By Lina Irawan 
The current phase of the conflict follows a significant U.S.-Israeli military campaign in June 2025, which saw a concerted 12-day effort targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities. That earlier engagement witnessed a robust Iranian response, characterized by a barrage of missiles and drones. In stark contrast, the immediate retaliation to the latest U.S.-Israeli airstrikes appears to be less intense, with fewer missiles and drones launched. This apparent restraint, however, is viewed by many analysts not as a sign of weakness or capitulation, but rather as a strategic pause or a calculated effort to preserve capabilities for a larger, more impactful response. The discrepancy in the tempo of retaliation raises critical questions about Iran’s current strategic thinking and its assessment of the stakes involved.
Retired Admiral James Stavridis, a former NATO supreme allied commander, offered a stark assessment of Iran’s options during a recent interview with CNN. He posited that Iran essentially faces two primary strategic pathways in response to the escalating pressure. The first, less aggressive option, involves continuing to launch missiles at the current, reduced tempo while effectively "hunkering down." This approach would imply a strategy of endurance, aiming to weather the storm of U.S.-Israeli attacks, preserve core military assets, and potentially wait for a shift in geopolitical dynamics or U.S. policy. It suggests a defensive posture, focused on survival rather than immediate, overwhelming retaliation, perhaps hoping to avoid a full-scale, devastating war that could genuinely imperil the regime. Such a strategy might also involve internal consolidation, increased security measures, and a continued, albeit lower-profile, support for regional proxies. The aim would be to demonstrate continued resistance without triggering an even more destructive response from the U.S. and Israel, allowing the regime to buy time and perhaps rebuild its capabilities.
However, Admiral Stavridis warned that the second option, a far more dangerous one, becomes increasingly likely if the Iranian leadership truly believes they are "at the end of the string." In such a scenario, where the regime perceives its very existence to be on the line, he predicted they "could go big." This "big" response would entail a multi-faceted and aggressive strategy designed to inflict maximum pain on the U.S. and its allies, both economically and politically, and potentially to draw international attention and pressure to de-escalate the conflict on Iran’s terms.
One of the most immediate and economically devastating actions Iran could undertake is closing the Strait of Hormuz. This narrow waterway, nestled between Iran and Oman, is a critical global chokepoint through which approximately 20% of the world’s total oil supply, and a significant portion of its liquefied natural gas, transits daily. Any disruption, let alone a full closure, would have catastrophic implications for global energy markets. Energy analysts have consistently warned that such an action could send Brent crude prices soaring far beyond the psychological benchmark of $100 a barrel, potentially pushing them into unprecedented territory. The ripple effects would be immediate and severe, triggering global inflation, disrupting supply chains, and potentially plunging major economies into recession. Historically, Iran has conducted extensive military exercises near the strait, showcasing its naval capabilities and demonstrating its capacity to threaten this vital artery. While there are no indications of such attempts currently, the threat remains a powerful card in Tehran’s hand. The U.S., acutely aware of this vulnerability, reportedly targeted Iranian naval assets in the Persian Gulf during initial airstrikes on Saturday, aiming to degrade Tehran’s ability to execute such a closure. President Trump himself has vowed to "obliterate Iran’s navy" should it attempt to disrupt maritime traffic, signaling the extreme U.S. resolve to keep the strait open.
Beyond economic warfare, Stavridis highlighted the potential for Iran to conduct terrorist attacks against American diplomats, businessmen, and citizens both within the region and globally. Iran has a long and documented history of supporting various militant and terrorist groups, leveraging these proxies to project power and retaliate against perceived adversaries without direct state attribution. Such attacks could range from bombings and assassinations to kidnappings, targeting vulnerable U.S. interests abroad. The global reach of Iran’s intelligence services and its network of proxies, particularly Hezbollah, makes this a credible and deeply concerning threat.
Furthermore, Stavridis suggested Iran could "unleash what’s left of their proxies," specifically mentioning the Houthis in Yemen. The Houthis, a formidable military force backed by Iran, have already demonstrated their capacity to disrupt international shipping in the Red Sea, a vital route leading to the Suez Canal. Their previous actions, including missile and drone attacks on commercial vessels, have already caused significant rerouting of maritime traffic, impacting global trade and supply chains. A concerted effort by the Houthis to "shut down shipping again through the Suez Canal," or the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait leading to it, would compound the economic crisis triggered by a Hormuz closure. The Suez Canal, connecting the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea, is another indispensable global chokepoint, and its disruption would force ships to undertake the much longer and costlier journey around the Cape of Good Hope, adding weeks to transit times and dramatically increasing shipping costs.
Admiral Stavridis’s analysis also delved into the psychological and strategic underpinnings of Iran’s potential response, drawing parallels to the ancient Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu. Sun Tzu, in his seminal work "The Art of War," counseled commanders to seek ways out of conflicts without actual fighting, but also to fight fiercely and without reservation when on "death ground." "Death ground" refers to a situation where an army has no option but to fight, with retreat impossible and survival dependent solely on victory. In such circumstances, Sun Tzu argued, soldiers fight with unparalleled ferocity. "I think the Iranian leadership may feel they are on death ground," Stavridis predicted, underscoring his belief that this existential perception could compel Tehran to "go big" in a desperate bid for survival.
This sentiment was echoed by other security experts. Colin Clarke, executive director of the Soufan Center security advisory firm, emphasized the existential nature of the conflict for Iran. "For Iran, this war is existential. And because it is, I would fully expect Tehran to activate any sleeper cell capacity it has in the West to make this painful for the U.S. & Israel," Clarke posted on X. He specifically warned that "Hezbollah and other assets could very well seek to conduct attacks in Europe, North America, etc." This threat extends beyond the immediate theater of conflict, highlighting the global reach of Iran’s retaliatory capabilities. Sleeper cells, often composed of individuals with dual nationalities or long-term residents who can blend into local populations, pose a significant intelligence challenge. Their activation could lead to indiscriminate attacks on civilian targets, infrastructure, or symbolic sites, aiming to create widespread fear and demonstrate Iran’s capacity to strike its adversaries anywhere in the world. The prospect of such attacks would necessitate a dramatic increase in security measures across Western nations, straining intelligence agencies and law enforcement.
Thomas Warrick, a scholar at the Atlantic Council and a former deputy assistant secretary for counterterrorism policy in the Department of Homeland Security, similarly raised the possibility of Iran employing "asymmetric" tactics against the U.S. In a blog post, Warrick outlined several potential avenues for Iranian retaliation that do not involve conventional military confrontation. He suggested that the regime would likely target President Trump and other top U.S. officials, putting immense pressure on federal agencies like the FBI, Secret Service, and Capitol Police to bolster their protective measures and counter potential threats. This could involve sophisticated intelligence gathering, planning for assassination attempts, or psychological operations aimed at destabilizing leadership.
Warrick further warned that "Iran will try every cyber trick it can mount, testing the Department of Homeland Security, the private sector, and U.S. cyber defenses." Iran has a history of developing and deploying sophisticated cyber capabilities, previously targeting critical infrastructure in Saudi Arabia and financial institutions in the U.S. A full-scale cyber campaign could aim to disrupt U.S. government operations, cripple essential services, or inflict economic damage on the private sector. Such attacks, often difficult to attribute definitively, could lead to widespread chaos, compromise sensitive data, and erode public trust in digital systems. The Department of Homeland Security and various private sector entities would face an unprecedented barrage of cyberattacks, demanding robust and adaptive defense strategies.
Moreover, Warrick alluded to Iran’s past, unsuccessful attempts to meddle in U.S. elections. While acknowledging that such efforts "would almost certainly fail to have any impact this time," the mere attempt could sow discord, undermine democratic processes, and exacerbate political polarization within the U.S. Finally, reiterating the economic dimension, Warrick emphasized that even though "the United States imports very little oil from the Middle East," the global impact of rising energy prices "may spike, setting back the U.S. economy." The interconnectedness of global markets means that even if the U.S. is less directly dependent on Middle Eastern oil, a global economic downturn triggered by energy shocks would inevitably affect American businesses and consumers through higher inflation, reduced demand for goods and services, and potential job losses.
The collective warnings from these experts paint a grim picture of the potential ramifications should Iran choose to "go big" in response to an existential threat. The convergence of economic warfare through maritime chokepoints, global terrorism, cyberattacks, and direct targeting of U.S. officials represents a multifaceted and highly dangerous spectrum of retaliation. As the U.S. and Israel press their campaign, the world watches nervously, bracing for a response from a regime that may increasingly feel it has nothing left to lose. The delicate balance of power in the Middle East has been irrevocably altered, ushering in a new era of unpredictable and potentially devastating conflict.