After US strike, Iran faces a desperation threshold

Iran has no good options, which means bad options may actually play out

About the author: Peter Wildeford is a top forecaster, ranked top 1% every year since 2022. Here, he shares the news and analysis that informs his forecasts.

Operation Midnight Hammer, or “the largest B-2 operational strike in US history”, set its sights on Iran’s nuclear centrifuges at Fordow, buried more than 260 feet below ground, significantly beyond the reach of Israeli weapons. At 3am Sunday in Tehran local time, Trump dropped 12x MOP bombs on Fordow and two more on Natanz, another nuclear facility. Each MOP is a 30,000-pound bunker-busting bomb, a kind that no other nation has.

Nine days ago, I wrote about the Fordow Paradox — Israel wanted to destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities but lacked the ability to do so. The US had the military capability, but was hesitant to get drawn into another Middle Eastern conflict. The US has now resolved the paradox forcefully.

But here's what matters now: We're crossing Iran's desperation threshold. When military superiority becomes so overwhelming that it eliminates all rational survival options for the weaker party, it paradoxically increases the likelihood of catastrophic choices — because actors facing certain defeat through conventional means become more willing to gamble on extreme measures that would normally be unthinkable.

With Iran's ballistic missiles nearly depleted, Fordow's status uncertain but likely severely damaged, and Israel systematically dismantling the world's first nuclear threshold state in real-time, the next few weeks will determine whether this current conflict just muddles through without end, finds a path to a ceasefire deal, finally causes Iranian regime change, or results in something far worse.

The hammer dropped at midnight

What we witnessed was a masterclass in diplomatic maneuvering from Netanyahu. Israel's relentless attacks forced Trump's hand by systematically eliminating diplomatic alternatives. Iran refused to negotiate while under bombardment, and Trump grew increasingly frustrated watching talks drag on without progress. Netanyahu understood Trump had a breaking point and methodically pushed him toward it.

The tipping point came when Iranian missiles struck Soroka Hospital, killing civilians including children. This gave Trump the casus belli he needed. Congressional hawks like Lindsey Graham immediately pressed for action, while even isolationist MAGA voices found it harder to oppose retaliation against hospital bombers.

But Netanyahu's masterstroke was personal. As Time reported, Netanyahu looked Trump in the eye during a critical meeting and said: “You can't have a nuclear Iran on your watch.” Combined with Iran's previous attempts to assassinate Trump, this appeal to ego and self-preservation proved irresistible.

The result was Operation Midnight Hammer, the first operational use of the MOP. The 30,000-pound bunker-busters, which only America possesses, created several large-diameter holes and/or craters along the top of a ridge over the Fordow underground complex.

This represented an enormous gamble. While the MOP arsenal's size remains classified, experts estimate the US just expended roughly half its inventory. Each bomb costs millions and takes years to manufacture — they're America's only non-nuclear option for deeply buried targets. Burning through half on one mission leaves little margin for error.

Did it work? The results are maddeningly ambiguous. Defense Secretary Hegseth claimed “we believe we achieved destruction of capabilities there” at Fordow, but a senior U.S. official acknowledged to the New York Times that the attack “did not destroy the heavily fortified facility but severely damaged it”.

However, destroying Fordow was the hardest part — the one thing Israel couldn't do alone. With that psychological and physical barrier broken, Israel can now strike any replacement facility Iran builds. No other site currently enjoys Fordow's natural protection under 90 meters of granite and any new enrichment facility would be vulnerable to Israeli’s F-35s.

But here's the catch: Iran knows this too. The US may have solved Israel's Fordow problem, but created a new one: instead of uranium secured in a known, monitored location, it's now dispersed to unknown sites. Iran can't rebuild an industrial-scale enrichment program, but for a crash bomb program to produce a crude nuclear device delivered by truck, they may not need to, and Iran may still be mere months away.

Where the US goes from here

Despite the dramatic strikes, this isn't Iraq 2003 redux — I do not foresee the US actually invading Iran with ground troops. The administration has been clear: no ground invasion, no nation-building, no prolonged occupation. Trump's stated objective remains forcing Iran to accept severe nuclear restrictions through maximum pressure, not toppling the regime through military conquest.

Yet even this limited intervention may have created a crack in the MAGA base. Tucker Carlson clashed publicly with Senator Ted Cruz, shouting “You don't know anything about Iran!” while Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene declared “Anyone slobbering for the US to become fully involved in the Israel/Iran war is not America First/MAGA”. Meanwhile, traditional hawks like Senator Lindsey Graham praised it as "the right call", exposing a fundamental divide between isolationists and interventionists in Trump's coalition.

Iran can't strike the US homeland directly, but the Department of Homeland Security warned of a “heightened threat environment” citing possible cyber attacks or targeted violence. More immediately, 40,000 US troops across six Middle Eastern countries could be targets. Iran has precision missiles that can’t reach the US mainland but can reach every US base from Al Udeid in Qatar to the Fifth Fleet in Bahrain.

Where does the US go? We could keep bombing, but with only ~15 MOPs remaining, diminishing returns are guaranteed. Each sortie risks American lives and depletes munitions needed for Pacific contingencies. My best guess is that by default the US continues to rely on Israel to do all the heavy lifting, continuing limited support strikes as necessary to support Israel where Israel cannot — while being prepared to step in more if Iranian counterattacks merit a larger response. The strikes from Israel will then likely continue until Iran’s nuclear program is halted beyond repair or Iran capitulates.

Iran’s strategic patience is wearing thin

The collective damage to Iran since Israeli strikes began on June 13 has been staggering. The human toll includes the elimination of Iran's entire top military leadership: IRGC Commander Hossein Salami, Armed Forces Chief Mohammad Bagheri, and IRGC aerospace commander Amir Ali Hajizadeh were all killed. The nuclear program lost irreplaceable expertise with the deaths of scientists Fereydoon Abbasi (former atomic energy head) and Mohammad Mehdi Tehranchi.

And civilian casualties have mounted. By June 20, the Human Rights Activists News Agency reported 639 total deaths. Much of Tehran has emptied out, with residents fleeing to the countryside.

Yet Iran is not like Iraq or Afghanistan — this is a nation of 90 million with a much more modern military. Unlike Iraq's conscript army that melted away in 2003, Iran has the Revolutionary Guards, over 190,000 ideologically committed troops who see themselves as guardians of the Iranian Revolution. The Basij militia can potentially mobilize millions more. And external threat has historically unified Iran — however much Iranians may despise their regime, they won't rise up while their country is under foreign attack.

The default strategy for Iran is thus strategic patience – attempting to absorb Israeli strikes while aiming to outlast. This situation worked well in the 1980s Iran-Iraq War, when Iran aimed to fight a war of attrition until Iraq ran out of offensive resources. This is the same strategy Ukraine is using against Russia. However, there are two reasons why the attrition mathematics isn’t favorable for Iran here:

• Firstly, in the Iran-Iraq War, both sides were roughly evenly matched and could replace losses at roughly equal rates. This is not true with Iran and Israel. Unlike the static fronts of the Iran-Iraq War, there's no stalemate position here to settle into. More concerning for Iran, Israel and the US can continue to attack Iran significantly while suffering minimal to no losses — the opposite of attrition warfare's usual dynamics.

• Secondly, the key aspect of strategic patience is that eventually your enemy will get bored and move on. But Israel has just as much strategic patience as Iran does and is dedicated to go the distance, having wanted to defang Iran for decades. Israel can entirely dictate the pace at which this war escalates or does not and can keep ratcheting up the pressure on Iran until Iran loses.

Regardless, every day means more enrichment facilities destroyed, more scientists fleeing, more uranium seized. If Iran has any nuclear ambitions left, the window is closing.

Iran’s desperation

Understanding Khamenei's psychological state is crucial here. The Supreme Leader, already ailing without a clear successor, faces not just military defeat but ideological humiliation. The “axis of resistance” he spent decades building has crumbled in months. The nuclear program that consumed vast resources and invited crushing sanctions lies in ruins. For someone who views himself as guardian of the Islamic Revolution, these aren't just tactical setbacks – they're existential threats to everything he's built.

This creates what I call the desperation threshold: when military superiority becomes so overwhelming that it eliminates all rational survival options, paradoxically increasing the likelihood of catastrophic choices. The calculation is that if you face certain defeat through conventional means (100% chance of regime collapse) and face uncertain catastrophe through nuclear escalation (maybe 80% chance of collapse, but 20% chance the world blinks), you are pressured to do nuclear escalation that would otherwise be unthinkable.

Netanyahu's gambit worked precisely because he understood this fundamental reality: Iran has never been weaker than it is now.

Four factors create Iran's desperation:

• Strategic isolation — Unlike previous confrontations, Iran can't count on even rhetorical support. Arab states quietly welcome Tehran's weakening. The proxy network lies in ruins — Hamas gutted, Hezbollah down 50-80%, Assad's Syrian corridor gone. Russia, consumed by Ukraine, can't spare air defense. China wants stability for oil imports, not regional war.
  

• Military domination — Israel destroyed one-third of Iran's missile launchers and achieved air superiority. An Iranian missile launcher that takes months to replace can be destroyed by Israel in minutes. Iran's missile attacks take days to prepare with low success rates; Israel strikes any target within hours. The US resupplies Israeli interceptors faster than Iran produces offensive missiles.
  

• Economic vulnerability — 90% of Iran's oil exports flow through Kharg Island and Khuzestan refineries. One Israeli strike ends the Iranian economy overnight. Oil prices would spike globally, but Iran couldn't capitalize with destroyed infrastructure.
  

• Regime brittleness — Military humiliation plus economic sanctions plus failed deterrence could catalyze domestic unrest. Iranian leaders fear appearing weak to their population more than Israeli bombs.

This creates a cruel trilemma with three options for Iran. Iran can either:

• Escalate: Race for the bomb and risk obliteration

• Capitulate: Accept defeat and appear weak domestically

• Middle path: Find some compromise that satisfies neither deterrence needs nor de-escalation imperatives

The problem is that none of these options are winners and Iran has no good way out. As Iran weighs these uniformly bad options in the shadow of Saturday's strikes, the probability landscape for how this crisis ends has shifted.

Despite the drama, the scenarios haven’t shifted

From here, I foresee continued Israeli strikes that systematically degrade Iranian capabilities while avoiding targets that might trigger uncontrollable escalation. I see the US continuing to support Israel in these military operations but avoiding going to war directly. I then foresee Iran responding with face-saving but limited retaliation, eventually accepting a diplomatic off-ramp that preserves the regime while accepting strategic defeat.

However, we still can’t rule out worse options. Supreme Leader Khamenei has yet to speak publicly, but hardliners are already calling for closing the Strait of Hormuz and striking US naval assets in Bahrain. The carefully calibrated tit-for-tat exchanges of the past week could easily spiral into regional conflagration. That could include closing the Strait of Hormuz, massive Iranian cyber attacks on Gulf infrastructure, activation of sleeper cells for terror attacks, and/or a final desperate gambit for a nuclear weapon that escalates the conflict even further. We also can’t rule out that eventually the combination of military defeats and economic pressure triggers mass protests that the regime cannot suppress, leading to regime change.

Nine days ago, I laid out five scenarios for the Iran nuclear crisis. Despite a lot happening, I currently see minimal updates from the complex and uncertain list of probabilities I placed before. Recognizing that it is hard to separate complex reality into five mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive scenarios, here’s how I think they’re holding up¹:

• Scenario 1: Deal — In the immediate term, the diplomatic is now much more difficult, as trust just got buried under Fordow's rubble. Any new deal would need far more restrictions on Iran than the JCPOA while offering Iran even less — an impossible equation.
  
  However, there are some narrow off-ramps. When the US assassinated Qasem Soleimani in January 2020, Iran faced similar pressures to respond forcefully but realized they could accomplish little. It eventually launched ballistic missiles at US bases in Iraq that it knew would do no damage. Nonetheless, Iran declared that “severe revenge” had been achieved and that the matter was now closed. A similar face-saving capitulation today might involve Iran launching a final salvo of missiles at Israel, declare victory, and announce a unilateral ceasefire “to give peace a chance”.
  
  The hope is that as pressure on Iran continues to mount from continued strikes, Iran would understand a new deal is the only way to continue forward and may agree to more maximalist demands than before. Iran may want sanctions relief and a full ceasefire in exchange for severe nuclear restrictions, claiming the nuclear program was always peaceful and that perhaps its “civilian nuclear infrastructure” can be rebuilt. Iran might even again aim to race for the bomb someday. But at least this geopolitical can would have been kicked down the road further, and that may be all you can hope for.
  

• Scenario 2: Bomb — Despite damage to Fordow's centrifuges, Iran still likely retains its 400 kg stockpile of 60% enriched uranium and continues to have underground production capabilities. With untouched centrifuge manufacturing and at least one enrichment site still operational, Iran could theoretically still rush to a bomb. The desperation threshold makes this more likely — facing complete conventional defeat, nuclear weapons become the only path to regime survival. Iran might announce NPT withdrawal, reveal hidden sites, and launch a crash program while creating maximum chaos (missile barrages, proxy activation, Hormuz closure) to buy time and split US/Israeli attention.

• Scenario 3: War — With US forces kinetically engaged, the regional war scenario remains on track to happen. While the Iranian response is muted so far, Iranian attacks take a few days to plan and could continue at some point within the next two weeks. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps has already threatened strikes against US forces across the Middle East, and with American B-2s having directly attacked Iranian soil for the first time in history, the taboo against Iran targeting US assets has weakened significantly. There is still room for a desperate Iran to make a serious attack.
  

• Scenario 4: Managed Escalation — Of course, the cynical equilibrium still could hold. Despite Saturday's dramatic escalation, both sides retain strong incentives to avoid total war. Trump achieved his 'spectacular military success' and can claim victory, while Iran can point to its continued missile strikes on Israel as proof of resistance. The key is whether both sides can accept this new status quo without either feeling compelled to escalate further.
  

• Scenario 5: Surrender — If Fordow is truly destroyed and enrichment capacity crippled, Khamenei might calculate that continuing invites only more destruction. While Iran has crushed protests before through systematic brutality, current conditions may limit their coercive capacity.

Peace or tragedy

Trump promised Iran faces a choice: “either peace or tragedy.” But now, it stands unclear whether peace remains possible or what peace would even look like. And Iran may reason that their only viable option is some form of tragedy.

The strikes on Fordow may have destroyed centrifuges, but they've also destroyed some of the last constraints on Iranian decision-making. When the world's most powerful military directly attacks your homeland after decades of fighting only through proxies, the old rules no longer apply. Iran's response in the coming days will reveal whether we're witnessing controlled brinkmanship or the opening moves of something far worse.

Here, the gap between tactical brilliance and strategic success may prove decisive. While the strikes demonstrated unprecedented military capability, leaving Iran's fissile material and production infrastructure largely intact means that Iran is currently wounded but not disarmed, now desperate but not defanged. This half-measure may have accelerated rather than prevented the very nuclear crisis it aimed to solve with Iran now having both the materials and the motivation to sprint for a bomb. Hopefully the US and Israel can finish the job or hopefully Iran will de-escalate, but I fear something far worse could be possible.

While peace is elusive, the true tragedy is that each of Iran's options predictably fails, yet the regime's psychological makeup makes rational calculation impossible. When strategic reality collides with ideological rigidity, the result is rarely pretty. Iran's leaders face not just military defeat but the collapse of a four-decade narrative that justified their rule. No Iranian tactical option can solve that fundamental of a problem.

1. Creating solely five mutually exclusive and collectively scenarios for a messy real-world series of events is difficult. To try to get this to resolve more clearly, I will define things as follows:

• If there is credible evidence during 2025 that Iran has tested a nuclear weapon or otherwise achieved full nuclear weaponization, this resolves Scenario 2 regardless of what else happens.

• Otherwise, if one of the following happens: (a) Iran closes the strait of Hormuz for more than a day and/or (b) the Iran-Israel war has over 5000 direct military fatalities from all countries since the beginning of June and/or (c) combat troops from a foreign nation enter Iran, then this resolves Scenario 3.

• Otherwise, if 2025 ends with Iran and the US having signed a deal that limits the Iranian nuclear program in any way, this resolves Scenario 1 regardless of what else happens.

• Otherwise, if credible evidence suggests Iran has ceased enrichment for 30+ consecutive days starting at some point during 2025, then this resolves Scenario 5 regardless of what else happens.

• Otherwise (if all of the above fail to occur), this resolves Scenario 4.