Iran’s retaliation for the U.S. and Israeli strikes on its nuclear facilities—Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan—will likely prioritize asymmetric and calculated responses to avoid a full-scale war while preserving regime legitimacy. One probable approach is intensifying missile and drone attacks on Israel, as seen in Iran’s immediate response to the June 13, 2025, Israeli strikes and subsequent U.S. bombings. Iran has already launched barrages of ballistic missiles targeting Israeli cities, causing injuries and damage, and could escalate these attacks to overwhelm Israel’s air defenses. Additionally, Iran may activate proxy groups like Hamas and the Houthis, part of its “Axis of Resistance,” to conduct attacks on Israeli and Western interests. These proxies could target U.S. military bases or diplomatic facilities in the region, as suggested by analysts noting Iran’s history of using groups like Hezbollah for deniable operations. Such actions allow Iran to inflict damage while maintaining plausible deniability, though weakened proxies due to prior Israeli strikes may limit their effectiveness.

Another likely retaliatory strategy involves disrupting global energy markets by targeting the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint for 20% of the world’s oil supply. Iranian officials, including ultraconservative voices like Hossein Shariatmadari, have called for closing the strait, and Iran’s parliament has approved such a move as a potential response. This could involve mining the waterway or harassing U.S. and Western naval forces in the Persian Gulf, escalating tensions without direct large-scale combat. Iran’s leadership sees this as a high-impact option to pressure the West economically, especially given the U.S.’s significant naval presence in Bahrain. However, Iran would likely calibrate this to avoid provoking a devastating U.S. military response, as regime survival remains a priority. The 2020 retaliation for Qasem Soleimani’s killing, which involved missile strikes on U.S. bases with no fatalities, suggests Iran may opt for symbolic yet disruptive actions.

Finally, Iran may pursue a long-term strategic shift by withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and accelerating its nuclear weapons program, a move analysts like Ali Vaez consider “quite likely.” The strikes, which damaged but did not eliminate Iran’s nuclear capabilities, have fueled public and elite sentiment for a nuclear deterrent, especially as Iran retains enriched uranium sufficient for multiple warheads. Exiting the NPT would signal defiance and could be paired with cyberattacks or terrorist operations against U.S. and Western targets to demonstrate resolve. These asymmetric measures, as noted by military analysts, align with Iran’s reduced conventional capabilities following Israel’s attacks since June 13. While this risks further Western intervention, it could bolster domestic support for the regime and deter future strikes by raising the specter of a nuclear-armed Iran, potentially triggering a regional arms race.