Only hours after US President Donald Trump announced on Friday that he rejected the use of force against Iran, the occupation army and American forces launched a broad aerial assault on Saturday morning targeting areas of the capital Tehran, the historic city of Qom, Isfahan and Lorestan, under the pretext of carrying out a “pre emptive preventive strike”.
What occurred on Saturday appears similar to the scenario of last June, described at the time as a “deception”, when Iran was reportedly given a final opportunity before US forces joined the Israeli bombardment during the 12 day war. Tehran rejected that offer, according to The Washington Post.
Before departing for Texas, Trump told reporters on Friday that he was “not satisfied” with the course of ongoing negotiations with Iran. He stated that he had not yet made a “final decision” regarding the possibility of launching a military strike, while at the same time expressing anticipation of a new round of talks.
Despite attempting to suggest that he had kept his options open, Trump was reportedly feeling increasing frustration over what his aides described as the limits of available military leverage against Iran, amid the complexities of the regional landscape and the risks of escalation. This was reported by CBS News, citing informed sources.
Trump was briefed that limited strikes targeting Iranian interests could open the door to a broader confrontation, warning of the United States becoming entangled in a prolonged conflict in the Middle East, something Washington does not desire.
Pentagon officials also warned, through media leaks, of shortages in ammunition and resources necessary for a large scale military campaign. Reports carried by CNN further indicated that US aircraft carriers require maintenance.
Accordingly, any prolonged attack could draw the United States into a quagmire resembling that of Iraq, amid warnings that American forces would be risking their lives without sufficient resources. Such a scenario would represent political suicide for any president, regardless of how strong he perceives himself to be, as Trump is believed to feel following the operation in Venezuela.
Iran’s Cards in Confronting an “Existential” War
Iran does not possess military capabilities comparable to those of the United States. Its strategy in confrontation is based on enduring the initial wave of American strikes before responding by targeting symbolic assets of Washington and its allies in the region.
This was articulated by Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who stated: “If the United States decides, then American bases in the region will become legitimate targets. We consider them American bases, not part of the territories of our neighbours or the countries in which they are located.”
Pentagon officials maintain that deployments are defensive and designed to deter escalation. However, the scale and pace of mobilisation indicate that any strike on Iran would likely trigger a response, whether through missile attacks, naval harassment in the Strait of Hormuz, or proxy forces operating in Iraq, Syria and elsewhere. This has indeed occurred.
Repeating the Houthi Scenario in Yemen
Regional experts cited by The New York Times suggest that Iran may attempt to replicate the model of the Houthi movement, its ally in Yemen. In 2025, Ansar Allah disrupted a US military campaign aimed at halting their attacks on international shipping in the Red Sea.
The group continued targeting American drones and international vessels, including a US aircraft carrier. The 31 day confrontation reportedly cost Washington more than one billion dollars. In the end, Trump opted to reach an agreement rather than risk prolonged military engagement.
Robert Pape, professor of political science specialising in security studies at the University of Chicago, stated that President Trump must clarify what he truly intends. Regime change in Iran, he said, is far more difficult than endless wars. Iran is twice the size of Iraq and Afghanistan combined, with a population of 92 million, more than double that of California.
Air Defence Systems and Missile Platforms
According to several experts cited by Politico in February 2026, the immediate neutralisation of air defence systems and crippling of Iran’s missile capabilities would be the most critical factor in ensuring the success of any impactful strike that prevents Iran from defending itself.
The Times of Israel reported that Tehran signed a secret deal worth 589 million dollars with Russia last December to acquire 500 fourth generation surface to air missile launchers of the Verba type.
The system is operated by small ground units, enabling Iran to disperse air defences and present a more elusive target. Although deliveries are scheduled between 2027 and 2029, one source told the outlet that some systems may have been delivered early.
The American site Military Watch also reported in February 2026 that Iran deployed S 300 air defence systems near the capital Tehran and in Isfahan, providing additional protection to its air defence network.
Iran’s Ballistic Missile Arsenal
A January 2026 report by Iran Watch, a site close to intelligence circles in Washington, estimated that Iran possesses 3,000 ballistic missiles, while some assessments place the number between 1,500 and 2,000, in addition to a growing stockpile of cruise missiles and hypersonic projectiles.
Regarding their geographical distribution, a February 2026 report by JINSA, an organisation affiliated with Israel in the United States, estimated that Iran’s missiles and drones are deployed across Iranian territory in underground “missile cities”, making them difficult to target.
These fortifications were highlighted by Bloomberg, which noted that any US military operation would face several challenges, foremost among them Iran’s vast and mountainous geography and the dispersal of its missile infrastructure across multiple regions. Neutralising them would require greater firepower and air power.
According to a report by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, any strike on Iran, under American and Israeli military doctrine, would depend heavily on the first day or days. Initial waves would likely be rapid, massive and overwhelming from the air and sea, aimed at disabling mobile systems before they can be relocated or concealed.
Therefore, if Iran is able to absorb that initial wave while preserving sufficient military assets to continue fighting effectively, the viability of the military campaign could become a matter of doubt and debate within the United States. According to The New York Times, such an outcome could politically damage Trump in a midterm election year.
