The ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran has fundamentally altered the Middle Eastern security landscape, raising critical questions about Iran’s remaining military capabilities and potential to strike US military installations across the region. Following Israel’s devastating “Operation Rising Lion” attacks on June 13, 2025, which killed over 78 people including top Iranian military commanders and nuclear scientists, the Islamic Republic faces unprecedented challenges to its military infrastructure. Despite these setbacks, Iran maintains significant capabilities to threaten US military assets, potentially triggering a broader regional conflict with far-reaching global consequences.
Understanding Iran’s current military posture requires examining its remaining strike capabilities, the protective measures employed by US forces, and the complex web of international relationships that could either escalate or contain any potential conflict.
Iran’s Remaining Military Capabilities After Israeli Strikes
Surviving Missile Arsenal and Launch Infrastructure
Despite the extensive damage inflicted by Israeli strikes, Iran retains substantial portions of its ballistic missile capabilities. The country’s missile program, built over decades of development, is distributed across multiple hardened sites throughout Iranian territory. Intelligence assessments suggest Iran possesses over 3,000 missiles of various ranges, with many stored in underground facilities designed to survive conventional attacks.
The Israeli strikes successfully targeted several key missile storage facilities and launch sites, particularly in western Iran where air defense systems were also destroyed. However, Iran’s missile infrastructure was deliberately designed with redundancy in mind, utilizing mobile transporter-erector-launchers (TELs) that can be rapidly dispersed to avoid detection and targeting. These mobile systems allow Iran to maintain launch readiness even after significant infrastructure damage.
Iranian Defense Minister Aziz Nasirzadeh’s recent statements confirm that all US bases in the Middle East remain within range of Iranian missiles. The country’s medium-range ballistic missiles, including the Fateh-110 with a 300-kilometer range and the Qiam-1 capable of reaching 800 kilometers, can effectively target US installations across the Gulf region. More advanced systems like the Shahab-3 and Sejjil-2 provide Iran with strike capabilities extending well beyond 1,000 kilometers.
Revolutionary Guard Corps Operational Status
The elimination of key IRGC leadership, including commander Hossein Salami and Aerospace Force commander Amir Ali Hajizadeh, has created significant command and control challenges for Iran’s military. The decapitation of experienced commanders who previously managed crisis situations represents a substantial blow to Iran’s operational effectiveness. However, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has already appointed successors to most eliminated positions, demonstrating the regime’s institutional resilience.
The IRGC, which controls Iran’s most advanced military capabilities including ballistic missiles and proxy networks, maintains approximately 190,000 personnel across its various branches. While leadership losses create temporary disruption, the organization’s structure allows for rapid command succession. The key question remains whether new commanders possess the institutional knowledge and communication channels necessary to coordinate complex multi-domain operations against US targets.
Drone and Asymmetric Warfare Capabilities
Iran’s drone program represents one of its most resilient military assets, with production facilities distributed across the country and largely unaffected by Israeli strikes. The country recently unveiled advanced unmanned systems including the Homa electronic warfare drone and Shahin-1 precision attack platform. These systems provide Iran with cost-effective precision strike capabilities that can overwhelm traditional air defense systems through saturation attacks.
The effectiveness of Iranian drones was demonstrated in the immediate aftermath of Israeli strikes, when Iran launched over 100 drones toward Israeli territory. While many were intercepted, the scale of deployment showcases Iran’s continued ability to conduct sustained aerial operations. US military bases, with their fixed locations and valuable assets, represent attractive targets for Iranian drone swarms that could exploit gaps in air defense coverage.
US Military Base Vulnerabilities and Naval Protection
Distribution and Vulnerability of US Installations
The United States maintains approximately 19 military sites across the Middle East, with eight considered permanent installations. These facilities host around 40,000 American personnel, representing a significant increase from the typical 30,000 due to regional tensions. Key installations include Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar with 8,000 troops, Naval Support Activity Bahrain hosting 9,000 personnel, and multiple bases in Iraq and Kuwait with approximately 13,500 combined forces.
Former CENTCOM Commander General Kenneth McKenzie’s assessment reveals that 53% of forward-operating infrastructure is classified as “Category II Vulnerable,” meaning limited blast-resistant construction and absence of multi-depth defensive perimeters. Only 11% of munition storage facilities in Bahrain and Qatar are certified against direct kinetic strikes exceeding 400 kg TNT equivalent, a significant deficiency given Iranian missile capabilities.
The geographical concentration of US assets creates what military analysts describe as a “tyranny of geography” problem. Bases located along the Arabian Gulf are within easy striking distance of Iranian missile systems, while political restrictions across Gulf Cooperation Council members limit cross-border defensive operations. This vulnerability is compounded by command latency variances that exceed real-time response tolerances required for effective missile defense.
US Navy Fifth Fleet Protection Capabilities
The US Navy’s Fifth Fleet, headquartered in Bahrain, plays a crucial role in protecting American military assets across the region. The fleet’s area of operations encompasses 2.5 million square miles including the Arabian Gulf, Red Sea, and critical chokepoints at the Strait of Hormuz. Recent deployments in response to Iranian threats include the USS Thomas Hudner and additional destroyers equipped with ballistic missile defense capabilities.
US naval forces demonstrated their protective capabilities during Iran’s retaliatory strikes following the Israeli attacks, with American destroyers and Patriot missile systems helping intercept Iranian ballistic missiles targeting Israel. The deployment of Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) systems and additional Patriot batteries from Asia strengthens regional air defense architecture. However, military simulations suggest that saturation attacks involving hundreds of missiles could overwhelm even advanced defense systems.
The Fifth Fleet’s Combined Maritime Forces partnership with 46 nations provides enhanced surveillance and response capabilities. This multilateral approach allows for coordinated defense against Iranian threats while maintaining freedom of navigation in critical shipping lanes. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of these partnerships depends on political will and technical interoperability, both of which face challenges during high-intensity conflicts.
Iran’s Strategic Attack Options and Military Consequences
Direct Missile Strikes on US Facilities
Iran’s most likely attack scenario involves coordinated ballistic missile strikes against high-value US targets across the region. Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar represents the most attractive target due to its role as regional headquarters for US Central Command and its concentration of personnel and assets. Iranian missiles could employ airburst detonation to maximize fragmentation effects, potentially causing complete destruction of unarmored structures within 50-100 meters and extreme damage to hardened facilities.
The Iranian military doctrine emphasizes overwhelming enemy defenses through simultaneous multi-axis attacks. This approach would involve launching missiles from multiple sites to saturate US air defense systems, potentially including attacks on bases in Bahrain, Kuwait, UAE, and Iraq. The coordination of such attacks would test Iran’s post-strike command capabilities while risking massive US retaliation.
Intelligence reports suggest Iran initially planned to launch up to 1,000 ballistic missiles at Israeli targets but was forced to reduce this number due to Israeli strikes on missile storage facilities. This reduction demonstrates both Iran’s ambitious strike capabilities and the effectiveness of preemptive attacks on missile infrastructure. Similar Israeli or US strikes on Iranian missile sites could further degrade Tehran’s ability to conduct sustained attacks against American facilities.
Proxy Force Activation and Regional Escalation
Iran’s network of proxy forces across Iraq, Syria, and Yemen provides additional attack vectors against US installations. Iranian-backed militias in Iraq have already conducted over 170 attacks on US bases since October 2023, demonstrating their willingness to target American forces. Recent intelligence indicates Iran has transferred new long-range missiles to Iraqi proxies, including surface-to-surface missiles capable of reaching European targets.
The activation of proxy forces would allow Iran to maintain plausible deniability while conducting sustained attacks against US positions. These groups possess detailed knowledge of US base locations and routines, having operated in proximity to American forces for years. However, many proxy organizations have been significantly weakened by recent conflicts, with Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza suffering major losses.
The Houthis in Yemen remain Iran’s most capable proxy force, having demonstrated willingness to support Tehran against Israeli targets. Their possession of ballistic missiles and attack drones provides Iran with strike capabilities extending beyond the immediate Gulf region. However, the geographical distance between Yemen and most US bases limits the effectiveness of Houthi operations against American targets.
Strait of Hormuz Closure and Economic Warfare
Iran’s most powerful weapon against US interests remains its ability to disrupt global energy supplies through the Strait of Hormuz. This critical waterway handles approximately 20% of global oil trade and 30% of liquefied natural gas shipments. Iranian closure of the strait would immediately remove 18-19 million barrels per day from global markets, potentially driving oil prices above $200 per barrel.
The Iranian military has positioned anti-ship missiles and naval assets on strategic islands including Greater Tunb, Lesser Tunb, and Abu Musa, providing multiple platforms for disrupting shipping. IRGC naval forces operate fast-attack craft equipped with cruise missiles capable of targeting both commercial vessels and US naval assets. The narrow geography of the strait, at only 21 miles wide at its narrowest point, makes it highly vulnerable to Iranian interdiction efforts.
Economic modeling suggests that sustained closure of the Strait of Hormuz could trigger global recession, with oil price increases of 10% typically resulting in 0.4% higher consumer prices. The cascading effects would impact transportation costs, food prices, and manufacturing expenses worldwide, creating massive economic pressure for military intervention to reopen the waterway.
Regional and Global Consequences of Iranian Attacks
Economic Impact and Market Disruption
The immediate economic consequences of Iranian attacks on US bases would extend far beyond military casualties and infrastructure damage. Oil markets have already demonstrated extreme sensitivity to Middle Eastern conflicts, with Brent crude prices surging over 13% to $75.15 per barrel following Israeli strikes on Iran. Direct Iranian attacks on US military installations would likely trigger even more dramatic price increases, potentially pushing crude oil above $200 per barrel.
Global financial markets would face severe disruption as investors flee to safe-haven assets while energy and defense stocks experience volatility. The combined impact of higher energy costs and financial market instability could trigger recession in energy-dependent economies, particularly affecting developing nations with limited strategic petroleum reserves. European and Asian markets would face particular challenges due to their dependence on Middle Eastern energy supplies.
The aviation industry would suffer immediate impacts from airspace closures and route diversions, with airlines already canceling flights to the region following current tensions. Shipping costs would increase dramatically as vessels avoid conflict zones, extending delivery times and raising prices for consumer goods globally. The cumulative effect would be a significant drag on global economic growth at a time when many economies are already facing inflationary pressures.
Alliance Dynamics and International Response
The response of major powers to Iranian attacks on US bases would determine whether the conflict remains regional or escalates to global dimensions. China and Russia’s joint naval exercises with Iran, including the “Security Belt-2025” operations, demonstrate growing military cooperation among authoritarian powers. However, both nations face complex calculations regarding direct military support for Iran against US forces.
China’s primary concern centers on energy security, as the country remains a major purchaser of Iranian oil despite international sanctions. Chinese officials would likely prefer diplomatic resolution while maintaining energy imports rather than military escalation that could disrupt trade relationships. Russia’s position is complicated by its own military commitments and complex relationships with both Iran and regional powers.
The “no limits” partnership between China and Russia provides a framework for coordination, but both powers may prefer to support Iran through diplomatic channels and economic assistance rather than direct military involvement. Their response would likely focus on diplomatic pressure against further escalation while maintaining plausible deniability regarding any military support.
Pakistan’s Potential Military Assistance
Pakistan’s growing defense cooperation with Iran, demonstrated by recent naval visits to Iranian ports, suggests potential support for Tehran in a broader conflict. The strengthening of Pakistan-Iran military ties follows US sanctions on Pakistan’s defense sector, creating incentives for closer regional cooperation. Pakistani naval commanders have discussed “interoperability” measures with Iranian forces, indicating potential for coordinated operations.
However, Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities and strategic partnerships with China would likely limit direct military involvement against US forces. Pakistani support would more likely focus on diplomatic backing, intelligence sharing, and potential sanctuary for Iranian assets rather than direct military confrontation. The country’s economic challenges and internal security concerns would also constrain its ability to provide substantial military assistance to Iran.
India’s Strategic Position and Diplomatic Balancing
India faces complex strategic calculations due to its close relationships with both Iran and Israel, as well as its heavy dependence on Middle Eastern energy supplies. The Indian government has expressed “deep concern” over the current escalation while urging both sides to avoid escalatory steps. India’s position reflects its need to balance competing interests while protecting its energy security and regional relationships.
India imports approximately 85% of its crude oil requirements, making it highly vulnerable to Middle Eastern supply disruptions. The country has historically maintained good relations with Iran while developing closer ties with Israel and the United States. In the event of expanded conflict, India would likely focus on diplomatic mediation while avoiding alignment with either side that could jeopardize its energy supplies or regional partnerships.
Iran Standing Alone: Capabilities Against Coalition Forces
Asymmetric Warfare Strategy Against Superior Forces
Iran’s military doctrine explicitly acknowledges its inability to defeat superior conventional forces through traditional warfare. Instead, the country has developed comprehensive asymmetric capabilities designed to impose unacceptable costs on adversaries while avoiding decisive confrontation. This approach allows Iran to maintain regional relevance despite facing overwhelming conventional military superiority from US and allied forces.
The Iranian strategy emphasizes multiple cost-imposition mechanisms including proxy warfare, economic disruption, and precision strikes against high-value targets. Recent military modernization efforts have focused on indigenous defense systems and missile capabilities that can operate effectively under sanctions and international isolation. Iran’s ability to produce advanced weaponry domestically provides resilience against external supply disruptions.
However, Iran’s isolation becomes a critical vulnerability when facing coalition forces with superior resources and international support. The country’s limited access to advanced military technology, restricted financial resources, and diplomatic isolation constrain its ability to sustain prolonged high-intensity conflict. The elimination of key military leadership further reduces Iran’s capacity to coordinate complex operations against multiple adversaries simultaneously.
Sustainability of Iranian Military Operations
The sustainability of Iranian military operations against US bases depends largely on the country’s ability to maintain industrial production and supply chains under attack. Iran’s defense industry has achieved significant independence through domestic production capabilities, but key components still require international sourcing. Sustained attacks on Iranian infrastructure could rapidly degrade the country’s ability to replace losses and maintain operational readiness.
Intelligence assessments suggest Iran maintains approximately 17 active missile complexes with launch-ready capabilities, supported by an industrial base that has achieved functional immunity to external embargo pressure. However, the country’s ability to sustain operations depends on protecting critical infrastructure including power generation, transportation networks, and communication systems. Attacks on these systems could rapidly cascade through Iran’s military capabilities.
The Iranian economy’s heavy dependence on oil revenues creates additional vulnerabilities, as military operations require significant financial resources for fuel, maintenance, and personnel. The country’s current defense budget allocation of 420,000 barrels of oil daily represents a substantial commitment, but sustained conflict could quickly exhaust available resources. Iran’s limited access to international financial markets further constrains its ability to fund prolonged military operations.
Long-term Regional Stability and Security Implications
Transformation of Middle Eastern Security Architecture
Iranian attacks on US military bases would fundamentally alter the Middle Eastern security landscape, potentially triggering a comprehensive restructuring of regional defense arrangements. The vulnerability of existing US basing infrastructure to Iranian missile attacks has already prompted calls for a “flexible western basing network” that would complicate Iranian targeting while reducing American exposure.
The potential for Iranian success in attacking US bases would encourage other regional powers to develop similar capabilities, triggering an arms race in precision strike weapons and missile defense systems. Gulf states would face pressure to enhance their own defensive capabilities while potentially reconsidering their hosting of US military installations. The regional balance of power could shift dramatically if Iran demonstrates the ability to impose significant costs on US military presence.
Conversely, decisive US retaliation against Iranian attacks could establish new deterrent thresholds while demonstrating American commitment to protecting allies and partners. The outcome of any US-Iran military confrontation would influence regional perceptions of American power and resolve, with implications extending far beyond the immediate participants. Regional powers would adjust their strategic calculations based on demonstrated capabilities and political will.
Energy Security and Global Supply Chain Resilience
The potential for Iranian disruption of global energy supplies highlights the vulnerability of international economic systems to regional conflicts. Current tensions have already demonstrated how quickly energy markets respond to Middle Eastern instability, with oil prices experiencing dramatic volatility. Sustained conflict involving US military bases could trigger energy supply disruptions extending far beyond the immediate combat zone.
The global economy’s continued dependence on Middle Eastern energy supplies creates systemic vulnerabilities that Iran can exploit through asymmetric warfare. The concentration of global oil and gas trade through the Strait of Hormuz represents a critical chokepoint that Iran can threaten with relatively limited military capabilities. Addressing these vulnerabilities requires long-term strategic planning and investment in alternative energy sources and supply routes.
The development of alternative energy infrastructure and supply chain diversification represents a long-term strategic response to Iranian leverage over global energy markets. However, the scale and timeline of such changes mean that current vulnerabilities will persist for years or decades, providing Iran with continued leverage over international economic systems.
The ongoing crisis between Iran and Israel, with its spillover effects on US military installations, represents a critical inflection point in Middle Eastern security dynamics. Iran retains significant capabilities to threaten US bases despite Israeli strikes, but faces enormous challenges in sustaining operations against superior coalition forces. The potential consequences of Iranian attacks extend far beyond immediate military impacts, threatening global economic stability and regional security arrangements.
The international community’s response, particularly from China, Russia, Pakistan, and India, will significantly influence the trajectory of any expanded conflict. While Iran maintains credible capabilities to impose costs on US military presence, the country’s isolation and resource constraints limit its ability to achieve decisive strategic outcomes. The ultimate resolution of current tensions will require careful diplomatic management to prevent escalation while addressing the underlying sources of regional instability.