Over decades, the United States and its allies have portrayed Iran as the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, citing the revolutionary ideology of its leadership and its support for armed proxies.
Experts now warn that a long latent threat is resurfacing alongside the ongoing U.S. Israeli war, raising the risk of attacks on American soil to levels not seen since the September 11 attacks.
In the current election year, critics of Donald Trump argue that such an attack could serve his political interests, justifying to impose emergency measures, suppress critics, or even cancel congressional midterm elections.
Recent incidents have underscored the rising threat, including shootings and attacks linked to individuals with ideological or personal motivations tied to regional conflicts. Although there is no direct evidence connecting these incidents to Iran, analysts describe asymmetric or inspired attacks as a real and growing risk.
At the same time, instability within U.S. security institutions has raised concerns about preparedness. Analysts point to diverted resources, internal disruptions, and reduced focus on counterterrorism as factors weakening the country’s readiness.
Security experts note that Iran has a history of attempting operations inside the United States, including plots against senior officials, and has developed capabilities through proxies, sleeper cells, and indirect actors.
Some analysts argue that Iran may seek retaliation for military strikes and the killing of senior figures, potentially activating long standing networks or relying on individuals acting independently but inspired by its agenda.
Concerns also extend to the possibility of large scale, high impact attacks, as past patterns suggest a preference for operations that inflict significant casualties rather than limited incidents.
Within this context, some commentators raise a controversial argument that escalating war conditions could increase the likelihood of such attacks, which in turn might strengthen Trump’s domestic position by enabling expanded executive powers.
They suggest that even if provoking such an outcome is not an explicit objective, the dynamics of war and rising instability may create conditions that make it more likely, thereby serving political narratives about internal threats.
Others argue that U.S. military actions have left Iran with limited conventional options, increasing the probability of retaliatory measures through unconventional means, including attacks inside the United States.
Ultimately, the convergence of rising external threats, internal security concerns, and political tensions has created a highly volatile environment, where the risk of a significant attack carries both security implications and potential political consequences
