By Shahnoor Saqib — SCN News
DUBAI — Iran is preparing for a substantially broader military response if the United States launches another large-scale attack, with senior commanders examining targets across the Middle East and potentially beyond it while Tehran simultaneously pursues a diplomatic proposal aimed at stopping a conflict that has already strained its economy and regional security.
Senior Iranian officials say military planning has intensified since President Masoud Pezeshkian returned from the United Nations General Assembly in New York, with commanders reassessing which targets could be struck, where retaliation could occur and how quickly Iran should respond. No final operational decision has been made, but the emerging approach reflects a determination in Tehran not to answer another major American attack with a limited or primarily symbolic response.
The most consequential change is the potential geographic scope. Iranian planners are considering targets beyond installations directly associated with U.S. forces, including assets connected to countries that facilitate American military operations. Officials familiar with the deliberations say possible responses could also extend outside the Middle East, significantly increasing the risks for governments providing logistical, intelligence or operational support to Washington.
Tehran has also instructed allied armed groups in Lebanon, Yemen and Iraq to prepare for possible coordinated action if another major U.S. campaign begins. Iranian officials described the potential response as extending from the Strait of Hormuz to American interests elsewhere in the region and potentially farther abroad, although the precise role of individual allied groups has not been publicly defined.
The preparations represent an attempt to change the deterrence calculation after months of conflict. Iranian strategists appear to believe that responding proportionately to another American attack would leave Washington with insufficient reason to stop, and that imposing significantly higher regional and economic costs could instead discourage a prolonged U.S. campaign.
That strategy carries substantial risks. Expanding retaliation to countries supporting U.S. operations could draw additional governments directly into the conflict, while attacks outside the Middle East would transform what remains largely a regional confrontation into a wider international security crisis. Gulf states hosting American military facilities would face particularly difficult choices if their territory or infrastructure became part of Iran's target calculations.
Iran's military planning is unfolding alongside an apparently contradictory diplomatic effort. Tehran has continued communicating with Washington through regional intermediaries and has proposed an arrangement that Iranian officials say could halt hostilities and reopen the Strait of Hormuz within seven days.
Under the Iranian proposal, Washington would end fighting, lift its blockade of Iranian ports, permit the release of at least $12 billion in frozen Iranian funds and provide relief from oil sanctions. Tehran has presented reopening Hormuz as one of the principal benefits Washington and global markets would receive if those conditions were met.
The United States and Iran remain divided over what negotiations would cover and when. Washington wants Iran's nuclear program included in talks, while Tehran insists that its immediate conditions must first be satisfied before a separate nuclear negotiation can begin. That sequencing dispute has become one of the central obstacles preventing the latest diplomatic initiative from developing into a broader settlement.
Trump has publicly rejected the latest Iranian offer as insufficient and has left open the possibility of renewed military action. The United States is simultaneously increasing its military presence in the region, including plans that could temporarily give American commanders three aircraft carrier strike groups and thousands of additional sailors and Marines.
The combination is reinforcing Tehran's belief that it must prepare for diplomacy and war simultaneously. Iranian officials privately acknowledge that chances of reaching an agreement remain low even if indirect negotiations continue, leaving military commanders planning for another confrontation while diplomats attempt to prevent one.
The Strait of Hormuz remains one of Iran's most important sources of leverage. The narrow waterway carries a substantial share of internationally traded oil and liquefied natural gas, meaning disruptions can quickly affect global energy prices. Iran has demonstrated during the conflict that threats to shipping can transmit the economic consequences of the war far beyond the countries directly involved.
Three Liberian-flagged tankers were struck by unidentified projectiles while passing through the strait this week, adding to concerns about maritime security. Responsibility for those incidents has not been established publicly, making attribution particularly important in an environment where another attack could intensify pressure for military retaliation.
Oil markets are already responding to the deteriorating outlook. Brent crude jumped more than 4% on Thursday and settled above $102 a barrel as traders reacted to the prospect of additional U.S. forces moving toward the Middle East, continuing disruption in global fuel supplies and uncertainty surrounding negotiations with Tehran.
Iran's ability to sustain another prolonged confrontation is also uncertain. Years of sanctions have weakened the economy, while the U.S. blockade has further restricted oil exports that provide critical government revenue. War damage and continued military expenditure are adding pressure at a time when Iranian authorities are also confronting domestic economic dissatisfaction.
That internal pressure is part of Tehran's strategic calculation. Iranian leaders remain concerned that another sustained military campaign combined with worsening economic conditions could revive unrest inside the country. Authorities have tightened security following earlier nationwide demonstrations and increased measures against dissent during the conflict.
The United States faces its own constraints. Months of fighting have consumed expensive missile interceptors and other military resources, while rising gasoline and diesel prices have increased the domestic economic consequences of instability in the Middle East. With midterm elections approaching, another extended military escalation could further connect foreign policy decisions to American household costs.
Neither side therefore enters another potential round of fighting without vulnerabilities. Iran faces sanctions, economic pressure and the danger of domestic instability, while Washington must consider military expenditure, energy markets and the possibility that retaliation spreads across countries hosting U.S. forces.
That mutual exposure has not yet produced compromise. Instead, Tehran appears to be developing a strategy designed to make the next phase of war more costly than the previous one while preserving a narrow diplomatic exit if Washington accepts enough of its conditions.
The result is an increasingly dangerous overlap between negotiation and military preparation. Iran is offering a seven-day route toward reopening Hormuz and halting hostilities while simultaneously preparing allied groups and considering a much wider target map. Washington, meanwhile, is maintaining negotiations while expanding its military presence and leaving renewed strikes on the table.
The next U.S. attack, if it comes, could therefore trigger a substantially different Iranian response from earlier exchanges. Tehran's emerging message is not simply that it will retaliate, but that another major American campaign could expand the geography, participants and economic consequences of the conflict well beyond the immediate U.S.-Iran battlefield.