Before delving into the discussion of a U.S. attack on Iran’s nuclear sites, it is crucial to first examine key facts that appear to have been overlooked in President Trump’s decision-making. His approach, marked by aggressive ‘cowboy diplomacy’ and demands for Iran’s ‘complete surrender’. This raises serious concerns about the strategy’s feasibility and consequences.
By any measure, Iran is a formidable nation. With a population of more than 90 million and a landmass exceeding 1.65 million square kilometers, it is among the largest and most influential countries in the Middle East. Its vast territory, strategic geography, and cultural depth give Iran a unique and often misunderstood position in the global order. Beneath its complex politics lies a deeply rooted civilization with thousands of years of history, one that has survived conquest, revolution, and war without losing its core identity.
Iran’s social fabric is a mosaic of ethnic groups, languages, and traditions. Yet, despite internal divisions and decades of external pressure, the country maintains a remarkably cohesive national identity. Many Iranians see their current political leadership as transient; what endures is the land, the culture, and an unshakable sense of historical continuity stretching back to the Persian Empire. This national consciousness is not merely a source of pride; it is a source of strength. Iran’s sense of sovereignty is not just political; it is historical and civilizational. For many Iranians, this enduring identity places their country at the cultural heart of the region and reinforces a belief that Iran cannot and will not be easily subdued. This critical factor was entirely ignored by President Trump in his decision to pursue a confrontational path with Iran. While the U.S. often measures success by short-term military objectives, Iran weighs its resilience against centuries of turbulent history including the devastating 1980–1988 war with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, a conflict in which Saddam enjoyed backing from the U.S. and European powers. That eight-year struggle, like much of Iran’s past, underscores a national narrative of endurance, one that continues to shape its response to external threats today.
Unlike other nations in the region, Iran does not rely on foreign military equipment or aid for its defense. Its military capabilities, from drones to long-range missiles, are almost entirely domestically produced. While early models were based on Chinese, Russian, or North Korean designs, Iranian engineers have since refined and advanced these systems into sophisticated, independently functioning platforms. Iran’s drone industry is now largely indigenous, and its nuclear program has continued under international scrutiny through the efforts of successive generations of local scientists. This degree of self-sufficiency is rare. It is made possible by a well-educated and resourceful population, as well as a national ethos that prioritizes resilience and resistance to foreign coercion. This was yet another factor overlooked by President Trump in his decision to attack Iran. Strikes on Iranian nuclear sites did not eliminate the country’s capabilities; they may have only temporarily slowed progress. The engineering expertise and technical knowledge were not erased and remain intact, allowing Iran to reconstitute its nuclear program if it chooses.
It is true that support for the government of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is currently at one of its lowest points. According to official data, the turnout in the July 2024 elections stood at just 50 percent. Reformist candidate Dr. Masoud Pezeshkian secured 53.3 percent of the more than 30 million votes counted, a result that reflected more of a rejection of hardliners than a true mandate. Public discontent with the regime runs deep, driven by widespread frustration over political repression, economic mismanagement, corruption, cultural restrictions, foreign military entanglements, and human rights abuses. Yet, despite this dissatisfaction, most Iranians reject the idea of foreign intervention. They believe that change must come from within, and that the costs of war and foreign occupation far outweigh the potential benefits of regime change. This view is reinforced by a long historical memory, especially of the 1953 CIA- and MI6-backed coup against Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, which remains a defining moment in Iran’s collective consciousness. Some even suspect that the rise of Ayatollah Khomeini was facilitated by a broader Cold War-era strategy to empower Islamist movements as a bulwark against Soviet influence. As a result, trust in U.S. intentions is almost nonexistent, and many Iranians regardless of their stance on the clerical regime see any military action by the U.S. or Israel as an assault on the nation itself. Ironically, Israeli attacks and now US attack are viewed by many dissidents as strengthening the regime, providing it with a unifying nationalist cause and weakening internal opposition.
Iran long standing against Israel war against Gaza and treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank has made it symbol of resistance in eyes of many in the Middle east and internationally. One may claim that Iranian government is more popular outside of Iran than inside. Having said that one should underscores a crucial point: President Trump military action against Iran, is not seen by Iranians as a strike against a disliked regime, but as an assault on the nation itself. This attack is likely galvanizing, not fracturing, the population. Far from stabilizing the region, it has provoked fierce resistance from a deeply nationalistic, educated, and resourceful society. History has repeatedly shown that U.S. interventions from Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan have misjudged the political and cultural resilience of the nations they targeted, focusing on swift tactical wins while underestimating the complex and lasting fallout. In Iran’s case, the consequences may be even more explosive.
As President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu celebrate their victory, exchanging praise for their “courage and conviction,” a more complex and destabilizing future is taking shape for both the Middle East and the United States. The assumption that Iran will now surrender simply because President Trump declared the destruction of its nuclear sites a success and disavowed regime change reflects a dangerous naivete. For Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, capitulation is not an option. The Iranian government still has multiple avenues for response. Having watched the U.S. and Israel disregard international agreements and launch unprovoked attacks on its nuclear facilities in violation of established international law, Tehran may now consider itself unbound by those same treaties. What follows is no longer a matter of immediate strikes but a prolonged war of attrition, a test of resolve between the U.S.-Israel alliance on one side and Iran on the other. Contrary to President Trump’s expectations, he will not dictate the course of this conflict. Iran still holds some leverage or, as President Trump himself might put it, “a few cards to play” Among them:
Iran May Prolong the War: A Strategic Calculus
The ongoing conflict between Iran, Israel, and the United States shows no signs of immediate resolution, and Tehran may have compelling reasons to drag it out. Several factors suggest that a prolonged war could work in Iran’s favor, putting immense political and economic pressure on both Washington and Tel Aviv.
President Trump’s Political Peril- President Donald Trump is facing a critical midterm election in about a year and a half, one that will determine whether he can maintain his slim majority in Congress and the Senate. His decision to involve the U.S. in another unprovoked, open-ended war, especially under questionable pretenses reminiscent of the Iraq War’s false “weapons of mass destruction” justification could backfire spectacularly. Trump campaigned on ending foreign conflicts, famously claiming he could stop wars with “a few phone calls” on his first day in office. Now, this is undeniably his war, and he cannot shift blame onto President Biden. Many believe that President Trump could have actually ended this conflict with a single call to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but he chose not to do so. As it stands, the war remains deeply unpopular in the U.S. A Washington Post snap poll found that 45% of Americans oppose U.S. military airstrikes against Iran over its nuclear program, while only 25% support them, and 30% remain unsure. Even within Trump’s MAGA base, there is growing frustration, with some viewing this war as a betrayal of their anti-interventionist ideals. If the U.S. remains entangled in this conflict for more than a few months, Republicans risk losing their narrow congressional majority.
Israel’s Fragile Stability-While Netanyahu enjoys a surge in popularity following Israel’s strikes on Iran, a prolonged war could quickly erode public support. The illusion of security that Israelis have long relied upon is now shattered. Israel is a small country, and its three major cities—Haifa, Tel Aviv, and Jerusalem are bearing the brunt of Iranian missile and drone attacks. Significant damage has been inflicted on Haifa’s port, oil refineries, and urban infrastructure, with unreported losses at military and sensitive sites. Daily life in these cities has been severely disrupted, and this cannot continue indefinitely.
Adding to Israel’s challenges, it remains fully engaged in Gaza despite mounting international condemnation. Meanwhile, the West Bank’s five million Palestinians are under lockdown, a situation that could reach a boiling point. The financial burden is another critical factor: the war is estimated to cost Israel as much as $12 billion per month, a staggering sum for a country with an annual GDP of around $525 billion. Such expenses are unsustainable in the long run.
Iran’s Endurance Strategy-Unlike Israel and the U.S., Iran is better positioned to withstand a drawn-out conflict. The country lacks a robust air defense system, leaving it vulnerable to U.S. and Israeli strikes, which have already targeted military sites, infrastructure, and civilians. However, Iran’s vast geography means the war’s impact is unevenly distributed. In many regions, life continues normally, with occasional attacks seen more as a nuisance than a life-altering threat.
Tehran, home to 10 million people, has suffered the most, prompting many residents to temporarily relocate to other cities or rural areas. Yet, food and supplies remain available, and a sense of solidarity has emerged among citizens helping one another. The Iranian government, already struggling with financial constraints, now faces reduced oil revenues, weakening its operational capacity. Still, the regime may calculate that it can outlast its adversaries by turning this into a low-intensity war with occasional bursts of violence over months or even years to gradually wear down the resolve of both the American public and the Israeli populace.
Why Iran May Prolong the War Conclusion- For Iran, prolonging the conflict may be a deliberate strategy. The political risks for Trump and the economic and social strains on Israel make them far more vulnerable to a war of attrition. While Iran absorbs sporadic strikes, its leadership may believe that time is on its side, slowly grinding down the opposition until the costs of continuing outweigh the benefits. In this high-stakes game of endurance, Tehran could emerge with a strategic advantage, forcing its enemies to the negotiating table on its own terms.
Iran May Considers Withdrawing from NPT While Reconstituting Its Nuclear Program
Iran may withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and cut ties with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), arguing that its peaceful nuclear program under constant IAEA monitoring was bombed by two nuclear-armed countries, including Israel, which is not bound by any treaty and acted under the pretext of self-defense. The unprovoked attack on Iran’s nuclear facility by the President Trump has stripped the NPT and IAEA of their authority and legitimacy, leaving little reason for their existence, according to Iranian officials. This precedent could discourage other nations with nuclear ambitions from joining the treaty, fearing that even monitored and peaceful programs may still face military intervention.
Iran claims it had already relocated its stockpile of enriched uranium and some of the sensitive equipment before the attacks, including roughly 400 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium and more than 9,500 kilograms of lower-enriched uranium. The material, typically stored in transportable containers, is believed to remain within the country. Experts estimate that if Iran decides to fully reconstitute its nuclear program without IAEA oversight, it could produce 90%-enriched, weapons-grade uranium within one to two years. If these assessments prove accurate, the episode may be remembered as another failed attempt by the President Trump to curb Iran’s nuclear capabilities. The first episode was decision to abandon the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018, followed by the latest military strikes, appears to have backfired, potentially accelerating Iran’s path toward becoming a nuclear-threshold state.
Clouser of Hormoz Straits-
Iran may mine the Strait of Hormuz, effectively halting the flow of 20% of globally consumed oil. Such an action would trigger immediate economic shockwaves, calling into question the wisdom of President Trump’s decision to attack Iran. A prolonged blockade could spur inflationary pressures across international markets.
Even without mining the strait, Iran could issue warnings to all or selected oil tankers that transporting crude outside the Persian Gulf exposes them to potential attacks along Iran’s 1,100-mile southern coastline. Such threats alone could significantly disrupt shipping routes. Tehran might also leverage its proxy networks to target vessels in the Arabian Sea or Indian Ocean. The strategic objective would be clear: demonstrate that supporting unprovoked attacks on Iran carries substantial costs. Such escalation would particularly benefit Russian President Vladimir Putin, as oil price spikes would boost Moscow’s revenues. Conversely, China and European nations each importing about 40% of their oil from the Persian Gulf would bear the brunt of the disruption. For Iran, this serves multiple purposes: reminding Europe against blind support for Israeli aggression and signaling to China that ensuring Gulf stability isn’t a favor to Tehran but an economic necessity. The ripple effects would also impact oil-producing Arab states, potentially forcing them to scale back ambitious projects including some of the $2 trillion deals Trump promoted during his recent business delegation to the region.
Direct Strikes on U.S. Bases as Tensions Escalate
The United States maintains numerous embassies, military installations, and strategic assets across the Middle East, many situated in volatile regions. Historically, their security has relied on the overwhelming threat of disproportionate American retaliation. But in the current climate, that deterrent may no longer suffice prompting Iran to consider calibrated, proportional strikes against U.S. interests. While full-scale escalation would be strategically unwise for Tehran, recent years have demonstrated the risks of inaction. Iran perceives that failure to respond to attacks whether by Israel or now the U.S. only invites further aggression, interpreted as weakness. The Trump administration’s confrontational rhetoric has compounded this dynamic, effectively boxing Iranian leadership into a position where some form of retaliation appears necessary. Potential responses could take multiple forms: direct strikes by Iranian forces, coordinated actions through proxy networks, or operations by sympathetic actors in Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria. Such moves would aim to reestablish deterrence while avoiding uncontrolled escalation, a delicate balance.
The coming days and weeks may test whether America’s forward bases can retain their traditional immunity in this new era of heightened hostilities. With Iran signaling its intent to respond, the calculus of regional security appears poised for dangerous recalibration.
Increase Missel strikes on Israel
Depending on the number of missile and launcher in Iran inventory, Tehran may decide to increase the pressure on Israel and mainly focus on one city or target infrastructure to increase the pain level and reducing comfort level. If they do so, it will be either Hifa or Tel Aviv. They may also start targeting Israeli nuclear sites if they have not done so until now. There is no data as how many missiles remain in Iranian arsenals. However, it is believed that there are missile types in their arsenal that they have not revealed and used yet.
Radioactive Fallout Risks Raise Prospect of Dirty Bomb Deterrent
The Iranian government has stated that no radiation has been detected around its bombed nuclear facilities. However, Radioactive contamination remains a serious concern. The destroyed sites contained radioactive contaminated equipment, pipes, cleaning chemicals, and enriched uranium residues that are now buried beneath surface soil, potentially contaminating vast areas. Over time, these radioactive materials could get washed by rain and seep into groundwater supplies. Given that most drinking water in surrounding regions comes from wells, nearby cities may eventually face radioactive contamination in their water systems. Similar scenarios have occurred in the United States at sites like the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington state and the Santa Susana Field Laboratory in California. Israel and President Trump were fully aware of these environmental risks when they authorized the strikes. Tehran may view this disregard for civilian safety and ecological consequences as justification to escalate its response. One possibility is the introduction of radiological weapons, commonly known as “dirty bombs” as both a battlefield deterrent and a proportional countermeasure. At minimum, Iranian leadership could raise the threat of such weapons to signal its willingness to match the severity of the attack on its nuclear program. The long-term environmental damage, combined with the precedent set by targeting nuclear facilities, could push Iran toward more extreme defensive postures in the ongoing conflict.
Conclusion
Iran may pursue asymmetric warfare, including cyberattacks, along with other options, as Tehran’s next move does not follow a predictable playbook. A hybrid approach combining prolonged warfare with other tactics could be likely, even as President Donald Trump seeks to quickly end U.S. involvement in the conflict. Tehran may aim to prolong tensions, aware of his political concerns ahead of the midterm elections.
Efforts to de-escalate the crisis have been undermined by a series of incidents over the past two weeks. When U.S. negotiators entered talks, they showed no intention of giving diplomacy a real chance. Just two days before the sixth round of negotiations, Israel attacked Iran and assassinated Ali Shamkhani, the high-ranking Iranian official leading the negotiating team, effectively destroying any hope for dialogue. A second blow came when Trump ordered airstrikes on Iranian nuclear sites while European mediators were attempting to broker a diplomatic solution. From Iran’s perspective, these actions prove that Washington cannot be trusted and does not negotiate in good faith. With capitulation off the table, military confrontation appears to be the only remaining option.
Trump’s approach has cornered all parties involved, including the U.S., leaving little room for compromise. The conflict has become a test of endurance, with each side escalating pressure in the hope that the other will back down. So far, neither China nor Russia has shown serious interest in mediating, as the crisis benefits them by diverting U.S. attention from trade disputes, Ukraine, and other strategic issues.
Historians may ultimately scrutinize Trump’s decision to let Israel draw the U.S. into this manufactured crisis, a move that could have far-reaching consequences for American foreign policy. For now, the world watches anxiously as tensions continue to rise, with no clear exit in sight.
Article by M. Davar
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of IranOnline.com.