Nournews: Donald Trump’s letter to Iran, which presents Tehran with the choice between negotiations or war, is not a diplomatic proposal but a clear ultimatum. Meanwhile, both the U.S. National Security Advisor and the Secretary of Defense have explicitly stated that Washington’s sole objective is the complete dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program. From the American perspective, negotiations should be strictly limited to this issue.
However, as the U.S. deploys forces and intensifies political, economic, and psychological pressure to make the military option appear serious, the key question remains: How will Iran respond in the event of an attack?
The U.S. seeks minimal military action with maximum impact
Despite increasing threats, the U.S. strategically prefers to achieve its objectives without engaging in a large-scale war. The policy of "maximum pressure" is employed not only as a negotiation tactic but also as a means to impose Washington’s conditions on Iran without direct military confrontation. However, if this policy fails, limited military action could emerge as an alternative.
In this regard, a targeted military strike on certain Iranian nuclear facilities remains a conceivable scenario. Such an attack would only be feasible if Washington perceives it as cost-effective—meaning the U.S. must be able to extract maximum benefits from minimal costs in coercing Iran into submission. But is this scenario truly viable in practice?
Iran: Resistant to threats—now and always
As Iran’s response to Trump’s letter was conveyed through Oman, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi reaffirmed Tehran’s firm stance during a speech at Tehran’s Quds Day Friday prayers. Acknowledging the threatening nature of Trump’s message, he reiterated that the Islamic Republic has never been susceptible to threats and never will be. This official position clearly underscores that Iran will never enter negotiations under duress or intimidation.
Yet, the fundamental question remains: How will Iran react to a military strike?
Iran’s strategy: Active deterrence and escalation of conflict
The clearest indication of Iran’s strategic response to U.S. threats came from Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, Speaker of the Iranian Parliament and a member of the Supreme National Security Council. During the International Quds Day ceremony, he explicitly stated Iran’s official stance, warning that any aggression against Iran would set the entire region ablaze, and that U.S. bases and its allies would not be spared.
This statement highlights that Iran does not consider "limited retaliation" as a viable response; rather, it perceives any U.S. military action as the start of a broader regional war.
In practical terms, Iran’s response to a potential attack would not only target the aggressor’s assets but also expand the conflict to include U.S. bases and allied positions throughout the region. This warning is not merely a diplomatic statement but a declaration of Iran’s operational strategy—one that could be executed swiftly in the event of war.
Is the U.S. ready to pay the price of war?
Assessments suggest that while limited military action remains on the U.S. table, its potential costs are significantly high. The experiences of the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions have demonstrated that military entanglement in the Middle East often brings unforeseen complexities that exceed initial predictions.
Thus, even if Washington believes a limited strike could be beneficial, Iran’s response could alter the equation, escalating into an uncontrollable conflict in the region. This factor has instilled doubt among U.S. decision-makers and raised the cost of war for them.
Conclusion: Active deterrence as Iran’s definite strategy
Iran has repeatedly emphasized its commitment to an "active deterrence" policy. This means that any military action against Iran will not only be met with a strong response but will also expand the conflict across the region, imposing severe costs on the U.S. and its allies.
While Washington continues to use threats as leverage to achieve its objectives, Iran has made it clear that it is not susceptible to coercion. Moreover, if war were to break out, Iran would alter the strategic calculations in ways detrimental to the aggressors.
In essence, the U.S. faces a complex dilemma in choosing the military option: either it must accept the risk of an uncontrollable war or abandon threats and opt for a genuine diplomatic solution.
NOURNEWS