It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future. Hell, climate models can't even accurately predict past climates.
So while there is a lot of speculation about whether Iran--which holds the United States as responsible as Israel for the attacks on its nuclear facilities and top leadership--will try to take revenge on America in attributable ways. They have already tried to strike Israel with an impotent drone attack. Will they go after US assets or unleash terrorism on the American homeland?
It would be a very high-risk move. Iran has done so in the past, although they have used deniable proxies for the most part, but this time would be very different. Donald Trump is president, and any retaliation would include massive retaliation from the United States.
All the people in charge of Iran who would know how to respond to Israel are all dead. The entire Air Force leadership? Also dead. pic.twitter.com/d8Hn2kD679
— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) June 13, 2025
Iran is a master of using "gray zone" conflicts--attacks with proxies, or deniable attacks--but it doesn't have a conventional military capability to do significant damage to US assets. That doesn't mean that they couldn't inflict some damage with missiles--they probably could--but they couldn't really dent our capacity to respond with devastating, regime-destroying force.
Sen. @tedcruz, R-Texas, warned Iranian leaders against harming American service members stationed in the Middle East: “Understand, if you attack American military bases, if you kill even one American serviceman or woman, President Trump will respond with overwhelming force."… pic.twitter.com/EiXNM6MFDP
— NewsNation (@NewsNation) June 13, 2025
Iran's regime does not have the love of its populace, and it appears the regime is in a precarious position. There are protests; women are risking and losing their lives in heroic acts of defiance, and the power is imposed by fear. Now, a good chunk of its leadership and key military officials are dead. Does that make the country more dangerous, or less?
Prudence would dictate refraining from attacking the United States; political necessity may dictate rolling the dice.
America has enormous military assets deployed to the region--including about half of our B-2 bombers. And, as things stand now, even B-52s could penetrate Iranian airspace with low risk due to Iran's complete loss of control over its airspace.
Attacking America would likely spell doom for an already shaky regime, but not attacking a country it is publicly holding responsible for the strikes presents its own risks.
I fully expect grey zone attacks on America or its assets abroad. I also fully expect that if they happen, Iran will find out that Donald Trump will not be amused or in a forgiving mood.
Remember: Israel decided to strike now because the country is uniquely vulnerable due to prior strikes, while simultaneously very near achieving the capability to deploy nuclear weapons that would not only threaten Israel but a number of US allies and military bases.
There is an enormous incentive for the United States to strike Iran, and almost no downside to us if we are provoked. There would be a lot of loud complaints, but likely little actual anger at us from any country we care about. Arab countries hate and fear Iran. Europe is worried about its nuclear ambitions and willingness to attack inside European borders, and it's hard to see how much less stable the Middle East could become.
Wars are always unpredictable. Iran could have some aces up its sleeve that we don't know about. But most of their capabilities have been degraded, including their proxies.
It may just be time to take the Mullahs out, if they give us an excuse.
