Overview

The Iran response to US strikes has become one of the most consequential geopolitical developments of 2025–2026, shaping everything from global oil markets to the future of nuclear nonproliferation. When the United States launched Operation Midnight Hammer on June 22, 2025, targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities at Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan, the world held its breath waiting for Tehran’s answer. That answer came less than 24 hours later—and it revealed a regime carefully balancing domestic rage with strategic calculation.

Understanding the full scope of the Iran response to US strikes requires looking beyond the headline-grabbing missile launch at Al Udeid Air Base. It demands examining the layered strategy Tehran has deployed: calibrated military retaliation, aggressive diplomatic maneuvering, maritime provocations in the Strait of Hormuz, a surge in cyber operations, and an ominous silence about its nuclear program’s future direction. As tensions have escalated through February 2026—with a new round of US-Israeli strikes on February 28—Iran’s response options have become both broader and more dangerous.

This article draws on reporting from the Council on Foreign Relations, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, CSIS, Iran International, and multiple other verified sources to provide a comprehensive, source-cited account of how Iran has responded—and what may come next.

What We Know

The following facts represent what has been confirmed through official statements, verified reporting, and institutional documentation. Where uncertainty exists, it is labeled explicitly.

US carrier strike group deployed in response to Iran's military threats in the Persian Gulf
US carrier strike groups were deployed to the Persian Gulf region following Iran’s retaliatory strikes.

The Al Udeid Attack: Calibrated Retaliation

The Iran response to US strikes in June 2025 was, by virtually all expert accounts, deliberately restrained. The Council on Foreign Relations described the missile attack on Al Udeid Air Base as “telegraphed and calibrated” — designed to preserve regime credibility domestically while leaving a clear diplomatic off-ramp for de-escalation. (CFR)

This calibration was evident in several ways. First, Iran provided advance warning to Qatar and the United States, allowing time for aircraft evacuation and personnel sheltering. Satellite imagery from Planet Labs confirmed the base was largely empty of high-value assets when the missiles arrived. (Al Jazeera)

Second, the attack targeted America’s regional military headquarters rather than civilian infrastructure, oil facilities, or allied military bases—a choice that signaled seriousness without crossing the threshold into the kind of strike that would demand massive US retaliation.

The IRGC’s own framing was revealing. The Revolutionary Guard described it as a “powerful and devastating missile attack” under Operation Annunciation of Victory, while simultaneously emphasizing that the strike “does not pose any threat” to Qatar and affirming Tehran’s commitment to “warm and historic relations” with the Gulf state. (Al Jazeera)

This dual messaging—fierce rhetoric for domestic audiences, measured action for the international community—followed a well-established Iranian pattern. In January 2020, after the US assassination of IRGC commander Qasem Soleimani, Iran fired 10 ballistic missiles at Al Asad Air Base in Iraq, also providing advance warning through Iraqi intermediaries. No US troops were killed in that strike either. (CSIS)

However, the lesson Iran drew from June 2025 was not that restraint works—it was that restraint alone is insufficient. According to the Middle East Institute, Iranian leaders concluded that “deterrence, not restraint—or President Trump’s intervention—forced Israel to halt.” (MEI) This shift in Tehran’s strategic calculus is what makes the current moment so dangerous.

Iran's Military Capabilities

Any analysis of the Iran response to US strikes must account for what Tehran actually has in its arsenal. According to a March 2025 Defense Intelligence Agency report cited by Stars and Stripes, Iran possesses the Middle East’s largest stockpile of missiles and drone systems. (Stars and Stripes)

Ballistic Missiles

Iran’s ballistic missile inventory includes short-range, medium-range, and intermediate-range systems with ranges up to 1,864 miles (3,000 kilometers), sufficient to reach any US base in the Middle East and portions of southeastern Europe. These missiles can carry conventional, chemical, or potentially nuclear warheads. (Stars and Stripes)

During the June 2025 conflict with Israel, Iran fired more than 550 ballistic missiles and over 1,000 drones over a 12-day period, though Israeli and US interception rates were estimated at 85–90%. (CSIS)

Missile defense systems intercepting Iranian ballistic missiles over the Middle East
Missile defense interceptors engage incoming ballistic missiles. Iran’s arsenal is designed to overwhelm such systems through saturation attacks.

Naval Systems

Iran’s naval capabilities include cruise missiles, anti-ship missiles, submarines, torpedoes, and fast attack boats specifically designed to target US warships in the confined waters of the Persian Gulf. The country has also demonstrated the ability to lay naval mines—a tactic with direct precedent from the “Tanker War” of 1987–1988. (CSIS)

Drone Fleet

Iran has invested heavily in unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), including one-way attack drones that have been battle-tested through proxy forces in Yemen, Iraq, and Syria. The IRGC demonstrated its air defense capability in 2019 by shooting down a US RQ-4A Global Hawk surveillance drone, with the IRGC commander stating it sent “a clear message” about Iran’s readiness for conflict. (CSIS)

Constraints on Capability

Despite this formidable arsenal, Iran faces real limitations. Israeli strikes in 2025 degraded command and control structures, killed IRGC commanders and Quds Force leadership, and severely weakened air defense networks. Ballistic missile inventories were rapidly depleting during the June 2025 exchanges. CENTCOM Deputy Commander Vice Admiral Brad Cooper noted that Iran retains “considerable tactical capability” despite being weakened. (CFR)

The Strait of Hormuz Card

Perhaps the most economically devastating option in the Iran response to US strikes toolkit is the threat to close or disrupt shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway through which approximately one-fifth of the world’s daily oil supply passes. (CFR)

Oil infrastructure at risk from Iran's Strait of Hormuz disruption threats
Global oil infrastructure faces disruption risk if Iran follows through on threats to close the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran has already demonstrated its willingness to use maritime coercion. In the months following the June 2025 strikes, IRGC naval forces harassed a US-flagged merchant vessel in the Strait, and Iranian drones approached a US carrier strike group in the Arabian Sea. (Iran International)

However, full closure of the Strait carries enormous risks for Iran itself. The Washington Institute analysis notes that Iran’s own oil exports flow through the same waterway, and China—Iran’s primary oil customer—would be severely impacted by any disruption. The United States, now largely energy-independent, would suffer less direct economic pain from a Strait closure, though global price shocks would ripple through its economy. (Washington Institute)

Historical precedent is instructive. In 1988, after Iran mined the Strait and damaged the USS Samuel B. Roberts, the US launched Operation Praying Mantis—the largest American naval engagement since World War II—sinking or damaging half of Iran’s operational navy in a single day. Iranian military planners have not forgotten the lesson. (CFR)

The more likely approach, according to CSIS, is what analysts call “smart control”—selective tanker diversions, limited strikes against onshore oil installations, and targeted harassment that imposes economic costs on adversaries while protecting Iran’s own oil infrastructure. (Washington Institute)

Cyber Operations and Unconventional Warfare

One of the most significant but underreported dimensions of the Iran response to US strikes is the dramatic escalation in cyber operations. According to CSIS, Iran demonstrated a 700% increase in cyberattacks against Israel following the 2025 strikes, ranging from website defacement to attacks on critical infrastructure. (CSIS)

Iran has significant cyber capabilities with a proven track record. Operation Ababil (2012–2014) targeted major US financial institutions with distributed denial-of-service attacks, temporarily disrupting banking services for millions of Americans. Iranian hackers have also been linked to attacks on Saudi Aramco, US dam control systems, and various critical infrastructure targets. (CSIS)

The CSIS analysis identifies a spectrum of cyber responses Iran could deploy:

Cyber operations are particularly attractive to Tehran because they offer plausible deniability, can be conducted at relatively low cost, and do not cross the kinetic threshold that would invite immediate military retaliation. They also enable Iran to project power asymmetrically against a far more powerful adversary. (CSIS)

Proxy Networks and Global Reach

Iran’s network of proxy forces and affiliated groups has historically been one of Tehran’s most effective tools for projecting power and retaliating against adversaries without direct attribution. However, the 2025 conflict significantly degraded this capability.

Destruction from military strikes in Iran during the 2025-2026 conflict
The scale of destruction from the 2025–2026 strikes has reshaped Iran’s calculations about direct military confrontation.

The CFR assessment notes that Hamas and Hezbollah—Iran’s most capable proxies—have been “substantially weakened” by Israeli operations. Quds Force leadership was killed in targeted strikes, and command and control structures were disrupted. Israeli intelligence had “thoroughly penetrated Iranian decision-making,” making coordinated proxy operations more difficult. (CFR)

Despite these losses, CSIS warns that Iran retains unconventional options:

The Washington Institute emphasizes that even with degraded proxy networks, Iran has the ability to respond “over extended timeframes.” The analysis draws a chilling historical parallel: Libya took two years to retaliate for the 1986 US bombing of Tripoli, eventually downing Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988. (CFR)

The Nuclear Escalation Path

Perhaps the most consequential long-term dimension of the Iran response to US strikes is the potential acceleration of Iran’s nuclear weapons program. While Operation Midnight Hammer destroyed enrichment infrastructure at Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan, its lasting impact remains debatable.

The CFR analysis presents a sobering picture: while Trump claimed the nuclear program was “completely and totally obliterated,” a preliminary Defense Intelligence Agency report estimated the program was delayed by no more than six months. Iran’s 900-pound stockpile of 60% enriched uranium “remains unaccounted for” but would be useless without functioning enrichment capabilities. (CFR)

The Washington Institute raises the possibility that strikes could paradoxically accelerate Iran’s drive for nuclear weapons by convincing the regime that only a nuclear deterrent can prevent future attacks. The analysis points to North Korea’s example: despite decades of sanctions, diplomatic pressure, and threats of military action, Pyongyang successfully developed both nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles. Iranian strategists are acutely aware of this model. (Washington Institute)

Iran has reportedly taken several steps that suggest a pivot toward weaponization:

The Iranian foreign minister’s warning is direct: Iran would fire “back with everything we have if we come under renewed attack.” (Washington Institute) Whether “everything” eventually includes nuclear weapons remains the most consequential open question of this conflict.

Expert Assessments

Leading national security analysts and think tanks have offered strikingly consistent assessments of the Iran response to US strikes trajectory—and most are warning of significant escalation ahead.

CSIS: “Calibrated Mix” Framework

Benjamin Jensen of the CSIS Futures Lab argues Iran would employ a “calibrated mix of cyberattacks, drones, maritime pressure, and limited missile strikes” designed to demonstrate resolve while avoiding all-out war. He emphasizes that “states talk and fight at the same time, using coercion alongside diplomacy to achieve their interests.” (CSIS)

However, Jensen also identifies a critical “tipping point” where escalation becomes self-reinforcing: perceived larger-than-reported US strikes could trigger fear-based responses, honor considerations could override rational calculation, and ammunition depletion in US defense systems could embolden further attacks. (CSIS)

International Crisis Group: “Draw Blood”

Ali Vaez, director of the Iran program at the International Crisis Group, offered one of the starkest warnings. He told Stars and Stripes that Tehran now believes “the only way to stop this cycle of bombing Iran every few months really requires that they draw blood and inflict significant harm.” (Stars and Stripes)

Vaez also noted that the assembled US carrier strike groups and warship concentrations in the Gulf create what he described as a “target-rich environment”—a term that underscores how US force projection simultaneously creates vulnerability. (Stars and Stripes)

Foundation for Defense of Democracies: “Less Constrained”

Behnam Ben Taleblu of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies assessed that Iran is “signaling it will be fighting in a much less constrained manner than before.” The shift from the June 2025 calibrated response to the February 2026 multi-base targeting supports this assessment. (Stars and Stripes)

CFR: “Considerable Tactical Capability”

CENTCOM Deputy Commander Vice Admiral Brad Cooper, cited in the CFR analysis, cautioned against underestimating Iran despite its losses. He noted the country retains “considerable tactical capability” even after Israeli and American strikes degraded its infrastructure. (CFR)

Failed diplomatic negotiations between Iran and the United States
Diplomatic efforts between Iran and the US have repeatedly broken down, leaving military escalation as the dominant dynamic.

What Reddit and Online Communities Are Saying

The Iran response to US strikes has generated intense discussion across online platforms, with Reddit communities like r/worldnews, r/geopolitics, and r/CredibleDefense providing some of the most substantive public analysis outside traditional media.

Several key themes have dominated these discussions:

The “Calibrated vs. All-Out” Debate

Reddit users have extensively debated whether Iran’s restrained June 2025 response was a sign of weakness or strategic sophistication. Many in r/geopolitics noted the historical parallel to Iran’s January 2020 response to the Soleimani assassination, arguing that Tehran consistently chooses “off-ramp” retaliation that satisfies domestic audiences without provoking full-scale war. Others countered that the advance-warning pattern is eroding Iran’s deterrence credibility, making escalation inevitable.

Strait of Hormuz Speculation

Threads in r/worldnews following the February 2026 strikes showed widespread concern about potential Strait of Hormuz disruption. Users pointed to the 15% overnight oil price surge as evidence that markets were pricing in this scenario. Discussion frequently referenced Iran’s naval mine-laying capabilities and the 1988 Tanker War precedent.

Escalation Ladder Concerns

The most substantive discussions in r/CredibleDefense focused on the escalation ladder—the fear that each cycle of strikes and retaliation makes the next round more dangerous. Users cited the CSIS “tipping point” analysis extensively, debating whether Iran’s February 2026 decision to target four bases simultaneously (compared to one in June 2025) represented crossing a dangerous threshold.

Nuclear Breakout Fears

Across all platforms, users expressed concern that military strikes were accelerating rather than preventing Iran’s path to nuclear weapons. The North Korea comparison appeared frequently, with many arguing that the lesson of the last 30 years is that countries with nuclear weapons are immune from regime change, giving Iran the ultimate incentive to sprint toward a bomb.

What's Next

The Iran response to US strikes is far from over. Multiple developments in the coming weeks will shape the trajectory of this crisis:

Diplomatic Track

Before the February 28 escalation, Turkey, Oman, and other regional states had offered to host US-Iran negotiations. However, Iran had reportedly been “walking back” recent agreements, seeking to relocate talks from Istanbul to Oman and limit discussions strictly to nuclear issues while excluding missiles and regional proxy groups. The Wall Street Journal reported Iranian officials had threatened to withdraw from talks entirely. (Iran International)

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stated: “For diplomacy to work, of course, it takes two to tango.” Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu warned that Iran “has repeatedly proven it cannot be trusted to keep its promises.” (Iran International)

Regime Survival Calculus

The Washington Institute analysis identifies a crucial vulnerability: an estimated 80% of Iran’s population opposes the Islamic Republic, and the regime faces mounting domestic protests. However, military defections remain unlikely given IRGC leaders’ ideological commitment and their personal exposure to prosecution if the regime falls. An IRGC-led succession could prove “more rigid than current leadership and less amenable to negotiations.” (Washington Institute)

China and Russia Factor

Both China and Russia condemned the US strikes and hosted Iranian officials, yet took no concrete supportive actions. The CFR analysis suggests the “Axis of Autocracies” may be “more brittle and shallow than imagined,” though both countries could still provide military and economic assistance to Tehran. (CFR)

Arab State Positioning

Arab states have publicly called for diplomacy while privately appreciating the degradation of Iran’s capabilities. CFR Senior Fellow Steven Cook notes their primary concern is “blowback”—potential damage to their own territories from Iranian retaliation. The key question is whether Saudi Arabia and the UAE remain committed to US partnerships if the Iranian threat diminishes, or begin pursuing greater strategic independence. (CFR)

Why It Matters

The Iran response to US strikes matters far beyond the immediate military exchange. It is establishing precedents and dynamics that will shape Middle Eastern security for decades:

As the CFR analysis concludes: “What comes next could be equally important in determining the security and geopolitics of the Middle East going forward.” (CFR)

Sources

  1. Council on Foreign Relations — “Assessing the Effect of U.S. Strikes on Iran.” cfr.org
  2. Washington Institute for Near East Policy — “U.S. Military Options in Iran: Means in Search of an End.” washingtoninstitute.org
  3. Iran International — Diplomatic developments and negotiations coverage. iranintl.com
  4. CSIS — Benjamin Jensen, “How Would Iran Respond to a U.S. Attack?” csis.org
  5. Stars and Stripes — “Iran likely to respond to renewed US strikes more forcefully than last time, experts say.” stripes.com
  6. Al Jazeera — “Iran attacks US airbase in Qatar: What we know so far.” aljazeera.com
  7. PBS NewsHour — “Iran retaliates for U.S. air strikes, launches missile attack on American military base in Qatar.” pbs.org
  8. NPR — “Iran attacks U.S. base in Qatar.” npr.org
  9. CBS News — “Iranian Ballistic Missile Strike on Al Udeid Air Base.” cbsnews.com
  10. Air & Space Forces Magazine — “Iranian Ballistic Missile Hit Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar During Attack.” airandspaceforces.com
  11. Middle East Institute — “Iran Considers Its Response to Potential Renewed US-Israeli Strikes.” mei.edu
  12. Foreign Affairs — “Why Iran Will Escalate.” foreignaffairs.com
  13. CNBC — “Trump says U.S. military has begun major combat operations in Iran.” cnbc.com
  14. NPR — “Iran’s supreme leader warns any US attack would spark regional war.” npr.org
  15. BBC News — US strikes on Iran coverage. bbc.com

Last updated: February 28, 2026. This article is revised when new evidence materially changes what can be stated with confidence.