Tehran: In the tense aftermath of coordinated U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, Iranian leadership is weighing its options on how best to respond. While the Islamic Republic has already launched retaliatory missile barrages targeting Israel, officials in Tehran now face a delicate balancing act: to respond decisively without triggering a regional war that could spiral beyond control.
The strikes described by President Trump as “surgical and successful” targeted key sites like Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. These underground complexes were believed to be at the center of Iran’s uranium enrichment program. Iranian authorities quickly denounced the attack as a blatant violation of sovereignty and international law, with the country’s mission to the United Nations submitting a strongly worded condemnation to the Security Council.
Iran's first wave of retaliation came in the form of missile fire directed at Israeli cities. Tel Aviv was among the targets, with reports of casualties and infrastructure damage. Though the attacks rattled nerves, Israel's missile defense systems reportedly intercepted many of the incoming projectiles. Still, the symbolic significance of a direct Iranian strike on Israeli soil marks a serious escalation.
Now, Tehran is considering further actions including a potential military response against U.S. assets in the Gulf and the highly provocative step of closing the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic waterway through which nearly one-third of global oil passes. Iran’s Parliament has already passed a resolution authorizing such a move, but implementation hinges on a green light from the Supreme National Security Council, which is headed by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
However, analysts say Iran is not rushing into broader confrontation. Despite hardline calls for revenge, Iranian leadership understands that closing the Strait could trigger a devastating U.S. military counteroffensive and severely damage Iran’s already fragile economy. “Shutting down the Hormuz Strait would be economic suicide,” one European diplomat warned. “It would provoke global condemnation and could isolate Iran further.”
The international community has responded with a mix of alarm and diplomacy. Russia, a close ally of Iran, condemned the U.S. airstrikes and urged restraint, while European leaders appealed to both Washington and Tehran to return to the negotiating table. The United Nations has called an emergency session to address the unfolding crisis. Yet Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has stated unequivocally that Iran will not re-enter diplomatic talks until it has completed its cycle of retaliation.
Meanwhile, Washington remains on high alert. U.S. military forces in the region have been placed under heightened readiness. Pentagon officials say any further attacks on American personnel or assets will be met with “decisive force.” Vice President J.D. Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have reiterated that the U.S. goal is not regime change but to dismantle Iran’s nuclear capability and compel compliance through maximum pressure.
At the heart of Iran’s strategic dilemma lies the need to maintain domestic credibility while avoiding total war. Public anger in Iran is high, and the government faces internal pressure to show strength. Yet it is also aware of the dangers of becoming entangled in a prolonged and unwinnable conflict.
With the region teetering on the brink, all eyes are on Tehran’s next move. Whether Iran opts for calculated retaliation or chooses a path toward cautious diplomacy will determine whether the Gulf descends into chaos or steps back from the edge of full-scale conflict.