IRAN’S NUKESThe Uncertainty in the Aftermath of the U.S. Bombing in Iran
The U.S. bombing of Iranian nuclear sites Sunday had a concrete strategic objective: thwart Iran’s ability to enrich nuclear material and potentially build nuclear weapons. It was intended to make the world a safer place. At the moment, however, the world remains a dangerous place.
The U.S. bombing of Iranian nuclear sites Sunday had a concrete strategic objective: thwart Iran’s ability to enrich nuclear material and potentially build nuclear weapons. It was intended to make the world a safer place.
At the moment, however, the world remains a dangerous place. This is the case despite a ceasefire between Iran and Israel, and a retaliatory missile strike that was intentionally telegraphed by Iran in order to de-escalate.
Iran will adjust its strategy, not its strategic objective. Its goals remain to acquire nuclear weapons, destroy Israel, and dominate the Middle East. That fight does not end with this round. How Iran will truly respond is still an open question.
The Iranian regime’s paramount objective is its survival. (Though he reversed course, President Trump overtly mentioned the possibility of regime change in Iran.) Although Iran’s military capabilities have been reduced by Israeli actions, they have not been eliminated. If it seeks to avenge the bombing, it also has other options that it has utilized in the recent past.
________________________________________
“Iran’s capabilities have been reduced by Israeli actions, but they have not been eliminated. If Iran seeks to avenge the bombing, it also has other options.”
________________________________________
Even before the U.S. bombing, Iran reportedly had delivered a secret message to President Trump at the G7 summit, warning that it could activate sleeper cells to carry out terrorist attacks inside the United States.
Iran’s proxies might be mobilized. The Houthis in Yemen have already signaled their readiness to resume hostilities with Israel. Hamas vowed retaliation, although it is already fully engaged in fighting with Israel. Hezbollah stated that it has no immediate plans to retaliate against Israel or the United States. Still, with its connections to a global criminal network, it is capable of terrorist actions worldwide.
Even if no mobs have burned down American embassies in protest, there could still be some spontaneous attacks. Individual vehicle-ramming attacks, shootings, and stabbings could always happen.
More to the point: Surely the Iranians had contemplated the possibility of American attack and had some contingency plans for their nuclear material. They potentially even have a devastating “doomsday” plan if they reckoned the United States was determined to destroy the regime.
Nor should we confine our thinking to nuclear threats. Even if Iran’s nuclear capabilities are halted for now, other weapons theoretically could be used to cause casualties or massive economic damage. Biological or cyber weapons can be delivered clandestinely. As nuclear threats diminish, do these other threats rise?
Finally, there’s the threat of assassination, which has become increasingly normalized. Both the United States and Israel have adopted a “decapitation” strategy. Israel has killed many in the leadership of Hamas, and notably Hassan Nasrallah, the third secretary-general of Hezbollah in Lebanon. A U.S. drone strike in Baghdad killed Iranian Quds Force leader Qasem Soleimani in 2020, a memory that is still fresh in Tehran.
Iran has already tried to return in kind. Multiple Iranian murder-for-hire plots have been disrupted by the FBI, including ones targeting Trump during the 2024 election, making the message delivered at the G7 summit particularly ominous.
One can envision a strategic debate in Iran over what to do next. Its network of proxies has been greatly weakened. It obviously has been penetrated by Israeli intelligence. Its air defenses have been decimated. Its nuclear program has been badly damaged, even if not destroyed. In sum, it has lost its deterrence and its ability to defend itself against further attacks.
________________________________________
“Even if Iran’s nuclear capabilities are halted for now, other weapons theoretically could be used to cause casualties or massive economic damage.”
________________________________________
Given those circumstances, what might it do to seek revenge and signal strength? Will it devote its efforts to rooting out spies and rebuilding its conventional defenses? Will the regime decide to risk some type of terrorist action that will provoke and justify a further U.S. strike?
Or will it continue its efforts to acquire nuclear weapons, albeit more cautiously and more clandestinely? It might calculate that the United States may be reluctant to pursue a second strike and will want to constrain Israel. And, of course, choosing the nuclear course does not eliminate the terrorist threat. That remains.
Halting hostilities does not end hostility. We cannot breathe a sigh of relief. Instead, we need to remember that even as the American news cycle moves on, Iran counts time in decades, not days.
Brian Michael Jenkins is a senior adviser to the president of RAND and author of numerous books, reports, and articles on terrorism-related topics, including Will Terrorists Go Nuclear?. This article is published courtesy of RAND.
