian regime appear weak—especially after all the warnings of severe consequences. The analysis concludes that the regime might decide the risk of collapse outweighs the cost of new American strikes.