The Context: A History of Hostility
U.S.-Iran relations have been fraught since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, when Iran’s monarchy was overthrown, and the U.S. embassy in Tehran was seized, sparking a 444-day hostage crisis. Subsequent decades saw escalating tensions, including U.S. support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War (1980–1988), sanctions over Iran’s nuclear program, and the 2020 U.S. assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani. Iran, in turn, has been accused of sponsoring anti-American militias and terrorist groups across the Middle East.
Recent events have further strained ties. In June 2025, U.S. airstrikes targeted three Iranian nuclear sites—Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan—following Israel’s earlier attacks on Iranian facilities. President Donald Trump described the strikes as a “spectacular military success,” claiming they “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Iran’s leadership, including Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and UN Ambassador Amir Saeid Iravani, condemned the attacks as violations of international law, vowing a “proportionate response.” Iran’s parliament even voted to close the Strait of Hormuz, a critical oil shipping route, signaling economic retaliation. These developments have raised fears of Iranian counterattacks, potentially targeting U.S. interests or, in an extreme case, American soil.
How Could Iran Attack America?
A direct Iranian attack on the U.S. homeland is unlikely due to Iran’s limited conventional military reach and the vast distance between the two nations. However, several plausible methods could be employed, ranging from asymmetric warfare to indirect aggression:
1. Cyberattacks: Iran has developed sophisticated cyber capabilities, targeting critical infrastructure like power grids, financial systems, or water facilities. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security warned in June 2025 of a “heightened threat environment,” citing potential Iranian cyberattacks following U.S. strikes. Past incidents, like Iran’s alleged hacking of U.S. water systems, suggest this is a viable threat.
2. Proxy Attacks: Iran’s network of proxy groups, including Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Shia militias in Iraq, could target U.S. military bases or embassies in the Middle East. A prominent Iranian adviser, Hossein Shariatmadari, called for missile strikes on U.S. Navy ships in Bahrain and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz after the U.S. strikes. While Hezbollah has stated it won’t join the fight, other proxies might act.
3. Terrorism on U.S. Soil: Iran could inspire or orchestrate lone-wolf attacks or use operatives to target American civilians. A 2018 National Counterterrorism Center report noted that U.S. military action against Iran could trigger “Shia homegrown violent extremist” activity in the U.S., though Iran’s capacity for large-scale attacks on American soil remains limited.
4. Missile or Drone Strikes on U.S. Assets: Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal could target U.S. bases in Iraq, Syria, or Gulf states. Unconfirmed rumors in Arab media on June 13, 2025, claimed Iranian missiles hit U.S. bases in Iraq, though these reports lack verification. A direct missile strike on U.S. territory is improbable given Iran’s technological constraints.
5. Economic Disruption: By closing the Strait of Hormuz, Iran could spike global oil prices, as seen in June 2025 when Brent crude rose to $77 per barrel. This could indirectly harm the U.S. economy, though it’s not a direct attack.
Why Would Iran Attack?
Iran’s motivations for attacking the U.S. would likely stem from a need to retaliate and deter further aggression. The U.S. strikes on its nuclear facilities, seen as a humiliation, have fueled hardliner calls for action. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s regime faces domestic pressure to project strength, especially after losing key nuclear scientists and military commanders. Iran’s rhetoric—“Death to America” since 1979—suggests ideological hostility, but pragmatic leaders may prefer calculated, asymmetric responses over all-out war.
However, Iran’s leadership is aware of the U.S.’s overwhelming military superiority. Trump’s warnings of “far greater” force and “devastating retaliation” underscore the risks of escalation. Iran’s response would likely aim to inflict pain while avoiding a full-scale conflict it cannot win.
Consequences of an Attack
An Iranian attack on America, even if limited, would have profound consequences:
• U.S. Military Response: Trump has promised the “full strength and might” of the U.S. military against any Iranian attack. A significant assault could trigger massive U.S. retaliation, potentially targeting Iran’s leadership, military, or remaining nuclear sites.
• Global Economic Fallout: Closing the Strait of Hormuz could cause oil prices to surge beyond $100 per barrel, triggering inflation and recession fears. U.S. stock futures already dropped 0.6–0.7% after the June 2025 strikes.
• Regional Escalation: An attack could draw in Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other U.S. allies, risking a broader Middle East war. Iran’s missile barrages on Israel and Israel’s counterstrikes show the region is already on edge.
• Domestic U.S. Impact: Cyberattacks or terrorism could disrupt daily life, heighten security measures, and fuel anti-Iran sentiment. The Council on American-Islamic Relations warned that U.S. strikes on Iran could “drag” America into a wider conflict, polarizing communities.
• International Condemnation: UN Secretary-General António Guterres warned of a “spiral of chaos” following U.S. strikes. An Iranian attack could further isolate Tehran but also strain U.S. alliances, as some Latin American and European leaders criticized the U.S. action.
Is an Attack Likely?
While Iran’s rhetoric is belligerent, a direct attack on U.S. soil is improbable in the near term. Iran’s military doctrine emphasizes deterrence and proxy warfare, not suicidal confrontations. The regime’s focus on survival suggests it would prioritize cyberattacks or regional proxy attacks over risking annihilation. However, miscalculations—such as U.S. or Israeli overreach—could push Iran toward desperate measures.
U.S. intelligence, including a March 2025 assessment by Tulsi Gabbard, indicated Iran was not actively building a nuclear weapon, contradicting Trump’s claims. This discrepancy suggests political motives behind the U.S. strikes, which may provoke Iran without clear strategic gains. Iran’s refusal to engage diplomatically after the strikes further clouds prospects for de-escalation.
Conclusion: A Dangerous Gamble
An Iranian attack on America remains a low-probability, high-impact scenario. While Iran lacks the means for a conventional assault on U.S. territory, its cyber and proxy capabilities pose real threats. The U.S. strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites have backed Tehran into a corner, increasing the risk of retaliation, but Iran’s response is likely to be measured to avoid catastrophic U.S. reprisals.
The deeper issue is the cycle of escalation driven by mistrust and competing interests. Trump’s gamble—aligning with Israel to cripple Iran’s nuclear program—may deter Tehran but risks entangling the U.S. in another Middle East quagmire, contrary to his “America First” promises. For now, the world awaits Iran’s next move, with global markets, militaries, and diplomats on edge.
To prevent a spiral into war, both sides must prioritize diplomacy over bravado. The U.S. and Iran were in nuclear talks before Israel’s June 13 attacks derailed them. Reopening channels, perhaps through neutral mediators, could avert further conflict. Without such efforts, the specter of an Iranian attack—however unlikely—will loom larger, with consequences no one can fully predict.