US has attacked Iran. What Happens Next?

Just past midnight, the world watched with bated breath as news broke that the United States had launched airstrikes on Iranian nuclear sites. The targets, Fordow, Isfahan, and Natanz, weren’t secret bunkers or undeclared facilities. These were publicly known, IAEA-monitored locations, part of a nuclear program that, while controversial, remained technically within the non-weaponized space.

In the aftermath of the strikes, one question is dominating every diplomatic channel and regional capital: What happens next?

Iran’s Dilemma: To Respond or Restrain?

For Iran, retaliation is not just a question of pride or anger, it’s a matter of long-term strategy. This is not the first time Tehran has faced such provocation. In 2020, when its top military commander General Qassem Soleimani was assassinated by a US drone, the country responded in a measured, almost ritualistic way. The calculus then, as now, was clear: any action that draws Iran into a full-scale war with the United States could threaten the very continuity of the state.

This time, the stakes are even higher. The strikes did not originate from US Gulf bases, a detail that severely limits Iran’s immediate military options. Iraqi territory becomes the most viable target for any counterattack, but going down that path would turn Iraq into a battleground again, something neither Baghdad nor Tehran wants. Iran’s leadership must now walk a tightrope between projecting strength and avoiding strategic self-destruction.

The Fading Leverage of the Strait of Hormuz

For decades, the Strait of Hormuz was Tehran’s trump card. The narrow waterway through which a significant portion of the world’s oil once flowed gave Iran the ability to shake global markets with a single naval incident. But times have changed. The global energy system has diversified, the United States now enjoys energy independence, and major Asian economies have built contingencies around such chokepoints.

While Iran can still cause disruptions in the Strait and may yet do so but it knows that the geopolitical impact would now hurt Europe, the Gulf states, and China as oil price has risen to 3% already after the US strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, but the US — the orchestrator of the current strikes — remains relatively insulated. Years of diversification, the rise of US energy independence, and hedging by East Asian economies have dulled its leverage. Tehran knows this, and while it may still consider naval escalation, it also knows it’s no longer the nuclear option it used to be.

A Far More Dangerous Front: Israel’s Nuclear Sites

While many are watching for naval moves or retaliatory missile strikes, the real strategic wild card lies elsewhere: Israel’s nuclear infrastructure. Unlike Iran’s deeply buried and heavily fortified facilities, Israel’s nuclear-related sites including Dimona, Zekharia, and others are more exposed and more vulnerable to direct attacks. Tehran has the range and precision to strike them. And doing so would bypass American military superiority, striking at the heart of Israel’s deterrent strategy. This would be a leap into truly uncharted territory. Israel’s nuclear program has never been tested under fire. If Iran targets it, even symbolically, the regional security architecture would be upended overnight. It would no longer be about deterrence only, it would become a contest of survival.

Washington’s War, or Tel Aviv’s Doctrine?

In the United States, the political response to an Iranian counterattack could be swift and unifying, especially during potentially last term of Trump. But crucially, the appetite is not for another long war like Iraq or Afghanistan. What appears to be emerging instead is a narrower but still devastating model of conflict, one that echoes in Israel’s strategic circles as the “Hit and Halt” doctrine.

This is a vision of war without reconstruction. A campaign designed to reduce Iran’s power: militarily, economically, and regionally, to a fraction of what it once was, seeking no political settlement or as a matter of fact political stabilization post the conflict. It is a model that prioritizes weakening Iran over replacing it, boxing it in rather than owning it back. This approach, it seems, is being quietly folded into broader normalization efforts between Israel and Gulf Arab states, efforts that emphasize Israeli air defense and military technology while quietly omitting any meaningful discussion of Palestine. It is a chilling framework, one that sees military victory not as the prelude to peace, but as an end in itself.

Iran Is Not Powerless

Still, Iran is not without options. Even under sustained pressure, its capacity to respond remains intact at a minimal but significant level. Military analysts estimate that Tehran can continue to launch small batches of missiles, 20 to 30 at a time, using mobile platforms that can survive even with heavy attrition. This means Iran could pursue a long, drawn-out campaign of strategic signaling. And more importantly, its asymmetric strengths, cyber capabilities, regional proxies, influence networks, are not easily neutralized by airpower. That is why, as in past confrontations, the real outcome may not hinge on the first few nights of bombing, but on the diplomacy, or lack thereof, that follows.

Also See: WSJ’s Pakistan-Iran Nuclear Analogy: A Case of Strategic Amnesia

The Death of Restraint?

Perhaps the most consequential fallout of the strikes is not physical, but ideological. For all the accusations leveled against Iran over the years, the fact remains that Tehran has not crossed the nuclear threshold. Its program has remained under international safeguards. Inspectors have had access. The country has stayed, however uneasily, within the boundaries of global non-proliferation norms. And yet, it has been bombed.

It is worth remembering that the first major Israeli claim about Iran’s nuclear ambitions dates back more than 30 years. In 1992, Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres predicted that Iran would have a bomb by 1999. It is now 2025, and no such weapon has emerged. What has changed is the political patience of those who once used diplomacy as the first resort.

This, therefore, raises a profound and unsettling question: what message does this send to other countries? If a non-nuclear state can be attacked while still complying with inspection regimes, the logic of restraint collapses. The lesson becomes this: the only true guarantee of sovereignty is the bomb itself. Transparency no longer protects you; it exposes you. Diplomacy no longer delays war; it invites it. In such a world, nuclear hedging becomes nuclear breakout, not as an act of aggression, but as a perceived necessity.

Where This Leaves Us?

This is not just a story of one night’s strikes. It is the story of a turning point, one in which international norms, deterrence doctrines, and the very fabric of strategic trust are being shredded in real time. The days ahead may see missiles fly or restraint prevail. But either way, the region and the world, has entered a more dangerous phase.

Yet in such chaotic and war laden agendas, the sane voices must reconsider, how critical it is to not just report on what has happened, but to understand the deeper structures behind why it happened and what it might mean for a region already grappling with polarization, power realignments, and fragile hopes for peace. This isn’t the end of the confrontation. It may only be the beginning of a far more unpredictable future for the whole world including Pakistan.