Iran Warns of ‘Sustained’ Retaliation Against US Bases and Allies if New Attack Is Launched
By Naeema Saleem — SCN News
DUBAI/TEHRAN, Sept. 20 — Iran warned the United States and its regional allies on Sunday against launching a major new attack, saying it had received information that such an operation was being prepared and threatening sustained retaliation against American bases and interests across the Middle East. Tehran offered no public evidence for its assertion of an impending U.S. operation, while the Pentagon did not immediately comment on the Iranian claim.
Iran’s Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters, the military command responsible for coordinating the country’s armed forces, said any renewed attack would be met with strikes against U.S. positions and interests throughout the region. It also warned that countries assisting Washington in military action would be considered participants in the conflict, broadening Tehran’s threat beyond American forces themselves.
The Iranian military said its warning was based on information indicating Washington was preparing renewed action with support from some regional states. It did not explain the source of that intelligence, identify which countries it believed were involved or provide details of the alleged operation. The claim therefore remains an Iranian assertion rather than independently established evidence that Washington has decided to launch a major new offensive.
The warning nevertheless comes as the United States itself signals concern about the possibility of a sudden regional escalation. The State Department issued a security alert on Saturday urging Americans across the Middle East to exercise heightened vigilance and prepare for possible flight cancellations, airspace closures and other travel disruptions because of what it described as the potential for unforeseen escalation.
The developments come nearly seven months into the U.S.-Iran war, which began after U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran in late February and has since expanded into a wider confrontation involving maritime routes, energy infrastructure and armed groups across the region. Neither Washington nor Tehran has accepted terms sufficient to produce a durable settlement, despite an interim agreement reached in June that subsequently broke down amid disputes over implementation.
The immediate regional environment has become more volatile following renewed fighting between Saudi Arabia and Yemen’s Iran-aligned Houthis. The Houthis said they launched missiles and drones against Riyadh and the Saudi Red Sea oil hub of Yanbu on Saturday. Flames and a large plume of black smoke were recorded near King Khalid International Airport after explosions were heard around the Saudi capital, although Saudi authorities have not established publicly that the visible fire was caused by a successful Houthi strike.
Saudi-led forces have also been fighting to halt Houthi advances inside Yemen. The group’s recent territorial gains along the Red Sea coast have increased concern over Bab al-Mandab, the narrow waterway connecting the Red Sea with the Gulf of Aden and one of the world’s most important shipping routes. Houthi control of strategic coastal positions gives the movement greater ability to threaten vessels using the passage.
That has created a potentially more serious energy-security problem because the crisis is unfolding simultaneously at the Strait of Hormuz. Iran has severely restricted shipping through Hormuz during its confrontation with the United States, while Washington has imposed a naval blockade affecting Iranian ports and oil exports. Renewed insecurity around Bab al-Mandab threatens an alternative Red Sea route at the same time that normal Gulf exports through Hormuz have already been sharply disrupted.
The impact is extending beyond the battlefield. Gulf stock markets fell on Sunday following the Houthi attacks claimed against Saudi Arabia, while global energy markets remain exposed to disruption across both major maritime chokepoints. Saudi Arabia has sought international assistance as it confronts the renewed Houthi threat, adding another layer to Tehran’s warning that regional states helping U.S. military operations could be treated as parties to the wider conflict.
Iran’s warning does not mean diplomacy has stopped. Tehran has separately transmitted conditions for renewed negotiations to Washington through Qatari mediation. Iranian security official Mohsen Rezaei said the demands include an end to the war across multiple fronts, an end to the U.S. naval blockade of Iranian ports and the release of frozen Iranian assets. Washington had not publicly accepted those conditions as of Sunday.
Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf also said Sunday that Tehran would continue combining military pressure with negotiations. Iran reiterated that it would not fully reopen the Strait of Hormuz unless Washington meets the terms of the June agreement as Tehran interprets them.
The June arrangement had provided a temporary diplomatic opening, but it unraveled in July over competing accusations about compliance. Fighting subsequently intensified again, including fresh U.S. strikes on Iranian targets and Iranian attacks against American interests in the region.
The renewed confrontation is now colliding with one of the year’s largest diplomatic gatherings. Presidents, prime ministers and foreign ministers are arriving in New York for the 81st United Nations General Assembly, where the widening Middle East conflict is expected to dominate diplomacy alongside Russia’s war in Ukraine.
Tehran’s latest warning therefore carries two messages: Iran says it is prepared to negotiate, but it is simultaneously threatening a wider military response if it believes the United States is preparing another major attack.
What remains unverified is equally important. Iran has not publicly produced evidence demonstrating that Washington has decided to launch the new offensive Tehran says it expects. The Pentagon had not responded to Reuters’ request for comment on that allegation. The confirmed development is Iran’s warning and threat of retaliation — not the existence of an imminent U.S. attack.