Iran’s recent military response to U.S. airstrikes on its nuclear facilities illustrates a calculated display of strength, although it highlights the regime’s diminishing power. Following the targeted strikes, Iran’s National Security Council announced that the number of missiles fired in its retaliatory attack equaled “as many as the number of bombs used in the attack on Iranian nuclear facilities.” Iran’s military action has symbolic meaning too. It serves to underscore the nation’s need to project strength and better expose the fragility of that projection.
The Iranian regime has located itself on a thin branch, so at some point a continued expression of fury needs to be carefully calibrated. Even as these expressions of defiance reaffirm the fading echoes of Iran’s once-dominant status in the region, they are not without significance. The military landscape has indeed changed considerably from the time of General Qasem Soleimani’s assassination in 2020. This watershed moment signified the death of Iran’s most powerful military leader and hardline folk hero. His death has left a void that seems to be growing more and more impossible for Iran to fill.
Recent events further illustrate Iran’s strategic limitations. The regime’s response to the July 2024 assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, which occurred in the heart of Tehran, suggested a level of predictability that undermines Tehran’s perceived strength. Analysts noted that Iran telegraphed its strikes on the U.S. Al Asad airbase in Iraq ahead of time, telling the U.S. They disclosed that this draconian move was allegedly communicated to Baghdad prior to release. This early warning likely helped avoid a tragedy and loss of life among U.S. forces, as injuries were largely contained to concussions.
Only days before Iran’s missile attack, the U.S.-run Al Udeid airbase in Qatar had been cleared out. This base has become a key military center for Central Command. Satellite imagery that went viral in news media helped to verify the departure of aircraft and staff from the base. In fact, Qatar shut down its airspace only an hour before Iran started its missile volley. This development indicates an unprecedented level of coordination regarding these military maneuvers.
Iran’s diplomatic counter was calibrated to project strength internationally while not raising the military stakes with its immediate neighbors. The National Security Council emphasized that the attack posed “no dangerous aspect to our friendly and brotherly country of Qatar and its noble people.” These kinds of statements show Iran’s attempts to protect its regional relationships while trying to show off a strong military stance.
Analysts insist that there is only one important “red line” left for the US and Israel. Perhaps the most specific line is any direct assault on Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. This distinction serves to underscore the precariousness of Iran’s situation. Any perceived overreach against Khamenei himself could elicit a much harsher retaliation.
Iran’s military strategy has transformed into what one expert calls “retaliation-without-fangs.” This posture is intended to project American power in the region while avoiding a potential escalation to conventional, large-scale war. The widespread and systematic use of this tactic has been highlighted by the recent missile strikes. Iran responds in fury and flexibly absorbs the backlash.
These regional dynamics are changing quickly. Iran is in a particularly difficult geopolitical situation with fast eroding influence and increasing international pressures. The regime’s attempts to feign strength amidst these challenges reflect its ongoing struggle for relevance and control.
