For decades, the United States and Iran have navigated a tense relationship, carefully sidestepping direct military confrontation. Past American presidents refrained from using military force against the Islamic Republic, wary of igniting a potentially catastrophic conflict in the Middle East. However, the current president, who campaigned on a platform of peace, has now taken the significant step of launching military strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities. This marks a pivotal moment in his second term, drawing international concern and speculation about Iran’s forthcoming actions.
The figure at the center of Iran’s response, 86-year-old Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is reportedly in hiding as he contemplates the next steps. He has spent nearly four decades strategizing against the United States to safeguard the Islamic Republic, and the weight of his decisions is heavier than ever. “Khamenei’s next moves will be the most consequential not just for his own survival but for how he will go down in history,” states Sanam Vakil, Director of the Middle East and North Africa programme at Chatham House. She further likens Khamenei’s situation to the precarious position of Iran’s first revolutionary leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, who reluctantly accepted a ceasefire during the Iran-Iraq war in 1988.
Recent days have seen intensified Israeli airstrikes that have severely impacted Iran’s military structure and command. These attacks have reportedly caused greater disruption than Iran faced over its eight-year war with Iraq. The U.S. entry into this conflict has compounded the pressure on Iran, leading the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to pledge retaliation against the U.S., suggesting it would result in “lasting regret.” Despite the heated rhetoric, experts believe both sides are weighing their actions carefully to avoid catastrophic miscalculations. “This is not a war Iran wants,” observes Hamidreza Aziz from the Middle East Council on Global Affairs, noting that Iranian officials are feeling compelled to respond to maintain their image as a regional power.
However, any response carries enormous risks. An attack on U.S. bases or troop positions could trigger a massive retaliation. Jamming the Strait of Hormuz, a vital trade route, could alienate not only U.S. partners in the region but also China, the primary customer of Iranian oil. Iran’s previously robust network of regional proxies has been weakened by recent Israeli offensives, further complicating its strategic options. The question of how Iran might retaliate—without drawing severe U.S. retribution—remains uncertain.
Past incidents have tested this fragile relationship. In 2020, after the assassination of IRGC commander Qasem Soleimani, fears of a retaliatory spiral emerged, yet Iran opted for a measured response that avoided American casualties. The current situation, however, presents a far greater escalation.
Former President Trump, who had previously expressed a desire to negotiate with Iran rather than resort to military action, now appears staunchly aligned with Israel. He has characterized Iran as the “bully of the Middle East,” asserting that it is intent on acquiring nuclear weapons—contradicting earlier intelligence assessments. The Pentagon claims its recent strikes delivered devastating blows to Iranian nuclear sites, raising questions about the extent of damage inflicted, especially given the fortified nature of some facilities.
Iran’s leadership perceives the U.S. diplomatic overtures as inadequate, viewing demands for a halt to uranium enrichment as an infringement on its rights as a sovereign nation. Following talks in Geneva, where Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi met with European counterparts, Iran conveyed its disappointment, contending that the U.S. had derailed diplomatic possibilities by escalating military actions.
Israeli military operations commenced shortly before a planned round of negotiations, effectively derailing any prospect for dialogue. “It was not Iran, but the U.S. who betrayed diplomacy,” Araghchi asserted during a press briefing, emphasizing Iran’s commitment to countering foreign aggression in light of international law.
European leaders are now calling for urgent de-escalation while advocating for a resolution to curtail Iran’s nuclear ambitions through diplomatic channels rather than military threats. They view the current level of uranium enrichment as a serious indication of Iran’s intentions. “Iran is likely to underplay the damage to its sites and insist its nuclear program has survived these unprecedented attacks,” predicts Ellie Geranmayeh from the European Council on Foreign Relations.
As the situation continues to unfold, President Trump faces pressure from both Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, who demands continued military action, and lawmakers at home who question the legality of his decisions. This period could pressure Iran’s leadership into making risky moves aimed at restoring deterrence while avoiding further U.S. targeting. The irony persists: while the U.S. aims to eliminate Iran’s nuclear threat, its actions may inadvertently accelerate Tehran’s pursuit of nuclear capabilities.