Iran's risky options for retaliation after US enters warzone

As Israel's bombing campaign against Iran intensifies, Tehran's options for retaliation appear increasingly limited and fraught with significant risk, despite earlier dire warnings aimed at deterring US involvement.

Iranian officials had previously threatened to target US ships and military bases, but much of the long-range deterrent capacity it relied upon has reportedly been degraded by recent Israeli strikes, which have focused on ballistic missile launchers.

While Iran still possesses a formidable arsenal of shorter-range missiles and drones, the United States has been taking extensive precautions in recent weeks. The US has reportedly dispersed its naval presence in the region and significantly bolstered its air defenses to present the hardest possible target.

Adding to the pressure, President Donald Trump has explicitly warned of broader US involvement in Israel's ongoing conflict if Iran attempts to retaliate. In recent days, Trump even suggested that one potential target for US bombers could be Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Depleted 'Axis of Resistance'

Iran's other principal weapon, its decades-long network of regional militia alliances known as the 'axis of resistance', has also seen its capabilities diminished. Hezbollah's extensive missile arsenal in Lebanon was severely impacted by Israeli air force operations last year. Israeli planes have continued to monitor and engage the Lebanese Shia force, including a reported bombing of an alleged missile stockpile in south Beirut in April.

In Iraq, Kata'ib Hezbollah, a Tehran-backed Shia militia, has threatened to target "US interests" in the Middle East in response to Washington's support for Israel. One of its commanders, Abu Ali al-Askari, was quoted on CNN as stating that US bases in the region "will become akin to duck-hunting grounds." The United States maintains military facilities at least 19 sites across the Middle East, with eight being permanent installations.

Meanwhile, Yemen's Houthi forces, another Iranian partner, had agreed to a ceasefire with the US in May. However, they had warned that this truce would be considered broken if President Trump opted to participate in attacks on Iran, vowing to target US ships in the Red Sea -- a tactic the Houthis have employed with mixed success in the past.

Any entry of these militias into the escalating conflict would likely draw a devastating response from the US, which officials say has been preparing for such a contingency for months, anticipating Israel's current offensive.

The Hormuz dilemma

Another potent, albeit highly risky, option for Iran involves attacking shipping, with the ultimate recourse of using mines, sinking vessels, or issuing credible threats to close the Strait of Hormuz. This narrow gateway to the Persian Gulf, as little as 55 km wide in some places, is a critical chokepoint through which over a fifth of the world's oil supply -- approximately 20 million barrels -- and a substantial portion of its liquified natural gas passes daily.

Hardline Iranian politicians have vocally called for the strait's closure in recent days. Such a move would have the distinct advantage of imposing a direct and immediate cost on the US, potentially triggering a significant oil price spike and immediate inflationary effects ahead of next year's congressional elections.

However, closing Hormuz would also represent an act of profound economic self-harm for Iran, as its own oil exports rely on the same passage. Furthermore, it risks drawing Gulf Arab states, who have been highly critical of the Israeli attack, into the conflict to safeguard their own vital economic interests.

Delayed retaliation?

To avoid escalating the conflict further or inviting an all-out US bombing campaign, Tehran could opt to serve its revenge "cold," at a later, more opportune date.

Iran has a historical precedent for delaying its responses to external attacks. Iran's Foreign Minister, Seyed Abbas Araghchi, hinted at such a possibility on Sunday, stating that Trump’s decision "will have everlasting consequences."

This suggests a strategy of long-term, open-ended retaliation rather than an immediate, direct confrontation.