TEHRAN – For several years, Iranian political and military leaders have been known for practicing “strategic patience”—a policy of avoiding impulsive responses and refusing to be the party that escalates tensions. This has largely remained Tehran’s approach over the last two years too, even as Israel has set the region ablaze, crossing new red lines daily in an attempt to drag Iran and its allies into a full-scale war with the United States.
When Iran was targeted by Israel twice in 2024, it sought to prevent excessive escalation by limiting its retaliatory strikes to specific military and security installations within the occupied territories. Even during the 12-day war instigated by Israel and the U.S. last year, Iran maintained discipline by targeting only Israeli military, security, and strategic sites. Regarding the U.S., Tehran has struck American bases in the region twice: once in 2020 following Washington’s assassination of a top Iranian general renowned for his anti-terror efforts, and again during the summer war in response to Trump’s strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.
However, this moral and restrained approach has faced domestic criticism for years. Discontent peaked during the 12-day war, with analysts arguing that Iran should deal more lethal blows to Israel and the U.S., despite the already unprecedented nature of the Iranian response that eventually forced Israel to seek a ceasefire. Critics contend that since U.S. and Israeli actions against Iran are defined by sheer illegality, it no longer makes sense for Tehran to go to lengths to remain principled and politically correct.
It now appears that Iran’s political and military elite have also reached the limit of their patience. Trump recently threatened to strike Iran if its security forces do not refrain from cracking down on the armed individuals currently exploiting protests over economic hardships—hardships that are the direct result of years of U.S. sanctions. In response, recent warnings from Iranian officials indicate a likely shift. The Tehran Times understands that Iranians have determined that any new illegal act of aggression by the two regimes must be their last. To ensure this, they are now prepared to employ the most effective and decisive scenarios available.
The most recent reaction comes from the Defense Council, a body established by the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) following the 12-day conflict and tasked with decision-making in the event of war. In a statement, the council declared that it will no longer limit itself to mere reciprocal measures if struck again, nor will it rush to end the cycle of violence as it did last summer.
“Within the framework of legitimate defense, the Islamic Republic of Iran does not confine itself to responding only after an action has occurred; it considers tangible signs of threat as part of the security equation,” the statement read. The council explained that by “repeating and intensifying threatening rhetoric and meddlesome remarks, in clear contravention of the accepted principles of international law,” the U.S. and Israel are “pursuing a purposeful approach aimed at the disintegration of Iran and inflicting damage on the country’s very foundation.”
Another warning came days earlier from the Secretary of the SNSC, the country’s top security official, Ali Larijani. The seasoned diplomat—whom Israelis reportedly called on the first day of the 12-day war to threaten with assassination—warned that in any new response to American aggression, U.S. soldiers will be the first to die.
“Trump should know that U.S. interference in this internal matter would mean destabilizing the entire region and destroying America’s interests,” Larijani wrote on X. “The American people should know—Trump started this adventurism. They should be mindful of their soldiers’ safety.”
No fatalities were officially reported during Iran’s two previous attacks on U.S. bases in the region, but doubts persist regarding Washington’s attempts to censor the truth. Still, it appears that Iranians did deliberately avoid killing U.S. soldiers in past engagements. A video of the late IRGC Aerospace Division Commander, General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, in the command room during the 2020 attack on the al-Asad Airbase, showed him telling colleagues that Iran had decided to strike nearby locations first so the “ill-fated” soldiers could escape. At the time, the prevailing sentiment was that soldiers should not have to pay for the decisions of their politicians.
Today, however, there is a growing belief that Trump will not cease his aggression unless he faces significant consequences at home. This could manifest in two ways: the death of American soldiers, and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
Analysts believe that following the deadly and futile wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, any further loss of American lives in a new unjustifiable conflict could not only cost Trump and his party future elections but also risk his current presidency through impeachment. Furthermore, obstructing the flow of oil through the Persian Gulf would cause global oil prices and inflation to skyrocket, generating significant domestic pressure that could restrain the administration.