The President of the United States has presented Tehran with a stark ultimatum: enter negotiations or face a significant escalation. The decision now rests with Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Having spent decades attempting to push back American influence in the region, Khamenei is unlikely to respond favourably to threats, particularly those underscored by B-2 bombers overhead. A more probable course, at least in the immediate term, is retaliatory action aimed at deterring further strikes by Washington.
++ Trump revives false claims of 2020 election fraud amid ongoing political tensions
Iran possesses numerous options for retaliation. With US bases spread across the Middle East—in Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia—the regime could employ missiles or drones, or turn to its network of regional proxies, such as Iran-backed militias in Iraq or the Houthi movement in Yemen. Disrupting shipping through the Persian Gulf is another possibility, which could deliver a significant blow to the global economy by sending oil prices soaring. Yet any such move would likely provoke a forceful American response, especially given the formidable US military build-up in the region, including three carrier strike groups and missile-laden submarines.
In light of these risks, Iran may lean towards asymmetric warfare, a strategy it has long mastered. British intelligence is reportedly alert to the possibility of Iranian-sponsored terrorist activity within the UK. While escalation appears inevitable, there are questions as to whether the conflict could broaden. Despite a strategic agreement with Iran, Russia is not bound to offer military support, and China, Iran’s closest partner in the region, is expected to maintain a watching brief from the sidelines. Both powers have strong incentives to avoid entanglement in this unfolding confrontation.
++ Dozens killed in Gaza amid ongoing struggle for food aid
Looking ahead, two conflicting objectives will dominate. For Iran, survival remains paramount, which may include enduring pressure and discreetly continuing its nuclear ambitions. For Israel, preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear capability is non-negotiable. Regime change in Tehran remains unlikely in the near term, so Israel faces the prospect of prolonged engagement to contain Iranian influence. That means continued surveillance, intelligence operations, and potentially further military interventions. The situation is perilous for all involved—with high stakes for Iran, considerable costs for Israel, and enduring risks for the United States.
