In a significant escalation of tensions in the Middle East, President Donald Trump has ordered strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, sparking concerns over how Tehran might respond.
Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, speaking from Istanbul, indicated that the nation is weighing several options for retaliation.
The potential responses could range from direct military action against U.S. bases in the region to the strategic closure of vital shipping lanes.
In the event of a conflict, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) could activate its network of proxies across Iraq, Yemen, and Syria, which have previously attacked American interests in the area.
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) outlines that the U.S. maintains military presence at various sites across the Middle East, with a significant contingent of approximately 40,000 troops.
As of late last year, Iraq alone hosted 2,500 U.S. troops, and an attack on these forces seems a plausible retaliation for Iran, particularly given Trump’s recent aggressive moves.
In 2020, an Iranian missile strike resulted in over 100 U.S. soldiers sustaining traumatic brain injuries, showcasing the potential fallout from further escalation.
Analyst Barak Ravid emphasized that Iranian officials have repeatedly warned that a U.S. attack on their nuclear facilities would elicit a response against U.S. interests in the region, which are numerous.
A resurgence of attacks from Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthi rebels is already speculated, as the group has threatened attacks on U.S. ships in the Red Sea should the U.S. escalate its involvement in the conflict.
In the context of a U.S.-Houthi ceasefire established in May, it remains uncertain whether the recent U.S. strikes have derailed this agreement.
Faced with the challenge of directly confronting the military might of the U.S. and Israel, Tehran might consider a war of attrition to wear down its adversaries’ capacity and will to engage in prolonged conflict.
The consequences for both Iran and the U.S. could be severe, as experts suggest that Tehran may aim for a resolution that prevents a wider war while preserving its interests.
In terms of global implications, Iran holds considerable leverage over oil trade through its influence in the Strait of Hormuz, a critical channel for oil shipments that links the Persian Gulf to international markets.
While there have been no immediate disruptions in oil exports, the global oil market could face significant shocks if Iran chooses to leverage this strategic point.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, around 20 million barrels of oil traverse the Strait of Hormuz daily, underscoring its importance to global energy security.
Following the U.S. attack on the Fordow nuclear facility, a senior adviser to Iran’s supreme leader has already called for missile strikes and suggested blocking the strait.
This move could create significant ramifications for global oil prices and economic stability, potentially undermining President Trump’s economic agenda.
In a longer-term strategic shift, experts predict that Iran may accelerate its efforts to develop nuclear weapons capabilities.
Trita Parsi, an analyst at the Quincy Institute, believes that Trump’s actions may inadvertently push Iran closer to becoming a nuclear weapons state within the next decade.
Even in a scenario where the Iranian regime changes, new leaders could adopt a more hawkish position and pursue nuclear capabilities more aggressively.
Historically, in the face of Israeli airstrikes, Iran has reportedly relocated enriched uranium away from key facilities to mitigate losses.
With Israel and the U.S. accusing Iran of striving for nuclear weapons capabilities, Tehran continues to assert that its nuclear program is intended for peaceful purposes.
Furthermore, should tensions escalate, Iran could potentially withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which prohibits the nation from developing nuclear arms.
Experts indicate that the likelihood of Iran’s NPT withdrawal has increased significantly following the latest hostilities.
While the initial Iranian response to the U.S. attack focused on targeting Israel with missile strikes, analysts suggest that Iran may opt to concentrate on combating Israel rather than escalating the situation into a full-scale war with the U.S.
Recent attacks on Israeli facilities in Tel Aviv reflect this strategy, as Iran aims to respond without engaging in prolonged warfare with the United States.
This cautious approach may stem from the awareness that President Trump could seek to limit further U.S. involvement following the airstrikes, echoing patterns from previous engagements in 2020.
In a similar vein, Iran may choose to implement a bloodless response, similar to its prior missile attacks which resulted in injuries but no fatalities among U.S. forces.
As military capabilities remain reduced due to prior Israeli strategies, experts assert that Iran might turn to asymmetric tactics such as cyberattacks or terrorism as alternative response measures.
CNN national security analyst David Sanger explains that the IRGC is likely weighing its remaining capabilities and may opt for unconventional responses that evade traditional defense systems.
Retired Major General James Marks elaborates, indicating that while Iran’s missile capacity has been compromised, the IRGC retains significant resources that could impact U.S. interests globally.
Iran also faces the challenge of resuming nuclear negotiations even as they have stalled due to ongoing Israeli attacks.
Araghchi’s recent statements suggest that diplomatic avenues might be severely constrained following U.S. military actions, which have prompted Iran to reevaluate their position on negotiations.
As discussions with U.S. representatives faltered last week, Araghchi noted that Israel’s interventions further complicated diplomatic efforts aimed at resolving tensions.
Despite some indications of positive movement in diplomatic circles last week, Araghchi remarked that the U.S. effectively ended any hopes of productive talks with its military actions.
Ali Vaez from the International Crisis Group reflects this sentiment, suggesting that the current military environment makes negotiations increasingly difficult for Iran.
The complexities surrounding U.S.-Iran relations have only intensified following the latest military strikes, as both sides are forced to navigate a delicate balance between warfare and diplomacy in a profoundly volatile climate.
image source from：abc7chicago
