On the Edge of Confrontation… How Tehran Envisions a U.S.–Israeli War Scenario and Reforges Its Deterrence
Prof. Mohamed Abdelaziem Elchime
Amid escalating tensions between Iran on one side and the United States and Israel on the other, Tehran has developed a set of strategic perceptions regarding the types of military tactics its adversaries might adopt. In parallel, it has undertaken a broad range of defensive preparations designed either to deter such actions or to neutralize them if they occur. These perceptions and preparations reflect Iran’s assessment of its vulnerabilities, the balance of military power, and its deeply entrenched strategic doctrine based on the principle of “deterrence through retaliation.”
Iran’s View of Potential U.S.–Israeli Military Tactics
From the perspective of Iranian decision-makers, the most likely external military threats stem from two primary scenarios:
- Direct air and missile strikes against strategic infrastructure.
- Covert or joint operations targeting vital military and nuclear facilities.
Iranian analysts and official sources widely regard preemptive air strikes—whether carried out by Israel alone or with U.S. support—as the most probable form of attack. These concerns are not merely hypothetical. Israel has previously conducted strikes against Iranian-linked infrastructure in Syria and has repeatedly signaled its readiness to target missile systems and command-and-control assets it deems threatening. Tehran fears that any future strikes would focus on nuclear facilities, ballistic missile sites, air defense systems, or critical oil infrastructure, with the aim of degrading Iran’s strategic capabilities.
Such operations would likely involve precision-guided munitions delivered by long-range aircraft or special forces, accompanied by electronic warfare intended to disrupt Iran’s air defense networks. Iranian assessments also consider the possible use of bunker-buster munitions against hardened or underground nuclear sites—an option that would almost certainly require direct U.S. involvement, given Israel’s limited capacity to deploy extremely heavy payloads independently. Defense experts suggest that such a scenario would necessitate long-range bombers or a complex coalition of military assets, including aerial refueling capabilities.
Beyond conventional air power, Tehran anticipates hybrid tactics combining covert sabotage, intelligence operations, and cyberattacks. These fears have been amplified by reports of past Israeli operations, including allegations that Israeli intelligence established drone bases inside Iran capable of disrupting missile launch platforms and air defense systems either before or during an overt attack.
Iranian officials are also wary of multi-domain warfare, in which cyber intrusions target command-and-control systems, while psychological and media operations seek to undermine morale and sow internal divisions. In Tehran’s view, recent hardline diplomatic rhetoric—particularly U.S. statements hinting at the possibility of military action—forms part of a broader pressure campaign that could escalate into kinetic operations if political and economic tools fail.
Core Iranian Concerns: Nuclear, Missile, and Leadership Targets
Iran’s leadership consistently underscores the sensitivity of its nuclear program as the most likely flashpoint for conflict. Official statements portray Western threats against enrichment facilities as a direct challenge to national sovereignty and a catalyst for escalation. Consequently, Tehran frames its enhanced defensive posture as both a necessity and a warning that any attack would trigger severe consequences.
In addition to nuclear sites, Iran recognizes that its ballistic missile stockpiles and supporting infrastructure would rank high on an adversary’s target list. These missiles are central to Iran’s deterrence strategy and constitute a critical counterweight to U.S.–Israeli military superiority. Any significant degradation of this capability would sharply reduce Iran’s ability to retaliate, making its protection a top strategic priority.
Iranian narratives also highlight fears of decapitation strikes aimed at political and military leadership, including assassination attempts or efforts to sever chains of command—tactics observed in previous U.S. interventions elsewhere in the Middle East. Tehran treats such scenarios as existential threats, prompting it to adopt military doctrines emphasizing dispersion, redundancy, and concealed command structures.
Iranian Military Preparations
In response to these perceived threats, Iran has pursued a multifaceted set of military preparations that blend conventional defense with asymmetric deterrence. The overarching objective is to establish a credible deterrent posture that raises the potential cost of any attack to a level that discourages adversaries from initiating one.
- Strengthening Air and Missile Defenses
A central pillar of Iran’s preparations is the reinforcement of its air defense network. Following previous strikes that damaged certain units, Tehran reportedly redeployed and repaired surface-to-air missile systems, including Russian-made S-300s, while integrating domestically developed systems such as the Bavar-373 into layered defenses around critical infrastructure. - Missile Capabilities and Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD)
Iran’s extensive ballistic missile program remains the cornerstone of its deterrence strategy, providing the capacity to strike regional adversaries and U.S. bases in the event of an attack. Tehran views this “deterrence by punishment” approach as essential to preventing aggression. In parallel, it has developed A2/AD measures—particularly around the Strait of Hormuz—betting that any military confrontation would carry serious global economic repercussions. - Asymmetric Forces and Proxy Networks
Iran’s defensive posture extends beyond its borders through a network of allied militias and proxy actors across the region, often referred to as the “Axis of Resistance.” These groups—including Hezbollah in Lebanon, factions in Iraq and Syria, and the Houthis in Yemen—form a broad asymmetric front capable of imposing high costs on adversaries without direct Iranian engagement. - Intelligence, Cyber, and Psychological Strategies
Tehran continues to invest in cyber operations designed both to disrupt adversary planning and to secure its own command infrastructure. Simultaneously, it emphasizes psychological messaging intended to warn opponents that any attack would provoke a disproportionate response, while projecting resilience to its domestic audience. - Doctrine and Command Resilience
Iran has implemented doctrinal reforms to enhance command resilience, focusing on dispersed leadership, decentralized control, and what it terms “mosaic defense”—a concept designed to ensure sustained resistance even if central nodes are damaged.
Analytical Conclusion
Overall, Iran’s assessment of potential U.S.–Israeli military tactics reflects a synthesis of historical experience, ongoing conflict dynamics, and strategic foresight. Tehran anticipates the use of air power, precision strikes, covert sabotage, and multi-domain operations against its strategic assets.
At the same time, its extensive defensive preparations underscore a dual narrative: Iran seeks to portray itself as a state that is targeted yet deterrent—prepared to absorb and repel an attack, and equally ready to impose substantial costs should deterrence fail. In this calculated posture lies Tehran’s central message: any military confrontation will be neither quick nor inexpensive, and its consequences will extend far beyond Iran’s borders.
