CNA Explains: What could Iran's next move be after US strikes on its nuclear sites?

CNA

3 hours ago

Iran said on Monday (Jun 23) that air strikes by the United States on its nuclear sites have paved the way for a wider war in the region.
It comes a day after US President Donald Trump boasted that the air strikes had 'completely and totally obliterated' Iran's main nuclear facilities in Fordow, Isfahan and Natanz.
Experts warned that the conflict may be far from over, and hinges largely on Tehran's next move.
Was Trump's 2-week deadline for US action a ruse?
The latest conflict started when Israel on Jun 13 launched attacks on Iranian nuclear and military facilities. The two sides have been engaged in retaliatory strikes since.
The White House said last Thursday that Trump would take two weeks to decide US involvement in the escalating conflict.
Yet Washington's decision to strike Iran came much sooner.
Saturday's top-secret mission, referred to as Operation Midnight Hammer, involved seven B-2 stealth bombers flying 18 hours from the US to Iran to drop 14 bunker-buster bombs.
More than 125 aircraft participated in the mission, including refueling tankers and fighter escorts.
Stephen Zunes, professor of politics at the University of San Francisco, believes the two-week deadline was a ruse, adding that 'it does appear that they were in cahoots (with Israel) from the very beginning'.
The US has insisted that the strikes on Iran were intended as a one-off effort.
'Iran has repeatedly maintained their right to retaliate if attacked,' said Zunes.
'This idea that the US should just go boom, boom, boom and then have peace… seems highly unrealistic.'
Can Iran afford to hold back after US strikes?
Iran has since vowed retaliation.
It could resort to various moves, including targeting US bases in the Middle East, hitting Israel harder, and blocking the vital Strait of Hormuz which handles about a quarter of the world's seaborne oil trade, said experts.
Choosing to take military action against Tehran's enemies 'is extremely risky', stressed Amin Saikal, distinguished visiting fellow at the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies.
'It will invite massive American retaliation … President Trump has made that very clear in his speech about bombing the nuclear sites.'
Iran could also downplay the damages to its nuclear sites and not directly engage the US, he told CNA's Asia Now.
Saikal, who is also emeritus professor of Middle Eastern and Central Asian studies at the Australia National University, said Iran could block the Strait of Hormuz as a last resort.
'Iran is capable of doing that by sinking a number of ships in the strait and that will be enough to deter many ships from going through,' he added.
'My hunch at this point is that probably they will be focusing very much on hitting Israel as hard as they can, but of course, Israel is also hitting them very hard.
'But how long this can really continue and both sides can have the necessary resources to do so, that remains to be seen.'
If Tehran blocks the Strait of Hormuz or targets ships traversing the waterway, that would disrupt global supply chains and upheaval markets. Such a move could create enough political backlash to force Trump to pull the plug on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's ability to escalate the conflict, said political analyst Ali Vaez.
'Unfortunately, this is a very perilous game of chicken that could really result in a disastrous regional conflagration, which I think would not have any winners,' he added.
If Iran chooses not to take any action, it 'would signal to the US that these kinds of attacks are fair game', he told CNA's Asia First.
'So the Iranians will have to impose some kind of cost on the US for its intervention, as they have retaliated in the past 10 days against Israel,' added Vaez, director of the Iran Project at the International Crisis Group, an independent conflict resolution organisation.
Have the strikes crippled Iran's nuclear capabilities?
The University of San Francisco's Zunes said while Iran's missile stockpile has been depleted by over a week of Israeli attacks, Iranian authorities 'would have at least enough in their arsenal to inflict some damage if they chose to do so'.
'Given what's at stake here, I really would expect that there's going to be some kind of response, and then very likely a further escalation by the US,' he told CNA's Asia First.
Trump has threatened to go after more targets if Iran did not make peace quickly.
Zunes said: 'There may be some calculation as to whether the principle of fighting back is worth the enormous damage that could be done to the country, (to) both its military and civilian infrastructure.'
While Trump has said Saturday's air strikes had "totally obliterated" key Iranian nuclear sites, experts have cautioned that the extent of damage was still unclear.
'I do not believe that a very accurate battle damage assessment is actually possible because there are no boots on the ground,' said International Crisis Group's Vaez.
'But the Trump administration could think, especially if there is no imminent Iranian retaliation, that because it can get away with conducting these kinds of strikes, it is possible that it would do a second round or a third round,' he added.
'This is precisely the kind of mission creep that the US has experienced in that part of the world. Quite often it goes in thinking that it can conduct a clean and contained operation, but it actually turns into a long nightmare, a quagmire that is not easy to get out of.'
Even if the key nuclear sites are destroyed, observers believe the strikes would only delay – not eliminate – Iran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon.
Zunes said Iran still has the knowledge to build these facilities, adding: 'It will set them back a few years, but they could just start all over again. And indeed, they may redouble their efforts.'
Analysts have said Iran would likely have secretly taken its highly enriched uranium stockpile to hidden locations before the US strikes.
'Because (United Nations) nuclear inspectors are no longer able to access these sites, which are now war zones, we are not sure where the materials and the machineries are,' said Vaez.
Will Iran return to the negotiating table?
The US has called for Iran to return to the negotiating table, highlighting the risk posed by Iran's nuclear programme to international security.
But observers are doubtful that diplomacy can break the deadlock.
'I don't see the odds of a deal very high right now, because the Iranians have concluded that Trump is not a reliable negotiating partner,' said Vaez, adding that the US president previously withdrew from a nuclear deal that the Iranians were complying with in 2018.
'It is very hard to imagine that the Iranians would come back to the negotiating table anytime soon.'
In 2015, Iran agreed to dismantle much of its nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The nuclear agreement was signed between Iran and six world powers, including the US.
However, Trump withdrew the US from the accord in 2018, claiming it failed to curtail Iran's missile programme. Iran stopped honoring the deal's limits a year later.
Meanwhile, Iran's key global allies, Russia and China, have condemned the US military action.
But observers believe they are unlikely to risk too much by being directly involved.
'I think both would be very concerned about the unilateral nature of the Israeli and US attacks, and the idea that the US can get away with this,' said Zunes.
'Since Trump did not get the approval of Congress or anything, there may be a fear that he could take this as a blank check for further unilateral military action elsewhere.'
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi is set to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday (Jun 23), when they are likely to discuss the latest developments.
But Vaez believes Moscow will tread carefully and not get pulled into the conflict, adding: 'The Iranians don't really have a lot of friends or the kind of strategic allies that they can count on.'