Key Points and Summary – Even after devastating U.S. and Israeli strikes on its nuclear facilities, Iran’s ambitions have not ended, but its tactics are likely to shift toward asymmetric warfare.
-With its conventional military and nuclear infrastructure crippled, Tehran will likely lean more heavily on other means of retaliation.
-This includes activating its proxy network, as demonstrated by renewed Houthi attacks on shipping in the Red Sea this week.
-Furthermore, a new report from cybersecurity firm Morphisec on July 8 confirmed the revival of “Pay2Key,” an Iranian-backed ransomware operation now targeting Western organizations, signaling a clear pivot to cyber warfare.
Iran Won’t Stop: Here’s What They Could Do Next
With intelligence suggesting that U.S. strikes against Iran set back its nuclear program by as much as two years, and Iran admitting that the bombing “seriously damaged” its Fordow site, analysts are now questioning what comes next.
Speaking to The Times of Israel, Iran experts warned this week that not only have U.S. and Israeli strikes failed to stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but that the country remains a long-term strategic threat to the West.
Speaking to the outlet, senior Iran researcher for The Institute for National Security Studies Beni Sabti argued that the “culture of the regime” is a long-term problem for the West, and that diplomacy alone won’t be enough to make Tehran less of a threat.
“If you come only with diplomacy, and they don’t see the stick…they will think you are weak,” Sabti said.
The possible recovery of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile could still pose a long-term threat, too. Speaking to the Financial Times on June 26, two unnamed officials claimed that Iran’s highly enriched uranium stockpile is “largely intact” following the strikes. As Critical Threats notes, Iran also reportedly retains stockpiles of uranium enriched to 3-5 percent, 20 percent, and 60 percent.
What Threat Does Iran Pose?
The scale of the threat Iran now poses to the West, in the wake of recent strikes, remains a point of contention among analysts. While Iran may still consider ways of utilizing its global terror network to intimidate the United States, some experts believe that Iran’s isolation on the world stage means its resistance will be much weaker.
Menahem Merhavy, a fellow at the Harry S. Truman Institute for the Advancement of Peace at The Hebrew University, also told The Times of Israel that “Iran has no allies” and that the recent conflict proves just how little foreign support Tehran can expect.
“In the next five years, we’re going to see a much weaker, if any, resistance front,” Merhavy said.
With no allies willing to support Iran in its efforts to rebuild its nuclear infrastructure – plans that have already been confirmed by multiple Iranian officials – it remains unclear how or when Iran may attempt to push back against Washington and Jerusalem. Tehran must also consider how any attempts to intimidate the United States, Israel, or the West more generally will impact its ongoing efforts to assess damage done to its nuclear sites and begin the process of resuming its nuclear program.
Tehran already knows, after the recent B-2 bombings, that the Trump administration is serious about permanently disabling Iran’s nuclear program. Axios also reported this week that top Israeli officials believe the Trump administration would approve new strikes if Iran attempts to recover highly enriched uranium from the damaged Fordow site or begins reconstructing its enrichment facilities.
With no real allies, a weak military, and its nuclear program hanging in the balance, the scale of the threat Iran poses to the West may be smaller in terms of military action – but it could also evolve into something much more complex.
In a report published on July 8, cybersecurity firm Morphisec confirmed the revival of Pay2Key, “an Iranian-backed ransomware-as-a-service (RaaS) operation.” According to its researchers, the ransomware is targeting Western organizations in the wake of the recent conflict – a clear sign that Tehran is engaging in offensive cyber operations.
But while asymmetric attacks – ranging from cyber operations to potential acts of terrorism – remain a reality, Iran’s leadership may still view the development of nuclear weapons as the only reliable path to securing the regime’s long-term survival. That reality makes the threat of future escalation all the more serious, and likely – particularly through asymmetric means. WIth direct military confrontation off the table for now, owing largely to Iran’s weak military, the country could lean more heavily on its global network of proxy groups to assert pressure on the West and demonstrate strength.
We are already seeing signs of this strategy in action. Just this week, new reports confirmed fresh Houthi attacks on commercial ships in the Red Sea, proving Iran’s intention to continue activating regional partners to destabilize key international trade routes and test Western resolve.
About the Author:
Jack Buckby is a British author, counter-extremism researcher, and journalist based in New York. Reporting on the U.K., Europe, and the U.S., he works to analyze and understand left-wing and right-wing radicalization, and reports on Western governments’ approaches to the pressing issues of today. His books and research papers explore these themes and propose pragmatic solutions to our increasingly polarized society. His latest book is The Truth Teller: RFK Jr. and the Case for a Post-Partisan Presidency.
The Best Tanks on Earth
AbramsX: The Tank the US Army Wants
Jim
July 9, 2025 at 11:21 am
Iran will respond when attacked.
During the midst of negotiations with a scheduled round set for the following Sunday, Israel engaged in an unprovoked attack the previous Thursday/Friday before the scheduled session… scuttling the negotiations.
There was nothing “imminent” about Iran’s nuclear program which justified a preemptive attack.
Claims have been made Iran was “days” away from a A-bomb revealed by Sen. John Kennedy (R-La) after a senatorial briefing… but no sourcing, it likely was supplied by Israel’s Mossad. Talk about self-serving intelligence… more like self-serving lies.
The issue isn’t whether Iran wants to attack Israel, but rather that Netanyahu wants to attack Iran.
The point is simple, the best evidence currently available is that Netanyahu wants the U. S. to do the heavy lifting and that his attack on Iran was designed to drag the U. S. into a regime change war.
Trump managed to avoid getting dragged into the war.
But don’t think Netanyahu won’t try again.
Netanyahu wants to use the United States… that’s always been his modus operandi and he still wants to use U. S. military power for a simple reason: Israel’s military can’t cause regime change or destroy Iran on its own.
You want to stop a possible war in the Middle East vis-a-vis Iran and Israel?
Freeze out Bibi Netanyahu… he is the biggest threat to peace in the Middle East, not Iran.
Bibi Netanyahu is not a friend of the United States, quite the contrary, he wants to use the United States the same way a guy will buddy up with another guy because that guy has come into a bunch of money.
Of course, he poses as a friend, but it’s always about the money and sponging as much off the guy as he can.
Netanyahu is the same regarding the United States.
The biggest strategic threat to the United States in the Middle East?
Bibi Netanyahu, bar none.
Jim
July 9, 2025 at 12:01 pm
Addendum:
Iran made a strategic mistake in my opinion by enriching Uranium to 60% way beyond the needs of a civilian nuclear program, raising Iran to a “nuclear threshold state.”
This was done to gain leverage for negotiations to get sanctions relief. (I’m sympathetic to their desire to get sanctions relief, but going to 60% enrichment gave Netanyahu his best reason or excuse to attack Iran.)
Iran being a nuclear threshold state going into the future will be the “off the shelf” standing reason for Israel (and the United States??) to attack Iran, again.
But after Israel’s surprise attack on Iran and Iran’s response which inflicted considerable & significant damage across Israel, Iran sadly, for their own sake, likely won’t let go of the 60% enriched Uranium or the centrifuges to enrich up to the 90% plus enrichment needed to make nuclear weapons.
This is a total strategic mistake in my opinion.
Iran needs to realize this posture is problematic and detrimental to peace in their neighborhood.
But at the same time the United States needs to understand Iran will not give up their nuclear enrichment (civilian enrichment to 3.75%) and go to zero enrichment and total dismantlement as they view it as essential to their sovereignty (Netanyahu will never accept civilian enrichment).
This is the gravamen or crux of the issue regarding Iran, their nuclear program, and peace in the Middle East.