Limited Options for Iran

Following the Israeli airstrikes, Iran has also launched missile attacks, further escalating the conflict. However, several factors—such as the dismantling of Hamas and Hezbollah in recent months, geographical distance, limitations of Iran's weapon systems, and Israel’s robust defense infrastructure—have significantly restricted Iran’s available options.

 

...

On June 12, Israel carried out airstrikes on Iranian territory, pushing tensions in West Asia to new heights. In response, Iran launched missiles at Israel. While most were intercepted by Israel’s air defense system, a few did cause damage. In retaliation, Israel has warned that Tehran could face severe consequences. It’s evident that further strikes by Israel are imminent. Simultaneously, the United States is increasing pressure on Iran to halt its nuclear program. In this context, Iran appears to be in a weakened position compared to past decades, leaving it with very limited strategic choices. This situation enables Israel and the U.S. to further tighten their grip on Iran.

The conflict began after Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, 2023. Israel has since decimated the Gaza Strip and dismantled Hezbollah’s base in Lebanon. Both of these groups were long supported by Iran. With these fronts now neutralized, the battle has intensified into a direct confrontation between Israel and Iran. Meanwhile, with Donald Trump returning to power in the U.S., he has renewed pressure on Iran to reenter the nuclear deal. The Israeli strikes on June 12 specifically targeted nuclear facilities. These strikes resulted in the deaths of key figures, including military chief Mohammad Bagheri, IRGC commander Hossein Salami, renowned nuclear scientist Fereydoon Abbasi, and senior negotiator Mohammad Mehdi Teranchi. The precision of the strikes indicates that Israel aimed not just to warn but to cripple Iran’s capabilities.

Though U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio clarified that the U.S. was not involved in these attacks, analysts point out that America neither gave green singal, but it don’t prevented Israel from the attack. Trump's follow-up message—urging Iran to now agree to the nuclear deal—clarifies America’s position.

The strikes have stirred strong reactions in Iran. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei vowed a strong retaliation. Iran responded by firing missiles, a few of which breached Israel’s defense systems and caused damage, resulting in ten deaths and the destruction of a military headquarters. This marks the first time Iran has managed to penetrate Israel’s famed air defenses, which Iran sees as a symbolic success. The Mossad headquarters was also targeted, albeit symbolically. But the key question remains: How effective are these retaliatory strikes, and are they anything more than symbolic gestures?

Geographically, Israel and Iran are separated by Iraq, Jordan, and Syria, making direct military confrontation unlikely. Iran’s primary recourse is aerial attacks. Though Iran has developed intercontinental missiles that reached Israeli territory during recent strikes, Israel’s Iron Dome and layered air defense systems are exceptionally strong. Thus, even successful missile strikes may have limited impact beyond symbolism—unless Iran has succeeded in secretly developing nuclear weapons and chooses to use them, which would be catastrophic.

During its strikes, Israel deployed 200 aircraft to attack various Iranian regions. Iran's air force is incapable of mounting a similar offensive. Though Iran supplied drones to Russia during the Ukraine war, these drones have proven largely ineffective against Israel. Most were intercepted and neutralized by Israeli systems. For Iran to carry out deep drone strikes like those seen in Ukraine, it would have to cross two national borders and breach Israel’s multi-layered air defenses—a logistically and strategically unfeasible plan.

Over the past three to four decades, Iran had created an "Axis of Resistance" consisting of militant groups: Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and several groups in Iraq. Even the Assad regime in Syria survived due to Iranian support. This axis was formed to challenge the Gulf monarchies led by Saudi Arabia. However, Syria’s Assad regime in Syria has been overthrown, Hamas is fighting for survival, and Hezbollah’s leadership has been decimated. Though the Houthis continue launching symbolic strikes, they offer no real strategic leverage. This has significantly weakened Iran’s regional strategy. Another possible Iranian tactic is to disrupt global maritime trade through the Persian Gulf. While this could exert international pressure, such actions risk drawing more countries, including the U.S., into a broader conflict.

Trump had earlier withdrawn from the nuclear deal during his first term and imposed severe sanctions on Iran. Chief among them were restrictions on oil exports, severely damaging Iran’s economy. Crude oil production has dropped by 30–50%, and nearly 90% of Iran’s $120 billion overseas assets have been frozen. Trade restrictions have further lowered Iran’s GDP from $644 billion in 2012 to $400 billion today. This economic downturn has led to widespread unemployment and scarcity of essential medicines, fuelling domestic unrest.

Though Iran had helped Russia during the Ukraine war, it remains unclear whether Russia or China would now extend meaningful support to Iran. Iran needs sophisticated weaponry to confront Israel. Even if it receives such arms, training to operate them would take time—a luxury Iran may not have if Israel continues to exploit its current weakness.

During Israel’s founding years, it was opposed by Arab nations. Yet at the time, both the U.S.-backed Shah of Iran and Israel belonged to the same geopolitical bloc during the Cold War. The Islamic Revolution of 1979 drastically altered this dynamic. That same year, Israel and Egypt signed a peace accord—marking a turning point where Arab nations began to acknowledge Israel’s permanence. Over time, Palestinian issues slipped from regional priority, and Iran seized the opportunity to become their chief advocate. This gave rise to two blocs in West Asia: one led by Saudi Arabia and the other by Iran.

To assert influence, Iran supported militant organizations and leveraged proxy warfare. But with the Abraham Accords, countries like the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, and even Saudi Arabia have initiated diplomatic relations with Israel. Iran, still denying Israel’s legitimacy, now stands isolated. This position, once symbolic of anti-Israel sentiment in the region, may backfire if Iran fails to respond credibly to Israeli aggression. That would damage not only its image but also its ambitions of regional leadership.