After America rained bunker-buster bombs on Iran’s nuclear sites at the weekend, the big question was: How would Iran respond?

The Islamic Republic promised heavy punishment. But with limited capabilities, few allies and incapacitated proxy fighters, there appeared to be few good options to deliver it.

Less than 48 hours after the US strikes, we saw an Iranian response — a barrage of missiles fired at America’s biggest base in the Middle East.

Iran-Israel war live updates: Netanyahu claims ‘historic win’ as ceasefire appears to hold

According to Donald Trump, 14 missiles were launched at the Al Udeid base in Qatar, which ordinarily houses about 10,000 troops. Thirteen of the missiles were taken down by Qatari air defences, and one was allowed to fall out of the sky because it wasn’t a threat.

But the key detail is that Iran shared its attack plan before it acted on it, so the Qatari base could be cleared to prevent casualties.

This meant the missile launch was more of a performance than an attack.

No injuries, little damage. And the ball back in Trump’s court.

Trump gives thanks

So then the big question became: How would Trump respond?

He’d warned Iran against striking US bases. Tit-for-tat escalation was now a frightening possibility.

“There will be either peace or there will be tragedy for Iran,” Trump had told Americans in his televised address on Saturday night. “Remember, there are many targets left.”

Would Trump follow through on his threat to strike those targets? Was this a sudden turning point towards a wider war?

Israelis have been sheltering from missiles in locations like underground car parks. (AP: Oded Balilty)

Trump’s answer arrived, true to form, in a social media post.

It was a “thank you” to Iran.

“I want to thank Iran for giving us early notice, which made it possible for no lives to be lost, and nobody to be injured,” Trump wrote.

“Perhaps Iran can now proceed to peace and harmony in the region, and I will enthusiastically encourage Israel to do the same.”

Trump had never shown an appetite for a bloody battle with Iran.

He’d spent weeks pressing its leaders to accept a no-nukes deal to prevent conflict.

And after the nuclear facility strikes, he pushed the message it was “mission accomplished” — that diplomacy may have failed, but the nuclear threat was “obliterated” and the US was achieving, as he liked to say, “peace through strength”.

A surprise development

Trump’s initial round of social media posting suggested he was willing to take what’s been described as an “off-ramp” away from worsening hostilities.

The deliberately benign nature of the attack on the base in Qatar appeared designed to de-escalate.

It meant the US could leave Iran and Israel to continue trading blows themselves, free of the pressure to strike back that would have been created by American casualties.

But then came another social post: Trump said Israel and Iran had agreed to a ceasefire. It would end what he had now named “the 12 day war”.

“Perhaps Iran can now proceed to peace and harmony in the region, and I will enthusiastically encourage Israel to do the same.”

The American strikes on Iranian nuclear sites sparked protests in Tehran. (AP: Vahid Salemi)

His vice-president, JD Vance, told Fox News the deal must have been finalised while he was on his way to the cable network’s Washington studios.

Trump “was working the phones as I was on the way over here,” Vance told the network, and declared it was “the beginning of something really big for peace in the Middle East”.

On the same channel a little later, Republican senator Katie Britt went even further.

“Donald Trump is going to win the Nobel Peace Prize, no doubt,” she said. “He has brought peace to a region that needed stability.”

More big questions

But Israel wouldn’t confirm the ceasefire agreement. Iran’s foreign minister said there was no agreement, but that Iran would stop responding to Israeli aggression if Israel stopped the aggression.

Just a couple of hours later, Israel said more missiles were being fired its way from Iran. Israelis sought shelter, but the national ambulance service later said several people had been killed.

Around the same time, Trump was still celebrating on social media, predicting “love, peace, and prosperity” for both Israel and Iran.

At the time of writing, it’s not at all clear how concrete this agreement is.

Even if the warring parties cease firing, the region’s fate rests on some big unknowns.

Trump, a frequent exaggerator, hasn’t offered solid evidence to back his claim Iran’s nuclear program is obliterated, and other officials have offered less certain assessments.

Given all the forewarning before the bombings, there’s also a high chance Iran’s enriched uranium was moved away from the targeted facilities.

The UN’s nuclear watchdog says its whereabouts are unknown. Israel obviously won’t be satisfied if it sees signs the enrichment program is revived.

Then there’s the ongoing assault on Gaza, where Israeli forces continue to kill Palestinians daily.

In the past month, as the Iran-Israel war stole attention, hundreds of people in Gaza were apparently killed while seeking food from the new US-backed aid program. The official death toll in Gaza is approaching 56,000 — and may have even passed it.

After an eventful day in the Middle East, America has been claiming some big wins.

But there are also ongoing, devastating losses — and some big questions whose answers could easily change everything once again.

Skip next section Qatar reopens airspace following Iranian strike on US base

06/23/2025 June 23, 2025 Qatar reopens airspace following Iranian strike on US base

Qatar has reopened its airspace, the country’s civil aviation authority announced early on Tuesday, hours after Iran struck the US Al Udeid air base there.

“The General Civil Aviation Authority announces the resumption of air traffic in the airspace of the State of Qatar and the return of the atmosphere to normal,” it said in a statement on X.

The Qatari airspace was closed shortly before the US air base was struck, a move described by authorities as a “precautionary measure” at the time.

Instead of launching righteous retribution, Iran’s leaders are now in survival mode.

Iran is supposed to be a regional power, the leader of the Shia Muslim world, and the “resistance” to US and Western imperialism in the Middle East.

Iran-Israel war live updates: Netanyahu claims ‘historic win’ as ceasefire appears to hold

Now its leaders are hiding from ongoing Israeli strikes and downplaying the damage from a major US attack.

Israel began by attacking nuclear and ballistic missile sites and assassinating nuclear scientists and military commanders.

After Israel broadened its attacks, the US has now obliged an Israeli request for its B-2 bombers to use Massive Ordnance Penetrators and submarine-launched Tomahawk missiles to hit a fortified uranium enrichment facility and two other nuclear sites.

Previously, when attacked or pressured by enemies like Israel and the US, Iran has often adopted a policy of “strategic patience”.

This means waiting, calibrating a response and judging the best moment to unleash it.

But at times it has seemed to critics more like “strategic impotence”, showcasing how few options Iran’s leaders have to really threaten adversaries.

An Iranian missile left this building in Tel Aviv badly damaged when it struck on Sunday. (ABC News: Haidarr Jones)

Now, Iran is again promising a mighty punishment for US strikes on its nuclear sites.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the parallel military, commercial and political organisation that protects Iran’s clerical regime, said in a statement: “Today’s aggression by the terrorist American regime has pushed the Islamic Republic of Iran — within its legitimate right to self-defence — to activate options beyond the understanding and calculations of the delusional aggressor front. The invaders of this land must now expect regrettable responses.”

Iran has protested the illegality of the strikes, pointed out that it was already engaging in negotiations when the assault began and highlighted the absurdity of being told to de-escalate and “make peace” when it was the party attacked.

But it has few options for actual retaliation, none of them good.

Khamenei’s next move risks the full wrath of Trump Photo shows Ayatollah Ali Khamenei wears black headwear and glasses sitting in front of an Iranian flag. What this attack has indicated, yet again, is that the US and Israel are working hand in glove when it comes to the attack on Iran and the attempt to remake the Middle East.

The most likely appears to be withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

This would mean the end of international inspections of Iran’s nuclear facilities and the chance for Iran to take whatever stockpile of enriched uranium remains and race covertly for a bomb.

This scenario is the worst outcome for nuclear control advocates, who supported the previous 2015 deal (the Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action) between the US, European nations and Iran that limited Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief, before it was unilaterally torn up by President Donald Trump in his first term, at the urging of Israel.

Three options to strike back

In terms of direct retaliation, Iran could do three things.

The first option would be to attack US bases, jets and ships in the Gulf.

This would immediately trigger further US attacks, and not just on military sites.

The killing of US personnel could prompt the Trump administration to directly strike the Islamic regime, something it says it is not (yet) trying to do.

The second option would be for Iranian proxy groups, particularly the Shia militias in Iraq, to attack US bases there and in Syria.

These bases are far smaller, have seen significant troop withdrawals recently and have weathered previous rounds of “tit-for-tat” strikes from the militias in retaliation for things like the US assassination of Iranian general Qassem Soleimani.

This is a less-escalatory approach and may still occur. But the US is preparing to vacate those bases anyway, something Iran wants, and striking them could still trigger the kind of direct retribution it seeks to avoid.

The Houthi rebels in Yemen have, however, said they will resume attacks on US shipping in the Red Sea, something they had foregone recently as part of a de-escalation agreement with Washington.

Houthi fighters in Yemen say they will target US ships in the Red Sea. (AP: Osamah Abdulrahman)

These groups could be part of a longer-term plan for asymmetric warfare that could also involve terrorist attacks in the West, as Hezbollah has been accused of carrying out in the past.

Iran’s third option, striking oil and gas infrastructure in the Gulf states, would create more enemies for Iran and strengthen the argument that it is a destabilising influence in the region.

It would also set back the warming relations Iran has been enjoying with major rivals like Saudi Arabia.

Iran may choose to selectively disrupt shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, blocking oil tankers bound for Europe, for example, which avoids angering its ally China while inflicting some economic pain on the West.

Iran’s parliament has already approved a naval blockade of the strait.

A protracted campaign promises rising risks

No matter what, Iran’s regime sits on the precipice of collapse — its leaders are dead, have fled or are in hiding.

The extent of the damage to nuclear sites is unknown but Iran’s investments of hundreds of billions of dollars and decades of work have been set back and look to be far from paying off.

It would be a great irony if the project that was intended to protect the Islamic Republic becomes the catalyst for its collapse.

The best-case scenario for Iran’s leadership is to weather Israel’s campaign, re-assert domestic control and start prosecuting the case internationally that Israel and the US are dangerous, unrestrained threats to the region.

Australia backs US strikes Photo shows Penny Wong during cabinet meeting Penny Wong says action to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon was acceptable, but that talks should now resume.

There will be receptive ears — many countries are unnerved to see Israel deciding it can unleash massive force against whomever it chooses, and that the US will rush to join it.

The risks for Iran’s opponents rise the longer the campaign goes.

The US should be wary of mission creep and further entanglement in another costly, messy Middle Eastern “forever war”, after the embarrassment of Afghanistan, the sectarian nightmare of Iraq, the scandals of Libya and the horrors of Syria.

The big question now is whether Israel’s ongoing campaign — now starting to target the IRGC as well — will lead to regime collapse.

Iranians have now seen how weak their unpopular and repressive government is.

They haven’t broadly welcomed Israeli strikes and a popular uprising would still come with enormous risks from the elements of the IRGC that have brutally crushed previous protest movements.

In past crises, the clerical regime has prioritised its survival above all else.

We don’t know what it will do inside Iran if its grip starts to slip.

The joint US-Israeli strikes on Iran over the weekend – targeting nuclear facilities, infrastructure and symbolic state institutions – reflect the bankruptcy of a decades-long approach to Iran that has hinged on pressure, coercion and destabilisation. This latest gambit appears less a strategic gamechanger than a desperate bid to regime-change Iran and prop up a rickety regional status quo built around unchecked Israeli dominance.

The timing of Israel’s initial surprise attack on 13 June was no coincidence. Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu – who has long sought to sabotage any prospect of US-Iran detente – appears to have steamrolled Donald Trump into the escalation he has always wanted. The result looks like a trap: Trump, once again, manoeuvred into a destabilising Middle East conflict that serves Netanyahu’s agenda far more than the US’s.

Although the joint strikes have caused significant damage, they have also provoked a swift response. Iran’s missile barrages are piercing Israel’s vaunted defences, sending millions into bomb shelters day and night, and exposing strategic vulnerabilities previously thought secure. Crucially, Tehran appears to have anticipated the US attack on the Fordow uranium enrichment plant over the weekend – reportedly removing sensitive equipment and sealing the site’s entrances ahead of time. Even senior US officials now concede that Fordow was not destroyed. Instead, they’re signalling a return to negotiations as the only viable path for addressing Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile – an implicit admission that there is no military solution to this problem.

The episode underscores a deeper reality: Iran’s nuclear infrastructure is designed to withstand precisely this kind of attack. Its dispersal, depth and scope mean that meaningful and verifiable destruction would require a full-scale ground invasion – repeating the catastrophic miscalculations of Iraq. Far from eliminating the threat, military escalation risks pushing Iran closer to weaponisation, while foreclosing the only durable solution: diplomacy.

Worse still for the US and Israel, the strike has failed to ignite mass revolt and regime change. Despite years of repression, many Iranians – secular and religious alike – now view their sovereignty, national identity and territorial integrity as under direct assault. A rally-around-the-flag effect is taking hold – not in support of the Islamic republic per se, but in defence of Iran as a nation confronting foreign aggression. The government, for its part, appears unified across political factions, emboldened by the belief that it has weathered the worst and can emerge more resilient.

Netanyahu’s bid to prop up Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of the former shah, has only underscored the incoherence of the regime-change project – Pahlavi is seen as an out-of-touch relic of a bygone era. Bombing Iranian media outlets and civil infrastructure in a clumsy attempt to incite rebellion has only further discredited the effort.

The US, too, now finds itself at a crossroads. Trump’s national security team is split. Some advisers, such as the vice-president, JD Vance, have signalled openness to renewed talks, even suggesting negotiations over Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile. This is an implicit admission of failure – that coercion has reached its limit, and that diplomacy is the only viable path forward.

But diplomacy cannot succeed under the shadow of airstrikes and assassinations. Nor can it be sustained if the US continues to outsource its Iran policy to a militaristic Israeli government intent on perpetual confrontation – one whose core aim is to keep the US locked in endless conflict in the Middle East on its behalf.

Too often, US understanding of Iran’s nuclear behaviour remains filtered through the lens of alarmism, ignoring the strategic logic behind Tehran’s decisions. Iran’s nuclear programme is best understood not as an ideological crusade for the bomb, but as a calibrated instrument of deterrence and leverage. Iran has deliberately positioned itself as a threshold nuclear state – developing the infrastructure, enrichment capabilities and scientific knowledge needed to produce a weapon, but stopping short of actually doing so. This ambiguity was viewed as serving multiple purposes: strengthening Iran’s hand in negotiations; raising the costs of any attack; and maintaining strategic flexibility without crossing the line into open proliferation.

Indeed, Iranian officials have positioned their nuclear programme as a bargaining chip, not necessarily as an end towards nuclear weapons. At key moments, including during the negotiations at the 2015 joint comprehensive plan of action (JCPOA), they have demonstrated a willingness to place verifiable limits on their nuclear programme in exchange for credible security guarantees and economic relief.

The time has come for a sober reassessment of US policy in the Middle East – one grounded not in maximalist illusions, but in strategic balance. Iran is not a problem that can be bombed into submission. Decades of pressure have failed to produce compliance or collapse. Instead, they’ve entrenched resistance and accelerated Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Any strategy that assumes coercion alone will yield stability is not just flawed, it’s self-defeating.

Just as critically, Washington must reckon with the growing strategic costs of deferring to an increasingly uncompromising Israeli government. Rather than serving as a stabilising partner, Israel’s posture under its current leadership has become a liability – fuelling cycles of escalation, derailing diplomacy and entangling the US in conflicts that distract from pressing global priorities. A durable US strategy must prioritise regional equilibrium over unconditionally underwriting any one side, and reclaim decision-making in service of long-term US interests.

This moment demands a shift – not in tactics but in strategic vision. The Middle East cannot be remade through bombs and genocidal wars. If the US truly seeks stability, it must abandon the illusion of managing the region through Israeli supremacy, propping up pliant dictators and trying to regime-change rivals. That project has failed and the current war shows no sign of changing this. What comes next depends on whether Washington is finally ready to choose realism over fantasy.

Sina Toossi is a senior non-resident fellow at the Center for International Policy, where his work focuses on US-Iran relations, US policy toward the Middle East and nuclear issues

Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.