WANA (Jan 28) – This question has been raised frequently in recent days: if renewed action by the United States and Israel against Iran is likely—or even inevitable—why does Iran not respond preemptively?

 

To address this issue, one key point must be considered. Any military operation, logically, consists of three phases: before the operation, during the operation, and after the operation.

 

A. Before the Operation

Any effective military action requires a high degree of surprise. Even if there is no official prior announcement, no NOTAM is issued, and airspace is not formally cleared, in a large-scale operation, the United States and Israel—due to their intelligence networks and technological capabilities (such as satellite surveillance)—would detect indicators of an imminent operation.

 

This challenge, however, is not insurmountable, and examples of solutions can be found in certain previous regional operations.

 

B. During the Operation

The most critical factor at this stage is offensive capability. The central question is whether Iran’s offensive capacity has reached a level that enables a broad and effective operation. Although Iran’s offensive capabilities have improved compared to the past, there are still limitations and challenges in this domain.

 

C. After the Operation

The first issue concerns political and diplomatic reactions at the international level. Even some aligned countries or actors would likely adopt critical positions.

 

While reference can be made to the performance of international institutions during past U.S. and Israeli military actions against Iran, the reality is that the diplomatic arena cannot be entirely ignored.

 

The second issue is the degree of domestic cohesion and support. At a time when Iran’s official narrative emphasizes the acceptance of a ceasefire by the United States and Israel, undertaking a new action could raise the question of whether domestic consensus and support would once again reach a desirable level. The answer to this question is of considerable importance.

 

Beyond these two factors, the more fundamental issue is Iran’s defensive posture. Even if Iran’s offensive capabilities are strengthened to an acceptable level, its defensive capabilities still face challenges.

 

Any preemptive action would naturally provoke retaliatory responses from the United States and Israel. Even under optimistic scenarios, the role and reaction of extra-regional actors—particularly NATO—cannot be disregarded. Under such conditions, possessing at least a minimum level of effective defensive capability is a prerequisite for any offensive action.

An anti-U.S. mural is seen on a building in Tehran, Iran, January 24, 2026. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency)

This approach does not categorically reject the principle of preemptive action. Part of Iran’s deterrence policy has traditionally been based on the concept of a “subsequent response,” meaning that the United States and Israel refrain from initiating action out of fear of future retaliation.

 

However, direct U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iranian territory have challenged some elements of this policy and made it necessary to redefine or adjust certain principles—one of which could be a more serious consideration of preemptive options.

 

At the same time, relying solely on waiting for U.S. and Israeli action may have negative consequences across various domains. Accordingly, two possible courses of action for Iran can be considered:

 

  1. Precisely identifying future U.S. and Israeli plans and targeting their critical components in order to disrupt the operational chain.
  2. Defining new arenas of action and exerting effective pressure within frameworks different from anticipated scenarios.

 

What Is Trump’s Objective Behind Deploying Forces to the Region?

WANA (Jan 24) – Even as the U.S. president speaks of Washington’s readiness to engage in talks with Tehran, he has announced the deployment of a large naval force to the Middle East, while simultaneously placing secondary sanctions and threats against Iran’s trading partners back on the table.   Trump has been explicit: “We’re sending […]

Read More...