How a US Attack on Iran Could Result in a Nuclear War
Image by Egor Myznik.
Trump recently floated the idea of a “small” attack, with the Iranians responding symbolically by striking an empty U.S. base. But Tehran refused and made clear that any attack would be responded to forcefully. Trump may hope that with a much larger strike force in the region, Tehran will reconsider its response.
Most analysts note Iran has little negotiating room and most of Trump’s demands are nonstarters. Once the bombs fly, all bets are off. Iran has a substantial missile arsenal and 86-year-old Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has indicated any US attack would spark a regional war.
As of early 2026, Iran possesses the largest and most diverse missile arsenal in the Middle East, with an estimated 1,500 to over 3,000+ ballistic missiles. Despite losses in the 2024–2025 conflicts with Israel, the stockpile remains formidable, featuring long-range, precision-guided, and hypersonic capabilities, supported by underground “missile cities” and significant, often indigenously produced, inventory.
Key aspects of Iran’s arsenal as of early 2026:
Inventory Size & Range: While older estimates placed the arsenal above 3,000, recent, intense exchanges in 2024 and 2025 may have reduced the active stockpile to approximately 1,500–2,000+ ballistic missiles, with rapid replenishment efforts observed.
Types: The arsenal includes solid-fuel and liquid-fuel short-range (SRBM) and medium-range (MRBM) ballistic missiles, along with cruise missiles and advanced unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs)
Key Capabilities:
Range: Many missiles are designed with a 2,000 km range limit (e.g., Sejil, Kheibar, Khorramshahr), sufficient to strike targets throughout the Middle East, including Israel.
Precision/Speed: Iran has pivoted toward enhancing precision and accuracy, reducing detection times, and developing hypersonic missiles like the Fattah-1.
Survivability: Substantial, hidden underground facilities, or “missile cities,” are used to protect the arsenal.
Strategic Role: The missiles serve as a core component of Iran’s deterrence strategy, designed to overwhelm regional missile defense systems through massive, coordinated, and precise barrages.
Iran continues to prioritize strengthening its arsenal despite heavy international pressure, focusing on increasing the readiness, reliability, and lethality of its long-range strike capabilities
If Iran’s regime is attacked by the US, that combined with its domestic instability already demonstrated to be substantial by recent protests, may be regarded by the regime as existential. With nothing to lose, Iran could launch a significant missile strike against Israel, already regarded by Iran as a genocidal regime with stated expansionary plans to create a hegemony in the region. From Iran’s perspective being attacked by the US is effectively an attack by Israel and a responsive strike legitimate defense. At that point Iran has nothing to lose by striking Israel. In fact, a US attack could be regarded by Iran as putting it in a use them or lose them dilemma given the overwhelming attack power the US has positioned nearby.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned while speaking at the Knesset on Monday February 24, 2026, that Israel will reply with “unimaginable” force if Iran launches an attack on Israel. Israel’s conventional forces are already spread thin and suffering morale losses in Gaza. What is the “unimaginable” force does Netanyahu threaten? Israel has nuclear weapons and the capacity to reach Iran with them.
Ironically, the more “successful” any US strikes are, and the greater the danger to the Iranian regimes continued existence, or the existence of its missile arsenal, the more likely Iran attacks Israel with overwhelming missile strikes. In such a circumstance, Israel’s “unimaginable” force can only be its nuclear weapons.
Israel is widely believed to possess approximately 90 nuclear warheads. Iran has none. But in the event Israel is hit with, or threatened with up to 3,000 sophisticated missiles, it is such a tiny nation that Israel could decide use of nuclear weapons was essential to its existence. Then nuclear use could be regarded as “necessary.” All nuclear powers assert the right to use nuclear weapons if needed to avoid their own complete destruction.
In fact, the United States explicitly reserves the right to use nuclear weapons first, including in scenarios where its existence, or the existence of its allies and partners, is threatened. Current U.S. policy, as detailed in Nuclear Posture Reviews (NPRs), maintains that nuclear weapons may be used in “extreme circumstances” to defend vital interests, which can include significant non-nuclear attacks. Thus, the precedent exists, in theory.
A nuclear strike by Israel against Iran would cause catastrophic loss of life, widespread environmental devastation from radioactive fallout across the Middle East, and immediate, total collapse of the Iranian regime. Such an event would likely trigger a massive global economic crisis, unprecedented international condemnation, and risk sparking a wider, potentially existential, nuclear conflict.
This is the definition of a “pyrrhic victory.” The “fallout” will be not only nuclear, but moral, and economic and it will be difficult to recover from.
But even if somehow contained to the region, the conflict would be a humanitarian nightmare. Given the nuclear armed states nearby, the conflict could trigger a domino effect leading to near human extinction, or omnicide.
Amassing an armada and thousands of war planes around a country, as Trump has done, and threatening to start a war even though Iran poses no threat unless attacked, is not much of a play for a Nobel Peace Prize.
The post How a US Attack on Iran Could Result in a Nuclear War appeared first on CounterPunch.org.