When Will the U.S. Strike Iran?
The huge buildup of U.S. naval and air power in the Persian Gulf and its surrounding waters continues to fuel speculation that some form of American military strike on Iran may be imminent. Aircraft carriers, strategic bombers, advanced fighter squadrons, missile defense systems, and logistical support vessels have been deployed or reinforced across the region.
Yet despite weeks of escalating military buildup and repeated rhetoric from Donald Trump, no strike has materialized. The president has repeatedly warned that unless Tehran agrees to U.S. demands on its nuclear program, ballistic missile development, and regional proxy networks, “bad things” will follow. Iran, however, has shown no sign of retreating from what it considers its red lines. This may reflect Tehran’s calculation that, with Chinese and Russian naval forces still present following their joint exercises, any U.S. strike would risk further internationalizing and complicating the conflict. (RELATED: It’s Now or Never in Iran)
Several further explanations have been put forward. One is that key U.S. partners — Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Türkiye — fear the consequences of a direct U.S. versus Iran confrontation.
These states are geographically exposed by proximity to Iran. They host U.S. military bases, critical energy infrastructure, global financial hubs, tourism industries, and vital maritime routes. A direct strike on Iran could invite retaliation not only against American military installations but also against regional economic targets, potentially triggering widespread instability.
Tehran understands it cannot prevail in conventional warfare against the United States. Instead, it emphasizes asymmetric capabilities: ballistic missiles, drones, cyber operations, and networks of proxy forces — and potentially sleeper cells — not only across the Middle East but beyond.
How much of Iran’s rhetoric is deterrent posturing, and how much reflects genuine operational readiness?
Iranian officials have openly declared U.S. bases legitimate targets in the event of war. Beyond military installations, escalation could involve missile strikes, disruption of maritime traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, attacks on energy infrastructure, and possibly even civilian targets with no military gains. The resulting economic shockwaves — particularly a dramatic spike in oil prices — could reverberate far beyond the region.
The central question remains: how much of Iran’s rhetoric is deterrent posturing, and how much reflects genuine operational readiness?
The brief but intense 12-day confrontation launched by Israel against Iranian targets in June 2025 challenged Tehran’s image of invulnerability. Despite Iran’s missile barrages, Israel demonstrated significant success in detection and interception, while establishing near-complete aerial dominance over Iran’s skies. (RELATED: Israel on Alert)
Yet that conflict also raised critical questions. Could Israel have sustained nightly missile exchanges if the conflict continued? Did the limited duration prevent broader escalation? The episode exposed both Iran’s vulnerabilities and the inherent dangers of a prolonged military exchange to Israel.
Another crucial factor is Iran’s internal instability. During the earlier 12-day conflict, many Iranians opposed to the regime did not flood the streets in expectation that Israel would “finish the job.”
The landscape has shifted, however, following the January protests and the brutal crackdown that followed. On the eve of January 9, when the exiled Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi called on demonstrators to take to the streets and seize government buildings, unprecedented numbers of protesters mobilized across the country. Many believed foreign intervention — coupled with large-scale defections within Iran’s military and security forces as promised by the Crown Prince — was imminent. Instead, they were met with the bloodiest massacre of civilians in Iran’s modern history, and no defection amongst Iran’s military and security ranks materialized. (RELATED: Why Iranians Have Unified Around Reza Pahlavi)
Today in Iran, anger is not merely simmering beneath the surface — it is seething, volatile, and charged with a fury that could erupt again. Should external strikes significantly alter the balance of power — for example, by targeting the Tharollah security headquarters, the main headquarters for coordinating the crackdown, or by decapitating the regime’s senior leadership, renewed unrest could erupt with far greater force and violence that may finally have a chance to topple the regime.
The decision to strike — and what to strike — is fraught with uncertainty:
- Would limited strikes deter Tehran or trigger wider escalation?
- How extensive would Iranian retaliation be?
- Could regional economies withstand prolonged instability?
- Would another round of internal unrest, with a significant shift in the balance of power in favour of the protesters, finally succeed in toppling the regime?
For Washington, maintaining a visible military buildup without follow-through strikes carries risks of its own. If Iran refuses to concede and no action follows, U.S. credibility in projecting power will be severely dented. Yet acting precipitously could ignite a regional firestorm with unpredictable consequences.
The standoff reflects a classic deterrence dilemma: applying sufficient pressure to compel change without crossing the threshold into uncontrollable war.
For now, the carriers remain at sea, aircraft stand on high alert, the military buildup continues unabated, and the rhetoric isn’t subsiding. The regime led by Ali Khamenei has survived for decades through fortunate brinkmanship. But brinkmanship carries its own inherent danger: sooner or later, a single miscalculation can send the regime over the edge.
READ MORE: