logo
US-Iran tensions: Tehran vows 'proportionate response'; key ways it can retaliate

US-Iran tensions: Tehran vows 'proportionate response'; key ways it can retaliate

Time of India3 hours ago

Iran has promised a 'proportionate response' to what it calls the United States' 'criminal aggression' after President Donald Trump confirmed that American forces had 'obliterated' three of Iran's nuclear facilities.
While Trump hailed the strike as a military success, warning there were 'many targets left,' Iran has vowed that its response will come; the only question is when and how.
Iran's foreign ministry said the country would 'defend its territory, sovereignty, security and people by all force and means.' The Iranian military is now reportedly in charge of planning a retaliatory strike, according to Iran's UN envoy Amir Saeid Iravani, who told the Security Council that Washington had 'decided to destroy diplomacy.'
'We will take all measures necessary,' Iravani said, adding that Iran's response would be shaped by 'timing, nature and scale' determined solely by its military.
Limited strikes or wider confrontation?
Iran's dilemma lies in balancing a credible retaliation without triggering a full-scale regional war. It has experience with calibrated responses: following the 2020 US killing of General Qassem Soleimani, Tehran launched missiles at US bases in Iraq after warning them in advance.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Giao dịch CFD với công nghệ và tốc độ tốt hơn
IC Markets
Đăng ký
Undo
No lives were lost, but the message was clear.
This time, however, experts suggest Iran may avoid advance notice. According to the BBC, Tehran retains roughly half of its original 3,000 missiles and has already drawn up a list of some 20 US bases in the region, including key sites like At-Tanf, Ain al-Asad, and Erbil in Iraq and Syria. Proxies could also be activated to carry out these attacks, mirroring past strategies.
Sanam Vakil of Chatham House told The New York Times that Iran could strike 'largely evacuated' US bases or re-activate regional partners like the Houthis in Yemen. Such a cautious, asymmetric campaign would allow Iran to maintain its image without escalating into direct confrontation.
The Strait of Hormuz and cyber warfare
Another option is economic warfare. Tehran could attempt to choke the Strait of Hormuz — the strategic waterway through which nearly a third of global oil flows.
The BBC reported that Iran might deploy sea mines or fast-attack boats to block shipping lanes, potentially causing a spike in global oil prices.
Cyberattacks also remain a key tool in Iran's arsenal. Alongside China, Russia and North Korea, Iran has cultivated advanced cyber capabilities. Attacks on US infrastructure or commercial entities could inflict damage without triggering immediate military retaliation.
'Iran knew this was coming and will have prepared a chain of responses,' said Ellie Geranmayeh of the European Council on Foreign Relations, warning that attacks 'will be swift and multilayered.'
Retaliation could be delayed — or abandoned
There are voices within Iran's leadership arguing for restraint. A delayed response striking back when US forces are no longer on high alert could allow Tehran to save face without risking immediate retribution. Symbolic attacks on diplomatic missions or targeted assassinations of US-linked figures abroad are also being considered.
However, such a strategy carries its own risks. Doing nothing may spare Iran further losses but risks weakening its domestic credibility. As conservative Tehran analyst Reza Salehi noted: 'If we do not react, the US will not leave us alone.'
Some experts argue that the regime may ultimately choose to recalibrate rather than retaliate. This includes restarting diplomacy, potentially via neutral mediators in Muscat or Rome.
Yet such a path would demand significant concessions, especially around its nuclear enrichment programme something the regime has historically resisted.
The nuclear question looms large
According to NYT reporting, Iran's long-term takeaway from the strikes may be the need for a nuclear deterrent. Vali Nasr, an Iran scholar at Johns Hopkins University, said the strikes may push Iran to abandon cooperation with the IAEA and move towards nuclear armament.
'This is the great irony,' Geranmayeh told NYT. 'Although Trump has sought to eliminate the nuclear threat from Iran, he has now made it far more likely that Iran becomes a nuclear state.'
Ayatollah Khamenei could authorise withdrawal from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and expel international inspectors, effectively ending global oversight of Iran's programme.
While the International Atomic Energy Agency reported no radiation leakage after the US strikes — implying enriched uranium was likely moved, concerns remain that Iran's stockpile is now hidden and unmonitored.
'Hardliners in the Iranian regime may ultimately win the day'
Experts believe Iran now faces two critical choices. Jonathan Panikoff of the Atlantic Council explained: 'Iran can choose to strike US bases in a limited fashion… or it could go all in and trigger a regional war.'
Refraining from retaliation may limit further military damage but risks weakening the regime's image. 'If we do not react, the US will not leave us alone,' said conservative Tehran analyst Reza Salehi.
A calculated response—such as targeting symbolic US sites—could appease hardliners without escalating to full-scale war.
However, given Trump's threats and the severity of the strikes, restraint seems unlikely. 'Hardliners in the Iranian regime may ultimately win the day,' Panikoff noted, adding that asymmetric attacks or overseas terror operations remain a possibility.
Iran's past actions, like the Khobar Towers bombing and rocket attacks on US forces in Iraq, show both its capability and intent to retaliate. Its allies, including Yemen's Houthis, have already threatened US naval forces.
Regional fallout and US response
With over 40,000 American troops stationed across the region, in Bahrain, Qatar, Iraq and elsewhere, Washington is reinforcing its positions. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth has confirmed the deployment of additional assets, and non-essential diplomatic staff have been evacuated.
Trump, while portraying the US operation as restrained, has made it clear that more force will follow if Iran escalates. 'There will either be peace or there will be tragedy for Iran,' he warned.
Still, many in Tehran believe the real tragedy is already unfolding. Iran's UN envoy accused Israel of manipulating US policy, saying Netanyahu had succeeded in dragging the United States into 'yet another costly and baseless war.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Iranian Parliament clears Strait of Hormuz closure after US strikes
Iranian Parliament clears Strait of Hormuz closure after US strikes

Fibre2Fashion

time31 minutes ago

  • Fibre2Fashion

Iranian Parliament clears Strait of Hormuz closure after US strikes

Iran's Parliament has unanimously approved a proposal to close the Strait of Hormuz, which connects the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea and is a vital oil transit route. The final decision now rests with the country's Supreme National Security Council. This move followed a recent US strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. Israel had earlier attacked its nuclear facilities as well. Iran's Parliament has approved a proposal to close the Strait of Hormuz, a vital oil transit route. The final decision now rests with the Supreme National Security Council. This move followed a recent US strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. Meanwhile, the US has urged China to prevent Iran from closing the strait. India has reassured its public that it is prepared for short-term disruptions. Iran has threatened to retaliate. Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Aragchi said that 'a variety of options" are available, and the country would defend itself through all necessary means. Around 20 million barrels of oil—nearly a fifth of global daily supply—and significant quantities of liquefied natural gas pass through the Strait of Hormuz. A full or partial closure of the strait would disrupt global supply chains and raise shipping costs and insurance premia. Meanwhile, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has urged China to prevent Iran from closing the strait. Condemning the Iranian move as 'economic suicide', he warned that closing the strait would provoke a strong American and allied military response, global newswires reported. India imports nearly nine-tenths of its crude oil requirements. Of this, about 2 million barrels per day out of 5.5 million transits through the Strait of Hormuz. The Indian government has reassured its public that it is prepared for short-term disruptions. Petroleum Minister Hardeep Singh Puri said India's oil marketing companies have sufficient reserves and continue to receive supplies through multiple routes. 'A large volume of our supplies do not come through the Strait of Hormuz now,' he posted on X. Fibre2Fashion News Desk (DS)

‘Claim of peace proven false': As US enters war against Iran, what Pakistan has to say on its govt naming Trump for Nobel Prize
‘Claim of peace proven false': As US enters war against Iran, what Pakistan has to say on its govt naming Trump for Nobel Prize

Indian Express

time35 minutes ago

  • Indian Express

‘Claim of peace proven false': As US enters war against Iran, what Pakistan has to say on its govt naming Trump for Nobel Prize

Just two days after President Donald Trump was 'officially recommended' for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize, the United States joined Israel in its war against Iran by bombing three key Iranian nuclear sites. Now, several Pakistani political leader and prominent figures have asked the government to reconsider its decision to nominate Trump for the prestigious honour awarded for peacemaking efforts. This has come under scrutiny after the US bombed Iran's Fordo, Isfahan and Natanz nuclear sites, joining Israel to dent Tehran's nuclear programme, news agency PTI reported, citing the Dawn newspaper. A letter of recommendation, signed by Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar, has already been sent to the Nobel Peace Prize Committee in Norway. The recommendation was made 'in recognition of his decisive diplomatic intervention and pivotal leadership during the recent India-Pakistan crisis', as per an official statement from Islamabad. 'How can he claim to be proponent of peace' Chief of the Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam (JUI-F) and veteran politician Maulana Fazlur Rehman demanded that the government take back its decision. 'President Trump's claim of peace has proven to be false; the proposal for the Nobel Prize should be withdrawn,' he told workers at a party meeting in Pakistan's Murree on Sunday. 'Trump has supported the Israeli attacks on Palestine, Syria, Lebanon and Iran. How can this be a sign of peace?' Fazl questioned. He added that Trump's recent meeting and lunch with Pakistan's Chief of Army Staff (COAS) Field Marshal Asim Munir 'pleased Pakistani rulers so much' that they recommended nominating the US president for the Nobel Prize. Further he said: 'With the blood of Afghans and Palestinians on America's hands, how can he claim to be a proponent of peace?' 'Leader who unleashed an illegal war' Former senator Mushahid Hussain wrote on X: 'Since Trump is no longer a potential peacemaker, but a leader who has willfully unleashed an illegal war, Pakistan government must now review, rescind and revoke his Nobel nomination!' He said Trump had been 'trapped by (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin )Netanyahu and the Israeli war lobby, committing (the' biggest blunder of his presidency'. 'Trump will now end up presiding over the decline of America!' Trump 'engaged in deception and betrayed his own promise not to start new wars', Mushahid said in another post, strongly condemning the US attacks on Iran. 'Reconsider': Opposition PTI Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) lawmaker Ali Muhammad Khan wrote 'reconsider' on his X account, highlighting the 'US attack on Iran and continuous US support of Israeli killings in Gaza'. In a separate post, the Opposition PTI condemned the 'unprovoked' US strikes and voiced 'total support' for Iran's sovereignty. Raoof Hasan, head of PTI's political think-tank, said the government's decision was now a 'cause of unmitigated shame and embarrassment for those who were instrumental in making the choice'. 'That's why it is said that legitimacy can neither be bought nor gifted,' said Hasan, as he took a jibe at the Pakistani government. He also denounced the US' 'total disregard for international covenants' through attacks on Iran. Former senator Afrasiab Khattak said: 'The sycophancy adopted by the Pakistani ruling elite in nominating President Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize is not part of normative conduct in international diplomacy. It was most embarrassing to announce the nomination hours before Trump ordered to bomb Iranian nuclear sites.' Meanwhile, Jamaat-i-Islami chief Naeemur Rehman has said the decision 'undermines our national dignity and grace'. Maleeha Lodhi, Pakistan's former ambassador to the US, termed the move 'unfortunate' and said it did not reflect the public's views. Author and activist Fatima Bhutto asked: 'Will Pakistan withdraw its nomination for him to receive the Nobel Peace Prize?' — With PTI inputs

What America doesn't get about South Asia: India and Pakistan can't be equated
What America doesn't get about South Asia: India and Pakistan can't be equated

Indian Express

time40 minutes ago

  • Indian Express

What America doesn't get about South Asia: India and Pakistan can't be equated

Written by Milinda Moragoda For decades, US foreign policy has framed India and Pakistan as parallel actors in a regional rivalry — an outdated assumption rooted in Cold War thinking. This legacy framework has become a liability. It fails to account for how dramatically the two countries have diverged — economically, politically, and strategically — and risks misaligning US interests in a multipolar world. India, the world's most populous democracy, is poised to become the third-largest economy. It is a global leader in technology and space exploration, and home to a vast and influential diaspora. Its institutions remain rooted in a democratic tradition that supports long-term growth and international engagement. India is increasingly viewed as a stabilising force in the Indo-Pacific region and beyond. It plays a leading role in the Quad, recently concluded its G20 presidency, and is deepening partnerships across Asia, Africa, and the West. Pakistan presents a sharply different picture. Born out of a hasty Partition in 1947 and fractured by civil war in 1971, Pakistan has never fully emerged from the shadow of military control. Civilian governments remain weak and often short-lived. The economy is in recurrent crisis, sustained by external bailouts. Radicalisation continues to permeate parts of the political and military establishment. Journalists, judges, and civil society actors often operate under intense pressure, while political dissent is routinely suppressed. Washington has contributed to this imbalance. During the Cold War, the US propped up Pakistan as a counterweight to India, and later relied on it as a staging ground during the Soviet-Afghan war and the War on Terror. Even as Pakistan covertly developed nuclear weapons throughout the 1980s, Washington turned a blind eye in the early stages — responding later, by which time the programme was already well advanced. These tactical decisions sidelined Pakistan's democratic institutions, empowered its military intelligence complex, and entrenched a culture of impunity that persists to this day. The fallout is stark. While India has established its credentials as an important player in a multipolar world and has staked a rightful claim to a permanent seat in the Security Council, Pakistan remains geopolitically transactional and internally unstable. Pakistan's capable citizens — entrepreneurs, academics, reformers — are constrained by a system that discourages institutional reform and relies instead on geopolitical leverage. The US withdrawal from Afghanistan has only intensified regional challenges. India is left to absorb the consequences: A collapsed Afghan state, rising extremism, and a neighbour with an increasingly fragile grip on security and economic stability. Instability in Pakistan and Afghanistan now reverberates across South Asia, threatening hard-won regional gains. Despite these realities, parts of the Washington policy establishment continue to default to 'balanced' diplomacy — treating both countries as parallel entities with equal claims on US strategic bandwidth. This misrepresents the regional equation and undermines the US's geopolitical interests and credibility as a democratic ally in Asia. Some observers argue that this policy of parity is not simply a holdover from the past, but an intentional strategy to keep a rising India in check, viewing it as a potential competitor rather than a partner. If that is true, it would be a grave miscalculation. Such thinking is counterproductive and would suggest that the US has yet to absorb the lessons of its own Cold War-era missteps in South Asia. It also risks alienating one of the world's most consequential democracies. Even though India's foreign policy may not always align with US preferences, it is fundamentally a constitutional democracy with enduring institutions and a vibrant civil society. Pakistan, by contrast, is a military-dominated state whose political cycles and economic direction are shaped more by external influences than domestic consensus. To remain effective in South Asia, US policy must reflect this asymmetry. Treating India and Pakistan as interchangeable partners sends the wrong signal to allies, undermines US credibility, and weakens regional stability. It perpetuates a flawed narrative that has outlived its strategic purpose. The time has come for Washington to adopt a more strategic approach that is based on institutional strength, democratic resilience, and long-term alignment, rather than on historical convenience. This shift is not about abandoning Pakistan, but about acknowledging the costs of maintaining a policy of false parity. In an era of multipolar complexity, where strategic clarity is essential, the US must recalibrate its approach. The stakes — for South Asia and for US influence in the Indo-Pacific — demand nothing less. The writer is a former Sri Lankan cabinet minister, High Commissioner to India, and founder of the Sri Lankan strategic affairs think tank, Pathfinder Foundation

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store