Tehran may believe it has little left to lose, but it's got no good options to choose from
13 June 2025, 21:03
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has long insisted that Iran poses an “imminent threat” to Israel, and has now stated that Iran is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons.
Listen to this article
Loading audio...
Iran has enriched uranium to 60+%, which is far more than needed for civilian energy generation purposes.
Yet U.S. intelligence assessments ,as indicated by the Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, have fallen short of endorsing Netanyahu’s view of Iran being on the cusp of a nuclear weapon, suggesting instead that Iran’s nuclear enrichment activities, while extremely serious and worrisome, do not signal an imminent nuclear breakout.
Now, with the recent Israeli strikes on Iranian targets including nuclear enrichment facilities and key military personnel, the question is more urgent than ever: What will Iran do next?
Western governments may assume that a weakened Iran will now look to de-escalate and return to the negotiating table. That could be a serious miscalculation.
When such a state feels cornered it is often more inclined to take drastic action, not less. With the regime perceiving existential threats, particularly after high-profile targeting of its military leaders and strikes on key nuclear and military infrastructure, Tehran may believe it has little left to lose.
Iran has no good options to choose from. Not responding diminishes the regime’s authority. One possible response is escalation, either directly or through asymmetric means via its proxies.
However, while Iran nurtured Hezbollah for decades as a deterrent, Hezbollah has suffered significant losses and its operational capacity is severely diminished. Iran also has proxies in Iraq and Yemen that may play a part in the retaliation, but the Iraqi proxies have so far been subdued.
An escalation by hitting US interests or personnel in the Gulf will guarantee a strong US response that the regime cannot withstand.
More concerning, however, is the prospect that Iran could abandon any remaining commitments – or pretense of commitments – to international nuclear agreements and push forward with a clandestine nuclear weapons program.
Israeli strikes notably avoided Iran’s most sensitive nuclear sites, such as Fordow and Isfahan, meaning some of the core infrastructure remains intact. If Iran chooses to operate fully outside diplomatic frameworks, the international community may find itself with even fewer levers to restrain Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.
Iran is far from blameless in this crisis. It has supported armed proxies and exacerbated instability in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Gaza. But that reality doesn’t negate the dangers of sidelining diplomacy in favour of military confrontation. Time and again, aggressive tactics have failed to produce long-term security for either Israel or the United States.
If this moment isn’t met with strategic restraint and a renewed commitment to diplomacy, the region could be pushed toward a larger, more uncontrollable conflict: one that benefits no one. We are one miscalculation away from an all-out regional war.
Jasmine El Gamal is a Former Middle East advisor at the US Department of Defence.
During her tenure at the Pentagon, she advised on crises including the post-war Iraq, the Arab Spring, the war against ISIS and the Syria conflict.
