Just one day after the United States launched its most aggressive strike on Iranian soil in years, Tehran responded with a dramatic escalation: missile attacks on US military bases in Iraq and Qatar, including the Al Udeid base, the largest American installation in the region.

For Iran, this was not a retaliation, it was a reckoning. The war had already begun the moment American bombers crossed into Iranian airspace. The missile response simply acknowledged that reality.

A day before, in the early hours of June 22, the United States launched its most significant military offensive in the Middle East in recent years: Operation Midnight Hammer. The coordinated assault involved 125 aircraft, including seven B-2 Spirit stealth bombers, and submarine-launched Tomahawk missiles, striking deep inside Iranian territory.

The targets: Iran’s most heavily fortified nuclear facilities – Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan.

This was no surgical warning. The mission deployed fourteen 30,000-lb GBU-57 'bunker buster' bombs, capable of penetrating 60 feet of reinforced concrete. The scale, timing, and firepower of the strike marked a turning point: a move from tactical deterrence to strategic confrontation.

Each of the sites hit is a cornerstone of Iran’s uranium enrichment programme, which has long represented both a strategic red line for US policy makers and a symbol of defiance for Tehran.

By attacking them directly, Washington sent a message that went beyond deterrence — this was about reasserting leverage. While past interventions had targeted proxies or responded to regional flare-ups, this strike directly challenged the foundations of Iran’s long-term nuclear ambitions. It was a deliberate rebalancing of regional power.

Official statements from Washington described the strike as decisive and contained. President Trump hailed the strikes as a “spectacular military success”, declaring that "Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated." 

Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth insisted that the offensive was limited in scope, stating that "mission was not and has not been about regime change", but rather to cripple Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons and restore strategic deterrence.

Yet from Iran’s perspective, this was not just a message — it was an act of war. The US had crossed into sovereign territory with overwhelming force, targeting infrastructure essential not just to Iran’s deterrence posture, but to its national identity. Whether or not the US calls it war, Tehran now experiences it as such.

Strategic enforcement, or strategic gamble?

The roots of US attack lie in years of mounting pressure from Israel, which has repeatedly urged Washington to take direct military action against Iran, warning that diplomatic containment was no longer a viable option. Until this weekend, the conflict between Israel and Iran remained a regional struggle, with the US offering support from the sidelines.

But Israel’s unilateral attempts to destroy Iran’s underground facilities risked failure – and potentially drew the US in by default. Washington’s intervention was framed as a bid for strategic clarity: only American firepower, especially the deployment of 30,000-pound GBU-57 'bunker buster' bombs via B-2 stealth bombers, could do what Israel could not.

While the operational aim of disabling Iran’s nuclear infrastructure was clearly stated, the broader strategic intent remains unclear. Although it is presented as a limited act of deterrence, conflicting messages have blurred the distinction between targeted containment and a deeper agenda.

Although the US administration insists the strike was limited in scope, Trump’s erratic messaging has sown doubt. Days before the strike, he demanded Iran return to negotiations, yet gave them just two weeks, then struck anyway. After the strikes, he teased “much larger” future actions and hinted online at regime change, contradicting his official line. The result is deliberate ambiguity, but the consequence is clear: escalation.

Whether the US intervention then evolves into a protracted war will ultimately hinge on three interrelated factors:

US intentions: Will Washington stick to its stated goal of denuclearisation or drift, deliberately or implicitly, toward a policy of regime change? 

Israeli influence: If regime change emerges as a strategic aim, will the US defer to Israel’s strategy of persistent pressure, or push for more direct military engagement? 

Iran’s response: For Iran, not responding was never an option.

Tehran’s dilemma and the spectre of escalation

In the wake of the attack, Iran’s state media minimised the damage. Officials claimed key materials had been moved off-site and that evacuations took place in advance.

However, these claims still raise a crucial unknown: how much of Iran’s nuclear programme has actually been destroyed?

The answer may prove decisive. For more than two decades, Iran’s nuclear development has not only been a geopolitical bargaining chip, but also a pillar of its ontological security — a central element in how the regime perceives its sovereignty, resilience and positioning in the international order.

If core facilities have indeed been decimated, the regime may feel it has little left to lose. Retaliation becomes imperative.

In the aftermath of the US strikes, Tehran was confronted with three strategic options. It could absorb the attack and refrain from immediate retaliation; it could opt for a calibrated response through limited, symbolic strikes; or it could escalate dramatically via its regional proxies, risking a wider conflict.

Thus far, Iran appears to have chosen the second path — asserting its position through controlled reprisal while consciously avoiding steps that would provoke a disproportionate US response. Notably, Tehran reportedly warned both the United States and Qatar in advance of its retaliatory missile launches — an unusual move that suggests a deliberate attempt to contain the fallout.

The US strike has narrowed Tehran’s maneuvering space, pressuring Iran to calibrate its response between domestic expectations and strategic prudence. While a maximalist reaction might have satisfied domestic audiences, but it will likely invite a second wave of attacks from the US or Israel, which could target leadership and conventional forces.

A measured response could have helped to maintain strategic ambiguity while keeping the door open for eventual negotiations. Calibrated responses, cyberattacks, proxy strikes, or symbolic missile launches, could project strength while preserving room for diplomacy.

Iran’s dilemma is no longer tactical, but existential. The war has not been declared, but it has already begun in Iran’s reality, politically, psychologically, and strategically.