How would Iran respond to a U.S. attack?

With the prospect of war in the Middle East again on the horizon, it is important to assess how Iran might respond to a U.S. attack. This installment of Critical Questions looks back to look ahead, using the history of how Iran has attacked the United States and its allies since 1980 as a baseline for predicting how Iran might retaliate and what it says about the potential for an escalation spiral that pulls the region, if not the world, into a broader war.

Both the history of Iran’s attacks and core insights from international relations theory suggest near-term limits on a larger conflict. The underlying assumption is that any military response is part of a larger bargaining strategy. States talk and fight at the same time, using coercion alongside diplomacy to achieve their interests. This implies that both the United States and Iran will seek to initially keep violence to a minimum to preserve space for ongoing talks and avoid a larger spiral that leads to a protracted regional conflict. Iran is likely to prefer a proportional response that limits regional escalation. The more the regime can do to limit sustained U.S. strikes, especially while it is confronting a second round of protests, and ensure that aircraft from other Gulf states don’t join, the better.

Yet, there is a tipping point. The gravity of escalation pulls harder the more missiles each side fires and the higher the number of lives lost, creating a real possibility, despite the preference for limited strikes and reciprocity, of a larger war. Fear and honor could devour interests to undermine even the most rational of plans.

Read more at Center for Strategic and International Studies