Iran's Strategic Dilemma Amid Intensifying Israeli Strikes

As of June 18, 2025, Iran faces an acute strategic dilemma as it navigates the intensifying Israeli air campaign targeting its nuclear facilities, military and energy infrastructure, and leadership, while grappling with the growing possibility of direct U.S. military involvement.

For years, Iran meticulously built a network of proxy groups—Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, and Iraqi militias—as a strategic shield to protect its nuclear facilities and military infrastructure from Israeli attacks. This asymmetric warfare strategy allowed Tehran to project power, deter aggression, and maintain plausible deniability while avoiding direct confrontation with Israel or the United States. However, since October 7, 2023, this proxy network has been systematically dismantled by relentless Israeli military operations, leaving Iran exposed and forced into a direct confrontation with Israel.

As of June 18, 2025, the intensifying Israeli air campaign targeting Iran’s nuclear sites, military and energy infrastructure, and leadership has pushed Tehran into a critical strategic dilemma: it must respond to maintain both domestic and regional credibility but risks provoking a devastating U.S. military response that could jeopardize the regime’s survival.

The collapse of Iran’s proxy shield has fundamentally altered the conflict dynamics, thrusting Tehran into a direct confrontation with Israel and raising the specter of U.S. involvement. With its nuclear program under threat, military capabilities degraded, and internal stability at risk, Iran must navigate a precarious balance: retaliate to preserve credibility or exercise restraint to avoid a broader war that could threaten the regime’s survival. The loss of its proxy buffer, coupled with the growing U.S. military presence, leaves Iran vulnerable, with limited room to maneuver as the conflict escalates.

Impact of IDF Strikes on Iran’s Military Capabilities: The IDF’s sustained air campaign has severely degraded Iran’s military infrastructure. Since June 2023, Israeli strikes have targeted nuclear facilities like Natanz, missile bases, and key personnel, including senior commanders and nuclear scientists. The sharp decline in the size of Iranian missile barrages against Israel is a direct result of the IDF’s destruction of missile launch platforms and storage facilities, significantly reducing Iran’s ability to project force through conventional means.

Additionally, on June 17, 2025, the IDF expanded its campaign to strike a Basij headquarters, a paramilitary affiliate of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) critical for internal security, propaganda, and civil defense. This attack further undermines Iran’s ability to maintain domestic stability and contain potential unrest.

The IDF’s targeting of energy infrastructure has compounded Iran’s challenges, leading to widespread energy shortages. These disruptions risk triggering internal unrest, as public frustration over power outages and economic hardship could destabilize the regime. An article published on June 15, 2025, by an outlet controlled by the Iranian Armed Forces General Staff called for deploying Basij forces nationwide to conduct patrols and stop-and-search operations to counter internal dissent and alleged Israeli-backed subversive activities. This reflects Tehran’s growing concern about regime stability as external pressures mount. The regime’s focus on deploying the Basij for internal security also suggests a prioritization of domestic stability over external escalation, indicating that Tehran may seek to absorb Israeli strikes in the short term while rebuilding its capabilities.

Deploying the Basij for internal security

Erosion of Iran’s Proxy Network: Iran has historically relied on proxy groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis to wage asymmetric warfare against Israel and the U.S., allowing Tehran to project power while maintaining plausible deniability. However, since October 7, 2023, this network has undergone significant weakening. Hezbollah, Iran’s most potent proxy, has suffered devastating losses in Lebanon, with senior commanders killed and its missile and rocket stockpiles depleted by Israeli strikes on supply lines and infrastructure. Hamas has been similarly degraded in Gaza, with its military capabilities dismantled, limiting its ability to conduct coordinated attacks. The Houthis, while still active in disrupting Red Sea shipping, face intensified U.S. and coalition pressure, including naval interdictions and airstrikes. Iranian-backed militias in Iraq and Syria, such as Kataib Hezbollah and Harakat Hezbollah al-Nujaba, have also been targeted, further eroding Iran’s regional influence.

This degradation has left Iran in a precarious strategic position. Without robust proxies to absorb retaliation or conduct offensive operations, Tehran must rely more heavily on its own asymmetric capabilities, such as ballistic missiles, drones, or cyberattacks. However, these carry a higher risk of direct confrontation with the U.S., particularly as Iran’s ability to wage proxy warfare has been curtailed.

Looming U.S. Military Involvement: The prospect of U.S. involvement adds a critical dimension to Iran’s dilemma. U.S. intelligence indicates that Iran has prepared missiles and equipment to strike American bases in Iraq and other unspecified Arab countries if the U.S. joins Israel’s air campaign. Iranian officials have signaled that such attacks would prioritize U.S. bases in Iraq, with potential escalation to other regional targets. Additionally, the Houthis are likely to resume attacks on international shipping in the Red Sea, and Iran could deploy mines in the Strait of Hormuz to disrupt global energy supplies, as warned by the late Iranian General Mohammad Bagheri, Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces from 2016 to 2025, before the Israeli campaign began. He was killed along with other senior Iranian military officers by Israel on June 13, 2025.

On June 17, 2025, Iranian-backed Iraqi militias, including Kataib Hezbollah, Kataib Sayyid al Shuhada, Harakat Hezbollah al Nujaba, and Ansar Allah al Awfia, announced a “joint plan” to target U.S. forces if the U.S. enters the conflict. Despite this rhetoric, Iran has so far refrained from direct attacks on American bases, likely due to its strategic calculation that such actions would provoke a robust U.S. military response, potentially destabilizing the regime. This restraint aligns with Iran’s historical caution in avoiding direct confrontations with the U.S., preferring proxy warfare to minimize risk.

However, U.S. President Donald Trump’s call for Iran’s “unconditional surrender” and the deployment of additional U.S. military assets to the Middle East to “enhance defensive posture” signal a heightened risk of escalation. The U.S. has already provided defensive support to Israel, including missile interception via warships and THAAD systems, but has publicly denied involvement in Israel’s offensive strikes.

In a rare and forceful statement, senior clerics of the Hawza Ilmiyya in Najaf — one of the highest authorities in Shia Islam — condemned what they described as a direct threat made by U.S. President Donald Trump against Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

The statement reaffirmed Khamenei’s unique dual role as both the Supreme Leader of Iran and the highest living religious authority (marjaʿ al-taqlid) for millions of Shia Muslims worldwide, including Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, Bahrain, and Pakistan.

Stark warning to the United States and its regional allies

The Najaf clerics issued (June 17) a stark warning to the United States and its regional allies:

“Any aggression against the sacred position of the marjaʿiyya  (Iran's leader) will be considered a declaration of war on the entire Islamic nation... It will ignite a fire that cannot be extinguished....An attack on such a figure, they warned, would cross all red lines — religious, ethical, and geopolitical — and lead to unpredictable consequences far beyond Iran.

.

Iran's Strategic Dilemma: Iran faces a multifaceted dilemma. The IDF’s relentless strikes have weakened its military and nuclear capabilities, while energy shortages and the targeting of the IRGC Basij threaten internal stability. The erosion of its proxy network limits Iran’s ability to respond indirectly, forcing it to rely on riskier direct actions. Domestically, the regime faces pressure from hardliners (clerics and top IRGC commanders) to retaliate against Israel (and possibly the U.S.) to maintain credibility, particularly after significant losses. Regionally, Iran must maintain its leadership of what remains of the Axis of Resistance.

However, any escalation risks drawing the U.S. into the conflict, a scenario Iran seeks to avoid due to the potential for a decisive American response to threaten regime survival. Tehran’s fear of escalation is compounded by its weakened position: the loss of proxy capabilities, degraded military infrastructure, and internal vulnerabilities make it ill-equipped for a prolonged conflict with both Israel and the U.S. However, refraining from responding to Israeli strikes could erode the regime’s legitimacy and its foundational anti-Israel ideology, embolden Israeli actions, and diminish Iran’s influence across the region.

The broader regional context adds complexity. Iran’s weakened proxies and strained relations with some Arab states limit its ability to rally regional support. Meanwhile, the U.S.’s defensive posture and Trump’s unpredictable rhetoric create uncertainty, as Iran cannot fully predict the extent of U.S. involvement.

Conclusion: Iran’s strategic dilemma is acute: it must respond to Israel’s devastating air campaign to maintain domestic and regional credibility but risks triggering a broader conflict with the U.S. that could imperil the regime. The erosion of its proxy network, combined with the IDF’s destruction of military and energy infrastructure, has left Iran vulnerable, forcing it to rely on riskier direct actions.

Internal unrest, driven by energy shortages and economic hardship, further complicates Tehran’s calculus. As U.S. military involvement looms closer, Iran’s ability to balance restraint with retaliation will determine whether the conflict escalates into a regional war or remains a contained, albeit destructive, confrontation with Israel. The regime’s survival hinges on navigating this precarious balance, but its diminished capabilities and mounting pressures leave little room for error.