The Unthinkable: What Happens If The US Bombs Iran?

Monserrat Green 21 Jun 2025

**The mere phrase "US bombing Iran" conjures images of profound geopolitical upheaval, igniting a spectrum of concerns from regional instability to global economic shocks. As the United States has, at various junctures, weighed the option of heading back into a war in the Middle East, understanding the multifaceted implications of such an attack becomes not just an academic exercise, but a critical imperative for anyone seeking to grasp the complexities of international relations and the potential human cost of conflict.** This article delves deep into the potential scenarios, drawing on expert analysis and historical context to illuminate what could unfold if military action were taken against Iran. The discussion around a potential military confrontation between the US and Iran is not new, yet it remains a perpetually relevant and deeply unsettling topic. With Iran's nuclear program often at the heart of tensions, and a history of escalating rhetoric from both sides, the possibility of a kinetic strike, particularly against sensitive nuclear facilities, has always loomed. This exploration aims to provide a comprehensive, nuanced perspective on the risks, reactions, and long-term repercussions that such a drastic measure could entail. **Table of Contents:** * [The Looming Shadow of Conflict: Why "US Bombing Iran" Remains a Concern](#the-looming-shadow-of-conflict-why-us-bombing-iran-remains-a-concern) * [Historical Tensions and Nuclear Ambitions](#historical-tensions-and-nuclear-ambitions) * [The Rhetoric of Threat: Presidential Warnings](#the-rhetoric-of-threat-presidential-warnings) * [Potential Targets and Military Capabilities](#potential-targets-and-military-capabilities) * [Iran's Nuclear Infrastructure: Fordow and Beyond](#irans-nuclear-infrastructure-fordow-and-beyond) * [The Depth of the Challenge: Penetrating Fortifications](#the-depth-of-the-challenge-penetrating-fortifications) * [The Geopolitical Chessboard: Regional and International Implications](#the-geopolitical-chessboard-regional-and-international-implications) * [Iran's Anticipated Response: Retaliation and Escalation](#irans-anticipated-response-retaliation-and-escalation) * [Expert Perspectives: Unpacking the Consequences](#expert-perspectives-unpacking-the-consequences) * [The Human Cost: Beyond Military Strategy](#the-human-cost-beyond-military-strategy) * [Diplomatic Pathways vs. Military Action: A Fork in the Road](#diplomatic-pathways-vs-military-action-a-fork-in-the-road) * [The Role of Allies: Diego Garcia and Beyond](#the-role-of-allies-diego-garcia-and-beyond) * [Conclusion](#conclusion) --- ## The Looming Shadow of Conflict: Why "US Bombing Iran" Remains a Concern The specter of the **US bombing Iran** has been a recurring theme in global security discussions for decades. This persistent concern stems from a complex interplay of historical grievances, strategic interests, and, most prominently, Iran's nuclear program. While direct military confrontation has thus far been avoided, the underlying tensions and the potential for miscalculation mean that the scenario of a kinetic strike remains a live, albeit deeply worrying, possibility. The question is not merely *if* such an event could occur, but *how* it might play out and what the ripple effects would be across the globe. ### Historical Tensions and Nuclear Ambitions The relationship between the United States and Iran has been fraught with tension since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Decades of sanctions, proxy conflicts, and accusations of state-sponsored terrorism have solidified a deep-seated mistrust. At the core of recent escalations, however, lies Iran's nuclear program. Despite Iran's insistence on its peaceful nature, Western powers, particularly the US and Israel, have long suspected it harbors ambitions for nuclear weapons. This suspicion has driven international efforts to contain and dismantle the program, leading to various diplomatic initiatives, economic sanctions, and, crucially, discussions of military options. Israel's past actions, such as its attack on Iran aimed at destroying its nuclear program, have further fueled speculation about whether the US might eventually follow suit or join in a larger conflict. The protracted talks between the U.S. and Iran, centered around Iran’s nuclear program, underscore the diplomatic struggle to resolve these deep-seated issues without resorting to force. ### The Rhetoric of Threat: Presidential Warnings The language used by leaders on both sides has often been confrontational, contributing to the perceived immediacy of a potential conflict. Notably, former President Donald Trump issued significant threats against Iran, warning of "bombing the likes of which they have never seen before" if the Islamic Republic did not reach a new deal on its nuclear program. This aggressive posture was not just rhetorical; it was accompanied by tangible military deployments. The United States deployed more forces to the Middle East, including a second U.S. aircraft carrier, after President Trump threatened to bomb Iran. This posture shift came as Trump threatened to bomb Iran if the country did not strike a deal over its nuclear weapons capabilities, further emphasizing the seriousness of the US stance. Such explicit warnings from the highest levels of government naturally elevate concerns about the potential for the **US bombing Iran**. ## Potential Targets and Military Capabilities If the United States were to consider a military strike, the primary objectives would likely revolve around crippling Iran's nuclear capabilities and degrading its military infrastructure. The nature of these targets, particularly the deeply buried nuclear facilities, presents significant challenges and dictates the type of military assets that would be employed. ### Iran's Nuclear Infrastructure: Fordow and Beyond One of Iran's most secure nuclear facilities, Fordow, has frequently been cited as a potential target. Located deep within a mountain near Qom, Fordow is an underground uranium enrichment facility designed to withstand conventional aerial bombardment. President Trump, for instance, was reportedly briefed on both the risks and benefits of bombing Fordow. This particular site is critical because it houses centrifuges that enrich uranium, a key component for both nuclear energy and, potentially, nuclear weapons. Beyond Fordow, Iran possesses other nuclear sites, research facilities, and military installations that could be considered targets in a broader campaign to dismantle its nuclear program or to retaliate for perceived provocations. ### The Depth of the Challenge: Penetrating Fortifications The challenge of targeting facilities like Fordow lies in their extreme fortification. Reports suggest that these sites are buried hundreds of feet underground. To effectively neutralize such targets, the US would need to deploy specialized ordnance, such as the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP). This formidable bunker-buster bomb is designed to penetrate 200 feet deep to where Iran's centrifuges are believed stored, highlighting the extreme measures required for such an operation. The use of such advanced weaponry underscores the destructive potential and the high stakes involved in any decision to proceed with the **US bombing Iran**. ## The Geopolitical Chessboard: Regional and International Implications A military strike by the **US bombing Iran** would not occur in a vacuum; its repercussions would reverberate across the Middle East and beyond, fundamentally altering the geopolitical landscape. The region is already a volatile mix of alliances, rivalries, and ongoing conflicts, and a new major war would undoubtedly ignite a more dangerous and unpredictable phase. One immediate consequence would be the potential for regional destabilization. Neighboring countries, many of whom host US military bases or have their own complex relationships with Iran, would find themselves on the front lines of an escalating conflict. The flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global chokepoint, could be severely disrupted, leading to massive spikes in energy prices and a significant blow to the global economy. This economic fallout would not be limited to oil; global trade routes and financial markets would also experience significant turmoil. Internationally, such an attack would likely draw strong condemnation from many nations, even those who share concerns about Iran's nuclear program. It could undermine international non-proliferation efforts by demonstrating that military force, rather than diplomacy, is the ultimate arbiter of nuclear disputes. Furthermore, it could push Iran closer to other adversarial powers, potentially forming new alliances that further complicate global security dynamics. The very act of the US bombing Iran could be seen as an act of aggression, leading to a significant erosion of American soft power and diplomatic influence. ## Iran's Anticipated Response: Retaliation and Escalation One of the most critical considerations in any scenario involving the **US bombing Iran** is the inevitable Iranian response. Iran has repeatedly warned of severe retaliation, and its military capabilities, while not matching those of the US, are substantial enough to inflict significant damage and create widespread chaos in the region. Iran's defense minister has explicitly stated that his country would target US military bases in the region if conflict breaks out with the United States. This threat is not idle; Iran has prepared missiles and other military equipment for strikes on U.S. bases in the Middle East, according to American intelligence. These include ballistic and cruise missiles capable of reaching various US installations, as well as proxy forces and asymmetric warfare tactics. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has also issued stern warnings, stating that "any military incursion by the United States will undoubtedly" be met with a decisive response. Iran warns of retaliation if the US joins any conflict, particularly if the United States were to join Israel’s war against the country. Beyond direct military strikes, Iran could employ a range of retaliatory measures: * **Cyber Attacks:** Iran has a sophisticated cyber warfare capability and could launch attacks against critical infrastructure in the US or its allies, including financial systems, power grids, or military networks. The June 18 attack targeted Nobitex, one of Iran's digital currency exchanges, which might indicate a tit-for-tat escalation in the cyber domain if a kinetic strike were to occur. * **Proxy Warfare:** Iran supports various proxy groups across the Middle East, including Hezbollah in Lebanon, Houthi rebels in Yemen, and various Shiite militias in Iraq and Syria. These groups could be activated to launch attacks against US interests, personnel, and allies in the region, creating multiple fronts of conflict without direct Iranian state involvement. * **Disruption of Shipping:** Iran could attempt to close or disrupt shipping lanes in the Strait of Hormuz, through which a significant portion of the world's oil supply passes. This would have immediate and severe global economic consequences. * **Terrorist Attacks:** While less likely to be directly sanctioned by the state, the chaotic environment created by a war could embolden extremist groups or individuals sympathetic to Iran to carry out attacks against US or allied targets globally. The potential for such a wide-ranging and unpredictable response means that any decision to initiate the **US bombing Iran** would inevitably kick off a more dangerous and unpredictable phase in the war, one whose scope and duration would be exceedingly difficult to control. ## Expert Perspectives: Unpacking the Consequences Understanding the full ramifications of the **US bombing Iran** requires insights from those who have dedicated their careers to studying international security and conflict. Eight experts on what happens if the United States bombs Iran have offered various perspectives, highlighting the complexity and the potential for unintended consequences. Many experts agree that while a limited strike might achieve specific tactical goals, such as destroying a nuclear facility, it is highly unlikely to achieve strategic objectives like regime change or a complete cessation of Iran's nuclear program. Instead, it could galvanize the Iranian populace against the US, strengthen hardliners within the regime, and accelerate Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons as a deterrent against future attacks. Daniel C. Ambassador to Israel, and Steven N. Simon, a veteran of national security, have notably warned that "subcontracting the Fordow job would put the United States in Iran’s sights," suggesting that even indirect involvement could lead to direct confrontation. Some experts predict a prolonged conflict, not a quick surgical strike. They argue that Iran's deep strategic patience and asymmetric warfare capabilities mean that it would not simply capitulate. Instead, it would likely engage in a protracted campaign of retaliation, drawing the US into a costly and draining engagement. The economic burden, the human toll, and the diplomatic isolation could far outweigh any perceived benefits of the initial strike. The consensus among many analysts is that while the US possesses overwhelming military superiority, winning a war in the traditional sense against Iran, especially one that could involve killing the country’s supreme leader or destroying underground facilities, would be an incredibly complex and costly endeavor with no clear exit strategy. ## The Human Cost: Beyond Military Strategy While strategic discussions often focus on military objectives and geopolitical outcomes, it is crucial not to lose sight of the profound human cost that would inevitably accompany the **US bombing Iran**. A military conflict, regardless of its scale, would lead to immense suffering, both for the direct combatants and, more tragically, for innocent civilians. * **Civilian Casualties:** Air strikes, even precision ones, carry an inherent risk of civilian casualties. In densely populated areas, or near infrastructure that civilians rely on, the collateral damage could be significant. This would not only lead to immediate loss of life and injury but also long-term trauma, displacement, and a humanitarian crisis. * **Displacement and Refugees:** A war would force millions from their homes, creating a massive refugee crisis that would strain regional and international resources. Neighboring countries, already struggling with existing refugee populations, would be overwhelmed. * **Infrastructure Destruction:** Beyond military targets, essential infrastructure like power plants, water treatment facilities, and transportation networks could be damaged or destroyed, crippling daily life and hindering humanitarian aid efforts. * **Economic Devastation:** The Iranian economy, already reeling from sanctions, would be shattered, leading to widespread poverty, unemployment, and food insecurity. This would exacerbate existing social tensions and potentially lead to internal instability. * **Regional Instability and Sectarian Violence:** A conflict between the US and Iran could inflame existing sectarian divisions within the Middle East, leading to an increase in violence, proxy wars, and the rise of extremist groups. This would destabilize the entire region for decades to come, with unpredictable consequences for global security. The human cost extends beyond the immediate aftermath of a bombing campaign. The long-term psychological impact on survivors, the breakdown of social structures, and the enduring legacy of resentment would cast a long shadow over generations. ## Diplomatic Pathways vs. Military Action: A Fork in the Road The persistent threat of the **US bombing Iran** highlights a fundamental dilemma in international relations: whether to pursue diplomatic solutions or resort to military force to achieve strategic objectives. While military action offers the allure of a swift, decisive blow, history has repeatedly shown that such actions often lead to unforeseen and protracted consequences. The ongoing negotiations surrounding Iran's nuclear program, despite their difficulties, represent the diplomatic pathway. These talks aim to achieve a verifiable agreement that limits Iran's nuclear capabilities in exchange for sanctions relief, thereby preventing the need for military intervention. President Donald Trump, while issuing threats of bombing, also linked them to the condition of Iran reaching a new deal on its nuclear program, suggesting that diplomacy, however fraught, remained an option. The fact that the attack on Iran came amid protracted talks between the U.S. and Iran centered around Iran’s nuclear program underscores the tension between these two approaches. However, the perceived failures or limitations of diplomacy often lead to increased calls for military action. Proponents of military force argue that it is the only way to definitively halt Iran's nuclear ambitions or to deter its regional actions. Yet, as many experts and historical precedents suggest, military strikes often fail to achieve their stated goals and instead lead to unintended escalation, prolonged conflict, and a more entrenched adversary. The phrase, "And I think the United States knows what is good for the United States," often used in the context of national interest, sometimes masks the complex calculation of whether military intervention truly serves that interest in the long run. The decision to pursue military action is a profound one, with consequences that ripple far beyond the immediate battlefield, making the diplomatic path, however challenging, often the more prudent choice. ## The Role of Allies: Diego Garcia and Beyond Any significant military operation involving the **US bombing Iran** would not be a unilateral endeavor, at least not in terms of logistical support and international cooperation. The involvement of allies, particularly the United Kingdom, would be a crucial factor, highlighting the interconnectedness of global defense strategies. It has emerged that the UK government would have to sign off on the US use of its Diego Garcia base in any bombing raid on Iran. Diego Garcia, a British Indian Ocean Territory, hosts a strategically vital US military base that has been instrumental in past US operations in the Middle East. The requirement for UK approval underscores the international legal and political complexities of launching military action from allied territory. Ministers would undoubtedly gather to discuss a range of scenarios amid further escalations, emphasizing the need for diplomatic coordination and consensus among key partners before any military action is undertaken. Beyond the UK, other allies in the region, such as Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, would also play a critical role, whether through intelligence sharing, logistical support, or simply by bracing for the inevitable fallout. The potential for the US to join Israel’s war against the country, as referenced in the context of Iran preparing missiles for strikes on U.S. bases, further highlights the potential for a broader coalition or at least coordinated action. The air force is seen during various drills and deployments, signifying readiness, but the political will and legal approvals from allies are equally, if not more, important in enabling such large-scale operations. The decision to undertake the **US bombing Iran** would therefore be a multinational consideration, with significant implications for alliances and international relations. ## Conclusion The prospect of the **US bombing Iran** is fraught with immense peril, representing a critical juncture in global security. As we have explored, the potential consequences extend far beyond immediate military objectives, encompassing profound geopolitical shifts, devastating human costs, and unpredictable regional escalation. From the specific challenges of targeting fortified nuclear sites like Fordow to the certainty of Iranian retaliation against US bases and interests, every facet of such a conflict points towards a protracted and deeply destabilizing outcome. Experts universally warn of the unpredictable phase of war it would usher in, impacting not only the Middle East but the global economy and international relations. While the rhetoric of threat has been a recurring feature of US-Iran relations, the diplomatic path, however challenging, remains the most viable avenue for de-escalation and long-term stability. The decision to resort to military force would be a choice with far-reaching and irreversible consequences, demanding careful consideration of the full spectrum of risks against any perceived benefits. We invite you to share your thoughts in the comments below: What do you believe are the most critical factors to consider when discussing the potential for the US bombing Iran? How do you think the international community should best approach the ongoing tensions? Your insights contribute to a richer understanding of these complex issues. For more in-depth analysis on Middle Eastern geopolitics and international security, explore our other articles on the topic.