Tensions between the United States and Iran are intensifying as Washington’s rapid military buildup in the Gulf fuels fears of a limited but high-impact conflict, even as fragile diplomatic efforts continue.
Officials and analysts in Tehran increasingly believe the United States is preparing not for a prolonged war or symbolic show of force, but for a short, concentrated campaign aimed at crippling Iran’s missile infrastructure and reshaping the regional balance of power following the 12-day war with Israel in June 2025.
Israel is intensifying emergency preparedness across its healthcare system, armed forces and civilian infrastructure as tensions with Iran escalate.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued a blunt warning to Tehran, saying any attack would draw an “unimaginable” response. Authorities have instructed hospitals to shift to alert mode, stockpile blood supplies and review mass-casualty protocols, while public shelters have been reopened in Tel Aviv.
Military readiness has been elevated to levels last seen during the June 2025 conflict, and facilities such as Soroka Medical Center in Beersheba are reinforcing emergency plans. Municipalities nationwide have also stepped up contingency measures, signalling that Israel is preparing for the possibility of a large-scale Iranian missile assault — even as officials describe the steps as precautionary.
Iranian commentators aligned with the establishment argue that Washington’s objectives now extend beyond nuclear compliance. In Tehran’s assessment, US pressure follows a widening arc: limiting uranium enrichment, dismantling Iran’s missile arsenal, weakening its regional alliances, and ultimately pushing the Islamic Republic into long-term structural vulnerability.
Israeli involvement reinforces these concerns. Iranian officials believe Israel views the US military presence not as leverage for negotiations but as the opening phase of a multi-week operation designed to eliminate Iran’s second-strike capability.
Despite mounting pressure, Iranian leaders show little sign of backing down.
Shift in doctrine
Iran’s military leadership has publicly signaled a doctrinal shift from defensive deterrence to offensive readiness.
Maj. Gen. Abdolrahim Mousavi, chief of staff of the Armed Forces, recently declared that Iran has “revised its defense doctrine and shifted to an offensive doctrine … [in which] our action will be swift, decisive, and unconstrained by America’s calculations.”
The Defense Council echoed that posture, stating: “the Islamic Republic does not consider itself limited to responding only after an attack; objective signs of threat are now part of its security calculus.”
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has also framed any potential confrontation in expansive terms, warning: “If you start a war, it will become a regional war.”
The statements suggest Tehran may consider widening or regionalizing any conflict at the outset, or even acting pre-emptively. Iranian analysts describe this posture as a strategy of controlled escalation — raising the costs for US forces, Gulf oil infrastructure and regional shipping lanes to deter prolonged hostilities.
However, not all voices within Iran favor confrontation. Some political figures caution against miscalculation, warning that treating war lightly could trigger uncontrollable escalation. Establishment analyst Mostafa Khoshcheshm has argued that US President Donald Trump may be seeking only a limited show of force rather than a full-scale conflict, as reported in an analysis in Middle East Institute.
Still, senior officials increasingly describe the current moment as existential, reflecting deep economic strain, domestic unrest and heightened security anxieties.
Narrow diplomatic space
Indirect talks in Geneva have produced what officials describe as “guiding principles” for a potential agreement. Yet the framework remains skeletal, and significant gaps persist between US demands and Iran’s red lines.
Tehran has signaled it may accept technical steps such as reducing enrichment levels or permitting limited access to inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency. However, Iranian officials maintain that missile capabilities and regional alliances are not open for negotiation under pressure.
IAEA Director-General Rafael Grossi has characterized the Geneva process as fragile but viable, arguing that technical verification could provide a foundation for broader diplomacy.
Yet in Tehran, skepticism toward the agency has grown. Iranian officials increasingly view inspections as politically weaponized, particularly after Israeli and US strikes on nuclear facilities in June 2025.
Risk of limited conflict
Analysts say the most likely scenario may be a short, intense conflict, arger than the June clashes but short of full-scale invasion.
Under such a scenario, Washington could claim decisive action against Iran’s military and missile infrastructure, Israel could argue deterrence has been restored, and Tehran could retaliate sufficiently to project defiance without triggering region-wide collapse.
But risks of escalation remain high.
Iranian elites have also voiced concern about what they describe as a “hybrid war” strategy — combining military strikes with covert operations, economic pressure and internal destabilization efforts.
Officials warn that if military action is paired with attempts to foment domestic unrest, Tehran’s retaliation could extend beyond the immediate theater of conflict, potentially targeting regional oil infrastructure or expanding into cyber domains.
As military deployments continue and diplomatic mistrust deepens, the crisis appears to be narrowing into what observers describe as a shrinking corridor between negotiations and confrontation.
While some diplomats believe technical agreements could still halt the slide toward war, officials on both sides increasingly prepare for a limited but consequential clash that could reshape the strategic landscape of the Middle East.
