If Attacked Again, Iran Will Bite Back Hard

Iran is standing at a crossroads unlike anything it has faced in recent decades. Internal unrest on one side, a deep economic crisis on the other, and rising tensions with the United States and Israel on top of that. Altogether, Tehran is going through a dangerously volatile period. The impact will not stay confined to Iran. The shockwaves are likely to be felt across the Middle East and global politics.

Recently, the United States has carried out a major military buildup around Iran. Additional naval fleets, fighter jets, and supporting military equipment have been deployed. This is one of the largest U.S. military presences near Iran in decades. According to international analysts, such preparations point toward the possibility of a military confrontation. Tehran has issued strong warnings in response.

In the first year of his second term, Donald Trump has openly adopted a “regime change”–focused strategy against Iran.

Last June, Israel carried out a dramatic military operation. The strategy was reportedly called “Strike from the top, uprising from below.” Israeli and U.S. planners assumed that killing Iran’s top political, military, security, and nuclear officials would trigger a spontaneous popular revolt against the government. At the same time, they believed that destroying Iran’s missile capabilities would prevent effective retaliation.

In that operation, more than a dozen senior Iranian officials were killed. But contrary to expectations, the general public stood by the government. Not only that, Iran launched hundreds of missiles and drones at Israel.

Analysts say these two realities were the main reasons behind the failure of the 2025 operation. Following this, Trump approved strikes on three key Iranian nuclear facilities. These attacks are believed to have set Iran’s nuclear program back by several years. Soon after, a temporary ceasefire came into effect, primarily aimed at protecting Israel from further Iranian missile attacks.

Toward the end of 2025, however, economic anger inside Iran exploded once again. Business owners in Tehran took to the streets to protest currency devaluation and the rising cost of living. The movement quickly spread to other cities.

Sensing an opportunity, the United States and Israel attempted to activate “Plan B.” The core idea was “uprising from below, military pressure from above.”

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi accused Israel-linked networks of infiltrating the protests and carrying out sabotage, targeted attacks, and violence to escalate clashes and increase casualties. Trump also hinted that rising civilian deaths could give the United States justification for military intervention. In this phase, casualties among both protesters and security forces were significantly higher than in previous movements.

Ultimately, this strategy failed as well. Public sentiment turned against violent infiltrators. In the second week of January, hundreds of thousands joined pro-government rallies, clearly opposing foreign interference. Security forces dismantled internal networks, cut communication links, and detained thousands. As a result, the United States stepped back from direct military action.

In the next phase, the U.S. and Israel may attempt to remove Iran’s top leadership, with comparisons being drawn to recent events in Venezuela.

Trump has openly said that the time has come to remove Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham compared this moment to the fall of Nazi rule, saying the opportunity must not be missed.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian responded with a warning, saying that an attack on the country’s supreme leader would mean war against the entire Iranian nation.

Some influential pro-Israel groups in the United States have proposed that instead of direct invasion, Iran’s Kharg Island oil terminal should be seized. Nearly 90 percent of Iran’s oil exports pass through this terminal. The goal would be to cripple the country economically.

Over the past two years, the mechanisms Iran used to avoid direct confrontation have been weakened by repeated blows.

The risk of instability now looms large. Iran’s future in the coming days will depend on several key factors. First is internal governance and social cohesion. Unemployment, corruption, inflation, and social inequality are the core sources of public anger. While the government has managed to control the situation for now, dissatisfaction has not disappeared. Divisions among the four main political currents are weakening national unity.

Second is the pressure from the United States and Israel to bring about regime change. Trump’s open threats have added a new and dangerous dimension to long-standing hostilities. This threatens not only Iran’s security but also the stability of the entire region.

Third is the role of U.S. allies in the region. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Oman, and Qatar have opposed military action against Iran, fearing a large-scale regional war.

Fourth is Iran’s eastward strategy. By strengthening ties with Russia and China, Iran has joined the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and BRICS, attempting to build a new bloc to counter Western pressure.

Finally, there is the position of Iran’s regional allies. Hezbollah, the Houthis, and several armed groups in Iraq have made it clear that they will not remain silent if Iran is attacked. That means any new conflict could quickly turn into a full-scale regional war. Some American and European experts claim that Trump has already decided on a new strike.

This moment feels like a “bloody pause.” Ahead lies the threat of a regional explosion. For Iran, another attack would be a matter of survival. At that point, there would be no room left for restraint.

To avoid such a disaster, Trump would need to abandon the “surrender or war” approach and move toward a dignified, mutually acceptable settlement. Otherwise, a 47-year conflict will not end but will drag the entire region into an uncontrollable war.