Iran vows to bomb US bases after Israeli strikes: Is a regional war now unstoppable?

As tensions escalate across the Middle East, Iran has issued one of its sharpest warnings yet, signaling the possible expansion of its military confrontation with Israel to include direct strikes against United States military bases in the region. The threat marks a dramatic shift in Iran’s posture and raises fears of a broader regional war.

Speaking to Iran’s state-affiliated Fars News Agency on Saturday, senior Iranian military officials declared that a “decisive and extensive” response to Israel’s recent military actions was imminent—and that U.S. military assets were now part of the target envelope. “The war will expand in the coming days and will also include US bases in the region. The attackers will be the target of a decisive and extensive Iranian response,” Fars quoted an unnamed commander as saying.

The statement follows Israel’s launch of Operation Rising Lion, a wide-ranging air assault carried out on June 13 that targeted multiple Iranian military and nuclear-related facilities. In retaliation, Iran activated Operation True Promise III, firing over 150 ballistic missiles and 100 drones into Israeli territory, killing three civilians and injuring more than 90, according to Israeli media reports. Residential areas in Tel Aviv and Ramat Gan were among the sites hit.

What led Iran to escalate its threats by including US military bases as potential targets?

Until recently, Iran’s retaliatory focus had remained fixed on Israel. However, in recent statements, Tehran has increasingly attributed broader responsibility to Washington for enabling Israel’s actions. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei stated that any diplomatic efforts with the U.S., particularly around the stalled nuclear program, had become “meaningless.”

“You cannot claim to negotiate and at the same time divide work by allowing the Zionist regime to target Iran’s territory,” Baghaei told semi-official Tasnim News Agency. He asserted that Israel’s operation would not have occurred without implicit or explicit American approval, a claim that aligns with Iran’s longer-term view of the Israel-U.S. strategic alliance.

This rhetoric was bolstered earlier in the week by Iranian Defence Minister General Aziz Nasirzadeh, who warned that if conflict replaced diplomacy, “all US bases are within our reach and we will boldly target them in host countries.” His reference appeared to include locations such as Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, Al Dhafra in the UAE, and installations in Iraq and Syria—where American troops are currently deployed.

How did Israel’s Operation Rising Lion impact Iran’s defense and nuclear assets?

Launched in the early hours of June 13, Israel’s Operation Rising Lion was the largest coordinated military assault against Iran in over a decade. According to Israeli defense sources, over 200 fighter jets participated, firing more than 330 munitions at around 100 strategic locations across Iran. Key targets included nuclear enrichment facilities in Natanz and Fordow, ballistic missile production centers in Kermanshah, and facilities associated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

Though Iranian officials attempted to downplay the scale of the damage, multiple reports confirmed the deaths of IRGC personnel and nuclear scientists, and satellite imagery indicated extensive structural damage. The move drew sharp condemnation from Iran’s Supreme Leader and defense apparatus, which vowed retaliation “across all fronts.”

What weapons and strategies might Iran deploy against American targets if conflict escalates?

Iran’s military capabilities have evolved considerably since the 2020 U.S. drone strike that killed General Qassem Soleimani. The Islamic Republic now possesses a fleet of precision-guided ballistic missiles and drones capable of reaching American military installations across the Gulf and Levant.

Among its newest threats is the Qassem Bassir missile, unveiled in May, which Iranian officials claim has a 1,200 km range and high target precision. While Western analysts remain skeptical of these claims, the weapon’s introduction was widely seen as a deterrence message to the U.S. and its allies.

Iran has also relied on asymmetric warfare through regional proxies such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, militias in Iraq, and Houthi rebels in Yemen. These groups have historically targeted U.S. troops and diplomatic missions through low-intensity rocket attacks and drone strikes. However, a direct strike on U.S. bases would represent a significant escalation with unpredictable consequences.

How is the international community responding to growing threats against US assets in the region?

The global reaction to the expanding conflict has been swift. The United Nations Secretary-General issued a statement urging “maximum restraint” on all sides and called for the immediate restoration of diplomatic channels. European Union foreign ministers, meanwhile, held an emergency session to discuss potential de-escalation mechanisms and contingency plans in the event of broader war.

Several Gulf countries, including the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, are said to have placed their air defense systems on elevated alert. Intelligence assessments in the region suggest concern that Iranian retaliation may occur via missile strikes on or near U.S.-friendly installations or commercial shipping lanes in the Strait of Hormuz.

In Washington, the Biden administration is reportedly weighing a calibrated response. While reiterating support for Israel’s right to self-defense, defense officials have signaled that direct Iranian attacks on U.S. personnel or property would cross a red line. American aircraft carriers and Patriot missile batteries have already been repositioned to strategic locations across CENTCOM’s theater of operations.

What does this escalation mean for nuclear diplomacy and long-term stability?

This week’s military activity appears to have collapsed any remaining hope for progress on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Iran has formally suspended participation in any further indirect talks, stating that negotiations under fire are illegitimate. Meanwhile, U.S. officials privately concede that restoring the JCPOA framework now appears unlikely.

The longer-term implications for regional stability are profound. A direct military conflict involving Iran, Israel, and the United States could quickly draw in multiple state and non-state actors. It could also disrupt vital energy supply chains, trigger refugee outflows, and create openings for terrorist groups to exploit power vacuums.

How do analysts and institutions interpret the risks of a regional war now that US bases are threatened?

Defense analysts note that Iran’s inclusion of US bases in its retaliation plans marks a turning point in strategic risk. While the U.S. has weathered proxy attacks before, direct military strikes would likely provoke a severe counter-response, potentially triggering a regional war.

According to defense observers, Israel likely launched Operation Rising Lion with at least tacit U.S. awareness, though not necessarily operational coordination. Iran’s framing of the U.S. as co-responsible, however, creates political justification for expanding the battlefield—an outcome that Washington has long tried to avoid.

Institutions such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have raised red flags over the vulnerability of nuclear infrastructure in times of conflict. Radiation risks, sabotage of containment systems, and lack of access for inspectors all present urgent global concerns.

Why the US warning may not be enough to deter Tehran’s next move

Despite Washington’s deterrence posture, Iran appears determined to reframe the conflict as a tripartite struggle: not just with Israel, but with the American infrastructure underpinning Israel’s military strength. This may serve both internal political goals—consolidating hardliner control after the death of senior commanders—and external ones, by forcing U.S. allies in the region to reconsider hosting American forces.

If the U.S. fails to present either a credible diplomatic offramp or decisive military deterrence, Iran’s leadership may interpret ambiguity as permission. The coming 48–72 hours may determine whether the region slides into a broader war or edges back from the brink.