How the Israel-Iran conflict could impact India
On June 13, the Israeli military began striking what it claimed were nuclear targets and other sites in Iran, with the aim of stalling Tehran's nuclear programme.
Iran retaliated with missile attacks on Israel. The official toll in Iran is at least 430 so far, while at least 25 persons have died in Israel.
The continued exchange of fire has led to concerns of a wider regional conflict that the United States could get drawn into. Washington is an ally of Israel and acts as a guarantor of the country's security.
Tehran has rejected US President Donald Trump's demand for an ' unconditional surrender ' and vowed to fight back.
The prevailing uncertainty has led to a spike in global oil prices. The price of benchmark Brent crude had jumped to $78 per barrel by Thursday from $69 per barrel on June 12, the day before the conflict began.
But the spike was not because of Israeli military's strikes reportedly on the Shahran oil depot in Tehran and one of Iran's largest refineries in Shahr Rey. These actions have little impact on Iranian energy exports.
Instead, the spike in prices primarily stem from concerns about the possible blocking of the Strait of Hormuz amid the conflict. The closure could threaten global energy security.
The chokepoint
The Strait of Hormuz is a narrow waterbody that connects the Gulf to the Arabian Sea. In 2024, an average 20 million barrels of oil was transported through the strait every day. That was about one-fifth of global petroleum liquids consumption.
This makes the Strait of Hormuz one of the most strategically important chokepoints.
Iran has in the past threatened to block the waterbody in retaliation to pressure from the West.
On Sunday, the Iranian Parliament decided that the Strait of Hormuz should be closed, state-run Press TV quoted lawmaker Major General Kowsari as saying. The final decision will be taken by the Supreme National Security Council, the member of the parliamentary national security commission added.
Unlike other chokepoints such as the Suez Canal or the Strait of Malacca, there is no practical alternative for fuel supplies to bypass the Strait of Hormuz in large volumes.
Cargo ships are already sailing closer to the Omani coast and have been advised by maritime agencies and governments to avoid Iranian waters in the Strait of Hormuz, Reuters reported on Wednesday.
An attempt to shutter the strait will not go unchallenged because of the regional powers' strategic interest in keeping fuel supply open. But the ensuing military confrontation may still disrupt supplies to some extent.
India's interest
When Tel Aviv and Tehran last exchanged missile fire in October, former Indian diplomat Navdeep Suri had told Scroll that if the conflict escalated and became an all-out war, Iran, feeling threatened, had the capacity to block the Strait of Hormuz.
In that case, New Delhi will be staring at a scenario that will 'directly impact India's energy security', he had said.
'A very large chunk of India's energy supplies come from there and that could really be serious for us,' explained Suri, who served as India's ambassador to the United Arab Emirates. 'It's in our interest that it doesn't get out of hand.'
India consumes 5.5 million barrels of crude per day for refining. Of this, 1.5 million barrels come through the Strait of Hormuz, according to Union Petroleum Minister Hardeep Singh Puri.
If the strait gets blocked, Amena Bakr, the head of Middle East and OPEC+ insights at analytics firm Kpler, told CNBC International on June 13 that oil prices could jump to three-digits.
To put the impact of such a scenario into context: a spike of every $10 per barrel drives up inflation in India by about 0.5%, financial services company Morgan Stanley had estimated in April 2024.
But Puri told NDTV that closing the strait was not in Iran's own interest.
Yet, he said, India remained comfortably placed to meet its fuel needs, adding that New Delhi can tap into alternative supplies if needed.
Here is a summary of the week's other top stories.
Countering Trump's claims. Prime Minister Narendra Modi told United States President Donald Trump that India will never accept mediation to resolve tensions with Pakistan. The topic came up during a phone call when Trump asked for the details about India's military strikes – codenamed Operation Sindoor – on Pakistan in May, said Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri.
Trump was told that India had agreed to the ceasefire only on Islamabad's request, said Misri. The 'halt to military action was directly between India and Pakistan', the foreign secretary quoted Modi as having reiterated.
The call between the two leaders came against the backdrop of the US president repeatedly claiming that he helped settle the tensions between India and Pakistan. New Delhi has rejected Trump's assertions.
, writes Rohan Venkataramakrishnan
A thaw in relations. India and Canada agreed to reinstate high commissioners in each other's capitals. This was announced after Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Canadian counterpart Mark Carney met on the sidelines of the Group of Seven summit.
Other diplomatic steps 'to restore stability in the relationship' will 'follow in due course', said New Delhi.
In October, New Delhi and Ottawa expelled several diplomats amid frosty bilateral relations. Ties between India and Canada strained in September 2023 after Justin Trudeau, the Canadian prime minister at the time, told his country's Parliament that intelligence agencies were actively pursuing 'credible allegations' tying agents of the Indian government to the murder of Khalistani separatist Hardeep Singh Nijjar in Canada.
New Delhi has rejected Canada's allegations.
The language debate. Opposition leaders criticised Union Home Minister Amit Shah for saying that those who speak English in India will soon feel ashamed. Congress leader Rahul Gandhi said that English was 'not a barrier, but a bridge', adding that the language provides employment and boosts people's self-confidence.
Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam MP Kanimozhi said to Shah that 'the only thing to be ashamed of is imposing your will on the people and trying to destroy the pluralism of India'.
Shah's comment on Thursday came against the backdrop of several state governments and regional parties accusing the Union government of imposing Hindi through the National Education Policy's three-language formula.
Also on Scroll this week
for a curated selection of the news that matters throughout the day, and a round-up of major developments in India and around the world every evening. What you won't get: spam.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
8 minutes ago
- Indian Express
With its strikes against Iran, US may be wading into a conflict it cannot manage
In what may prove to be a defining moment for Donald Trump's presidency, in the early hours of June 22, the US directly entered the Israel-Iran war. In a swift operation, US planes targeted three nuclear sites in Iran and retreated. The American media reported that US B-2 Spirit stealth bombers dropped 30,000-pound, GPS-guided, bunker buster bombs — GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) — on the underground site at Fordow, while the other two sites at Natanz and Isfahan were targeted by Tomahawk missiles. Breaking the news on Truth Social, Trump ended his post with 'Now is the time for peace.' The assertion seems to flow from his oft-repeated doctrine of 'Peace through strength'. However, the history of US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, based on the same doctrine, certainly brought no peace to either of these nations or to the US. The bloodshed continued for years and extremist groups like al Qaeda and Daesh/Islamic State emerged from these wars to haunt the world. Could the US get bogged down with yet another war? What would it mean for Trump? Trump has often stated that his objective is to ensure that Iran does not have nuclear weapons. However, over the past few weeks, Trump clearly listed two goals and one aspiration. The first goal was that Iran should negotiate a deal for a peaceful nuclear programme and totally give up enrichment capability, and the second goal was that Iran should surrender in the war with Israel. His aspiration was to see a regime change in Iran; he had even threatened possible action in this regard in the future. Has the targeting of three nuclear sites brought Trump closer to achieving his goals and aspirations? Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has emphasised that Iran will not bring its nuclear programme to 'zero'. A couple of hours after the US airstrikes, Iran restarted air attacks on targets in Tel Aviv and Haifa in Israel. Iranian officials have claimed that Fordow had been 'completely emptied and evacuated' a long time ago and that it did not suffer 'irreversible' damage. It is not hard to imagine Iran taking precautions by taking a cue from the US airstrikes on Houthi targets earlier. Western media reports had indicated that since late-March, the US had deployed six B-2 Spirit stealth bombers at the base in Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. These bombers were reportedly used to drop a GBU-57 MOP on underground Houthi targets in Yemen, while the US was engaged in warding off attacks on US vessels in the Red Sea. Initially developed for 'psychological' effect, the 'MOP' was perhaps used to achieve a deal with the Houthis — which happened in May — with both sides pledging not to attack each other. It would be hard to ascertain whether uranium-enriching centrifuges and the stock of enriched uranium remain intact, without having international inspections or invading Iran. Moreover, Russia has clearly warned against the targeting of the Russian-built Bushehr nuclear power plant in Iran. Apart from the presence of hundreds of Russians building more nuclear facilities at the site, Russia had warned that an attack on the plant would have consequences comparable to the Chernobyl accident in the former USSR in 1986. The Chernobyl accident led to prolonged release into the atmosphere of large quantities of radioactive substances, including gases, aerosols and finely fragmented nuclear fuel particles. Due to specific conditions such as graphite fires and winds, radioactivity had spread across the northern hemisphere, mainly Europe, and was also recorded in the US, Canada and Japan. The targeting of nuclear sites which are not nuclear power plants, with the objective of destroying centrifuges used for uranium enrichment, remains a dangerous proposition too. These nuclear sites may also be storage sites for radioactive material, including Spent Fuel or High Level Waste (HLW), or even a research reactor. It is a great relief to the global community that the head of the Iranian National Centre for Nuclear Safety System has confirmed that no radioactive contamination or nuclear radiation was detected outside the targeted sites. By mid-morning, the IAEA too informed that no increase in 'off-site radiation levels' had been reported. The Saudi Nuclear and Radiological Regulatory Commission independently confirmed the same for all Gulf Cooperation Council States. The Kuwaiti National Guard too stated that the radiation levels in the air and water remained stable across the country. The fallout of targeting nuclear sites is and will remain the key concern for regional and global nations, a fact the US cannot ignore. By naming his successors, the supreme leader of Iran has ensured that the regime remains intact in any eventuality. The US attacks on nuclear sites in a country that takes pride in its scientific prowess are likely to solidify public support for the supreme leader as a rallying point. In the Israel-Iran war, sabotage, miscalculations or accidents could still draw US troops into the theatre. It might be recalled that about 125,000 US and British troops had invaded Iraq in March 2003 to oust Saddam Hussein, trapping the US in a bloody war which, over eight years, killed 4,400 of its soldiers and injured several thousands. The US withdrew fully by December 2011, but the destabilisation of the region saw the emergence of Daesh in Iraq around 2012 and the rise of a Caliphate. The US-led coalition was forced to return to the theatre in 2014. The rest is history. As more questions will be asked about the remaining capability of Iran, will the US continue to indulge in adventurism that could result in nuclear catastrophe for the region and beyond? Trump's economic plans would come to a standstill if he needs to manage the physical, political and legal fallout of such actions. With the airstrikes, the US has lost the power to bring Iran to the negotiating table on its own. It would need help from Russia and Europe, and maybe also China, to pursue nuclear talks with Iran. The world is in a dangerous phase. The writer is a security analyst and former director general of police
The Print
15 minutes ago
- The Print
B-2 stealth bombers, 6 ‘bunker busters'—how US strikes on Iran unfolded
This article delves into the details of the strike, the targeted sites, the B-2 bomber, the MOP weapon, comparable munitions, and the potential damage inflicted. On 22 June at 0230 hours (2.30 am) local time in Iran, the United States Air Force (USAF) dropped bombs on three key Iranian nuclear facilities: Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. The operation, described by President Donald Trump as a 'spectacular success', marked the first combat use of the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) and showcased the unparalleled capabilities of the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber. As President Donald Trump gave Iran a two-week deadline on 19 June, the world expected diplomacy to play out for some more time. A mere two days later, he ordered the United States Air Force to bomb Iran. Attack profile The airstrike was carried out by a formation of B-2 Spirit stealth bombers, departing from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri. The bombers flew over 40 hours to Fordow in a round-trip mission. The likely route involved a trans-Pacific flight and was supported by multiple mid-air refuellings by KC-135 Stratotanker aircraft. Surprisingly, the movement of the B-2 bombers and the Stratotankers was being widely reported on X. Despite the obvious loss of surprise, the formation executed the mission without any significant interference from the Iranians. The approach over Iran was made from the Arabian Sea, from vectors where SEAD/DEAD (Suppression/Destruction of Enemy Air Defences) operations had already degraded Iranian air defence significantly. It must be noted that Israel had executed these SEAD missions as part of Operation Rising Lion, launched on 13 June. The attack profile used the B-2's stealth capabilities: the aircraft can fly at approximately 50,000 feet (15,240 metres) and a speed of about 0.95 Mach (1173.06 kilometres per hour) to evade detection. Each B-2 bomber deployed carried two 30,000-pound (13,600 kilograms) GBU-57 MOP bombs. A US official confirmed that GBU-57s were dropped on Fordow and Natanz, six of them at the former site, which is more fortified. These strikes were also reportedly aided by submarine-launched Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles (TLAMs) at Natanz and Isfahan. Since the GBU-57 is essentially a 'gravity' bomb, the attack profile required the B-2s to fly close to the targets, exposing them to potential residual Iranian defences. The launch had to be made from within a precise 'bucket', requiring accurate piloting during the attack run. Also read: Iran's brutal regime is facing a reckoning. Consequences of US attack will go beyond Tehran Nuclear sites targeted 1. Fordow Anticipating an aerial attack from specialist weapons, the Iranians constructed a facility 300 feet (91 metres) beneath a mountain near Qom, called the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant. It is Iran's most fortified nuclear enrichment facility. Built into a cave complex and reinforced with layers of concrete, it is designed to withstand conventional attacks. Fordow is protected by Russian-supplied air defence systems, though Israeli strikes had significantly degraded those to a level not considered threatening. The facility is critical to Iran's nuclear programme, with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reporting in May 2025 that Fordow was enriching uranium to 60 per cent purity, taking it closer to the levels required for nuclear weapons. The site's depth and hardening posed a unique challenge. The only weapon that could possibly strike targets that deep was the GBU-57 MOP. Reportedly, the MOP can penetrate up to 200 feet (61 metres) of rock or concrete, requiring multiple hits at the same point to breach 300 feet of rock. 2. Natanz Natanz is Iran's oldest, largest, and most widely known uranium enrichment site. It features both underground as well as above-ground structures. The underground complex is not very deep, likely buried at only 20-30 feet (6-9 metres). While less fortified than Fordow, Natanz's underground centrifuges are critical to Iran's nuclear ambitions. Israeli strikes on 12 June, as part of the opening wave of Operation Rising Lion, damaged surface infrastructure. While the underground structures were targeted, the damage remains unknown. It made operational sense to strike this site again. The US used the GBU–57 and the Tomahawk missiles to ensure comprehensive destruction. 3. Isfahan The Isfahan nuclear research facility, less hardened than Fordow or Natanz, supports Iran's nuclear fuel cycle and research activities. The facility housed a Uranium Conversion Facility (UCF), which converts uranium ore concentrate (yellowcake) into uranium hexafluoride (UF6), a gaseous form used for enrichment, and uranium oxide (UO2), used in nuclear fuel production. Incidentally, the enriched uranium at this site was kept under IAEA safeguards. It was struck primarily with the Tomahawks, targeting surface infrastructure. While not a primary enrichment site, Isfahan's role in Iran's nuclear programme made it a strategic target in disrupting Tehran's broader capabilities. Also read: Trump's seduction of Asim Munir won't get him cheap labour to uphold American Peace B-2 Spirit stealth bomber The B-2 Spirit, developed by Northrop Grumman, is the USAF's premier stealth bomber, designed to penetrate sophisticated air defences and deliver precision strikes. The first operational aircraft, named 'Spirit of Missouri', was delivered to Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri, in December 1993. The total programme cost for 21 B-2 bombers was approximately $45 billion. The B-2's flying-wing design, advanced stealth technology, and significantly large bomb bay made it an ideal platform for this high-risk mission. The B-2 has a range of over 6,000 nautical miles without refuelling, which is extendable to global reach with aerial refuelling. Its internal weapons bays, originally designed for 20,000-pound (9,000 kilograms) payloads, were modified to accommodate two 30,000-pound MOPs. The operating costs for B-2 bombers are substantial, estimated at $135,000 per flight hour, with maintenance requiring specialised facilities. The B-2's ability to carry nuclear and conventional munitions, including the B83 nuclear bomb and Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs), underscores its versatility. Crew preparation The B-2 Spirit is manned by a two-person crew, consisting of a pilot and mission commander. The crew would have meticulously prepared for this 40-hour mission over Iran. Preparing for an operation such as this typically involves extensive briefings on intelligence, flight routes, targets, and contingencies, alongside likely threats. For some complex missions, the crew would fly in a simulator before undertaking the live mission. Crew members make sure they're well-rested before an operation. During the long flight, they manage to rest by alternating naps in a designated area, using noise-cancelling headsets. Cockpit ergonomics and psychological training help mitigate stress. It must be noted that mental robustness is a key crew selection criterion for a B–2 crew member. They must be well-versed in precise navigation, real-time threat monitoring, and weapons deployment. They may also use approved stimulants like modafinil to enhance alertness, under strict medical oversight, ensuring sustained performance throughout the gruelling mission. The crew members probably breathed easy only after they exited Iranian airspace. Also read: Modi's 'no' to Trump isn't about peace or Pakistan. It's narrative warfare GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator The GBU-57 MOP, developed after the 2003 Iraq War by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), and Boeing, is the USAF's most powerful non-nuclear bomb. Designed to destroy deeply buried and hardened targets, it underwent testing from 2007 to 2011, with improvements in fuzing for controlled explosions in confined spaces. The MOP carries a 5,300-pound (2,404 kilograms) warhead of AFX-757 and PBXN-114 explosives. Encased in a high-performance steel alloy, the bomb can penetrate up to 200 feet before detonation. Soil penetration depends on the speed of impact and the composition of the surface. The 20.5-foot-long (6.2 metres) bomb is guided by GPS and an Inertial Navigation Unit (INU), ensuring precision. Each MOP costs approximately $20 million, reflecting its specialised design. Only the B-2 is certified to carry the MOP; the B-52 was tested but not cleared. The unmanned B-21 Raider is being prepared for future use. Israel lacks both the MOP and a compatible platform for it, necessitating US involvement. Comparable weapons 1. B61-11 Nuclear Bomb The B61-11 is a low-to-intermediate yield nuclear weapon in the US arsenal. It was designed specifically for bunker-busting missions to destroy hardened, deeply buried targets such as command bunkers or underground facilities. However, the use of a nuclear weapon carries significant environmental risks besides severe geopolitical ramifications. 2. GBU-43/B MOAB The GBU-43/B MOAB (Massive Ordnance Air Blast), nicknamed the 'Mother of All Bombs', is primarily a thermobaric weapon that uses atmospheric oxygen to create a massive blast wave and intense heat. This bomb is released from an MC-130E Combat Talon or a similar cargo aircraft like the C-130, using a drogue parachute to stabilise descent. Unlike the GBU-57 MOP, it is not carried by bombers like the B-2 Spirit. There is only one known use of this bomb. On 13 April 2017, a single GBU 43 was used against an Islamic State: the Khorasan Province (ISIS-K) tunnel complex in Achin District, in Afghanistan. Dropped by an MC-130, it achieved mixed results. The results were not found commensurate with the strategic risk of collateral damage and the high cost of the weapon. 3. FOAB Not to be left behind by the media attention garnered by the 'Mother of All Bombs', Russia tested its own thermobaric weapon, calling it FOAB (Father of All Bombs). Tested in 2007, the Russians claimed four times more destructive power than the MOAB. Its specifications are disputed, and it lacks the MOP's penetration capability, limiting its relevance to hardened targets. 4. Grand Slam The Grand Slam, officially designated as the 'Bomb, Medium Capacity, 22,000 lb', was a massive conventional bomb developed by the British Royal Air Force (RAF) during World War 2. It was one of the largest and most powerful weapons used in the war, designed as an 'earthquake bomb' to destroy heavily fortified or underground targets by creating shockwaves through the ground. It was used to target hardened German infrastructure. Damage assessment President Trump claimed the strikes 'completely and totally obliterated' Iran's nuclear facilities. The facilities at Natanz and Isfahan likely suffered significant damage from the Tomahawks, but credible battle damage assessment (BDA) is pending. Satellite imagery from Maxar depicted 'unusual truck and vehicular activity' at Fordow before the attack, suggesting Iran may have moved critical assets. Appearing on state-run TV, the deputy political director of Iran's state broadcaster, Hassan Abedini, said that the country 'didn't suffer a major blow because the materials had already been taken out'. Intelligence and defence analysts suggest that the strikes set Iran's nuclear programme back by years, but did not eliminate its knowledge base. The fate of approximately 400 kilograms of highly enriched uranium kept at Isfahan is also unknown. The operation's success hinges on whether Fordow's enrichment capabilities were disabled—a question that awaits further intelligence and imagery analysis. Also read: US strikes on Iranian nuclear sites draw Israel's praise, China calls it 'repeat of Iraq mistake' Radiological fallout The IAEA released a statement following the strikes on X. 'Following attacks on three nuclear sites in Iran – including Fordow – the IAEA can confirm that no increase in off-site radiation levels has been reported as of this time. IAEA will provide further assessments on situation in Iran as more information becomes available,' the post read. This statement does not offer any proof of the success or failure of the mission. What it does tell us is that enriched uranium was not directly hit. The airstrikes undertaken by the B-2 bombers on Iran's nuclear sites were a bold demonstration of US military power. The unique capability presented by the MOP takes away the concept of safe sanctuary and hardening of targets. With each B-2 costing over $2 billion, however, one cannot forget that such capabilities come at an immense cost. Group Captain Ajay Ahlawat is a retired IAF fighter pilot. He tweets @Ahlawat2012. Views are personal. (Edited by Prasanna Bachchhav)
The Print
15 minutes ago
- The Print
Iran has fewer options & more risks than before. Its choices will affect all of Middle East
At the heart of this tectonic move was the deployment of the most penetrative weapon in the US arsenal—the GBU-57—used to target Iran's most fortified nuclear sites: the deeply hidden Fordow, along with Natanz and Isfahan. And with this strike, Trump continues the unbroken legacy of American presidents authorising military action in the Middle East. In a dramatic escalation this morning, the United States formally entered the war against Iran. While President Donald Trump had been publicly mulling his decision with vague references to a 'two-week window,' American B-2 bombers were already airborne—on a mission that would mark a seismic shift in the current US foreign policy. This marks a stunning departure for Trump, who won re-election on a promise that emphasised avoiding foreign military entanglements. Though initially hinting at restraint, he has now thrust the US directly into a volatile regional war. His abrupt mid-speech exit from the G7 summit in Canada suggested that something was brewing. That speculation was tempered by his two-week 'thinking period'—but all such ambiguity vanished with this morning's airstrikes, surprising Republicans, Democrats, and even Trump's own Make America Great Again (MAGA) base. Strategic deception The operation bore signs of strategic deception. Around 11 pm US time, six B-2 bombers were spotted heading west over the Pacific, refuelling midair near Hawaii, which now appear to have been decoys. In reality, another formation flew east from Missouri. These three B-2s undertook a 37-hour round-trip mission, refuelling midair before releasing a full payload of GBU-57s on Fordow. Each B-2 can carry two GBU-57s, suggesting that at least six of these 'Massive Ordnance Penetrators' (MOPs) were used. Fordow, located beneath a mountain and engineered to withstand conventional attacks, had been enriching uranium to 60 per cent—just short of weapons-grade—according to the recent International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report. This is the first time the GBU-57 has been used in combat. Weighing 30,000 pounds and capable of drilling through 200 feet of reinforced concrete, it's the 'grandfather of all bunker busters.' Until now, only its smaller cousin (GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast) had seen combat use, notably in Afghanistan. In his address to the nation, Trump praised the military's precision and confirmed all aircraft had returned safely, with no American casualties. But has Fordow's enrichment capacity truly been neutralised? While initial Battle Damage Assessments (BDAs) are emerging from satellite providers like Maxar, they cannot fully reveal what occurred 200-300 feet underground. Preliminary reports and Iranian statements suggest that the enriched uranium (Iran has over 400 kilograms spread across different sites) was moved to safer locations in advance, perhaps in anticipation of an imminent strike. It's worth recalling that during Israel's own operation—codenamed Rising Lion on 13 June—the focus was on bombing and disrupting the power supply to centrifuges at Natanz. However, neutralising Fordow was always beyond Israel's capability, underscoring the indispensable role of American airpower and assets. Also read: B-2 stealth bombers, 6 'bunker busters'—how US strikes on Iran unfolded What comes next? Iran is unlikely to accept this blow passively. Its initial response—launching a limited missile barrage on Israel—was muted, but Tehran has since declared that 'all options are open.' So what might those options be? The Iranian regime faces four broad paths: retaliate, collapse, accelerate its nuclear ambitions, or accept an 'off-ramp' by freezing enrichment for three years, as some backchannel discussions suggest. Yet, autocratic regimes are seldom inclined toward humility. Some form of face-saving retaliation seems inevitable before diplomacy can resume. Let's consider Iran's six primary retaliatory options, from most likely to most dangerous: Continue strikes on Israel: Iran still possesses around 1,200 missiles, both ballistic and hypersonic, and a substantial drone arsenal. It could continue targeting Israeli cities. This would serve domestic propaganda only, but would fall short of responding to a direct US attack. Activate Proxy Groups: Iran could mobilise Shia militant groups in Iraq, Syria, and Bahrain. However, with Hezbollah and Hamas significantly weakened, their capacity for meaningful retaliation may be limited too. That said, they are easy to launch and perhaps a safer option for wrecking instability while not playing with fire. Close the Strait of Hormuz: Iran's parliament has reportedly already approved the closure of this crucial oil corridor. But it amounts to mere signalling right now, as the final decision on the matter will be taken by the Supreme National Security Council. This critical waterway, however, has been seeing reduced shipping activity since tensions began to rise. A full closure would disrupt global oil supply and raise prices sharply. However, Oman shares maritime responsibility for the strait with respect to its management, and other regional players—concerned about oil stability—may oppose this move. Remember that oil prices are spiking already, and the region's sensitivity to that fluctuation remains imminent. Target US bases in Iraq: This remains the least dangerous way for Iran to hit back at the US. Iraq's weak defence posture and complex political landscape make it a vulnerable target, especially for indirect, deniable attacks, at best carried out by proxies. Iran had, in fact, targeted the Al Asad airbase in 2020, after the US killed Quds Force leader Qasem Soleimani. Strike the U.S. Fifth Fleet in Bahrain: Such an act would be seen as a declaration of war. The risks of escalation would increase dramatically, and it would compel a decisive U.S. second response. Attack Centcom Headquarters in Qatar: Perhaps the most extreme scenario. A strike at the United States Central Command – popularly abbreviated as Centcom – here would turn a contained conflict into a full-scale war and draw in global actors. Iran is certainly not prepared to handle this escalation. Based on the current scenario, Iran is unlikely to risk options five or six. Tehran understands that provoking the world's most powerful military could lead to its own destruction, when an off-ramp now exists. Also read: Iran's brutal regime is facing a reckoning. Consequences of US attack will go beyond Tehran Trump's gamble President Trump appears to be betting that one powerful blow, paired with stern rhetoric and overwhelming military might, will push Iran toward the negotiating table. It's a plausible theory—but not a guaranteed outcome. What if Tehran refuses? What if, out of desperation or pride, the Iranian regime takes an unthinkable step? The Trump administration may believe it's holding all the cards. But history shows that military superiority doesn't always translate to strategic success—especially in a region as combustible as the one in question. Iran today finds itself in an unprecedented moment of strategic loneliness. Russia, once a close ally and a steady buyer of Iranian drones for use in Ukraine, has stayed noticeably quiet, preoccupied with its own unending war in Europe. China, too, has offered no more than muted diplomatic platitudes and some technical help, which is not enough to help Iran alter the situation. Even Iran's religious and ideological partners in the broader Muslim world – the Ummah brotherhood – have resorted to lip service. In this strategic vacuum, Iran has fewer options and more risks than ever before. Its choices will now shape not just its own future, but the stability of the entire region. The Indo-Pacific costs Perhaps the most underdiscussed consequence of this strike so far is the reorientation of American focus back to the Middle East, at the expense of its Indo-Pacific commitments. For India, this is concerning. Relations between Washington and New Delhi have already strained in recent months, through issues ranging from trade demands to perceived US interference in India-Pakistan matters. Washington's post-Operation Sindoor closeness with Pakistan further complicates the equation. India, which had hoped for a deepened US presence in Asia to counterbalance China, may now find itself watching from the sidelines for the time being, wondering whether America can multitask or reorient in time, or whether its Middle East preoccupation will yet again overshadow its Indo-Pacific convergence. Where things go from here is still uncertain. Trump campaigned against endless wars, and yet, we are back in a familiar place: American bombers over the Middle East, oil prices rising, and an adversary vowing revenge. This could be a one-time strike meant to cripple Iran's capabilities and offer an offramp for all. Or it could be the beginning of a much longer, bloodier cycle of retaliation. For now, the GBU-57 has officially entered the theatre of war, and the world just got a lot more dangerous. Swasti Rao is Consulting Editor (International and Strategic Affairs) at ThePrint. She tweets @swasrao. Views are personal. (Edited by Zoya Bhatti)
