Iran’s Foreign Minister has made it clear in multiple statements that the Islamic Republic remains open to re-engaging the diplomatic track, provided that the US-Israeli aggression against the country comes to an end. At the same time, however, IRGC Commander Brigadier General Mohammad Pakpour has declared, “Even if the Israeli attacks stop, we will continue our mission to the end.” These seemingly contradictory positions raise a key question: What exactly is Iran’s objective in this confrontation, and how should its strategy be understood? More pressingly, what role is the United States playing on the battlefield?

Tehran understands that the ultimate goal of the current assault, launched in the early hours of June 13, is not simply aggressive, but existential. The US-Israeli axis seeks nothing less than the collapse of the Islamic Republic itself. According to most military analysts, neutralizing Iran’s nuclear programme through conventional means is well beyond the capabilities of the Israeli military. This is particularly true when it comes to heavily fortified enrichment facilities like Natanz and Fordow, which are among the most secure sites in the world against aerial and missile strikes.

To strike such hardened targets, advanced bunker-busting munitions would be required, arms that are exclusively in the hands of the US military. What’s more, the only aircraft capable of delivering these weapons—the B-2 stealth bomber—operates solely under the command of the United States Air Force. Some experts even question whether these bombs would be effective against Iran’s most deeply buried and reinforced sites. 

Both Washington and Tel Aviv are fully aware of these limitations, which cast serious doubt on their publicly stated rationale for launching the war. This scepticism is only reinforced by Netanyahu’s early appeal,  issued just hours after the attack, urging Iranians to rise up against their own government, a move that tacitly reveals the true aim of the aggression.

This level of strategic ambition has been absent from previous assaults on Iran. The assassination of Lieutenant General Qassem Soleimani, Commander of the IRGC Quds Force, in January 2020, “Israel’s” missile strike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus in April 2024, and the attack on an air defense site near Isfahan inside Iran later that month, none of these triggered the same level of overt intent to destabilise the Iranian state.

It is this shift in objective that explains Iran’s evolving response. Unlike past retaliatory actions, such as the missile strike on the Ain al-Assad US base in January 2020, or Operation True Promise 1 and 2 of April and October 2024, Iran’s current posture signals a long-term strategic engagement rather than a calibrated response.

Related News

The lieutenant of the oppressed West Asian

Tehran does not appear eager to escalate the conflict into a regional war, fully aware that such a scenario could have catastrophic consequences not just for itself, but for the wider Middle East. Still, it is determined to impose a high cost on its adversaries, one that restores the balance of deterrence and redraws the lines of power in the region.

This approach was articulated clearly by Iranian Leader Sayyed Ali Khamenei, who warned, “We will not allow the Zionists to escape unscathed for this great crime. The Zionist entity has committed a grave miscalculation—one that will bring ruin upon them, by God’s grace.”

It is in this context that General Pakpour’s remarks must be understood. Iran’s continuation of Operation True Promise 3 is not dependent on whether “Israel” halts its attacks. Rather, it is driven by a broader aim: to establish new rules of engagement and a new balance of power, irrespective of short-term developments.

At the same time, the Foreign Minister’s comments point to Iran’s reluctance to turn this war into a fight for national survival, unless forced to do so by further escalation from the other side.

But “Israel’s” failure to cripple the Islamic Republic in its initial, high-stakes strike, an operation designed to fundamentally alter the regional power balance, makes direct American involvement more likely in the days ahead. Washington may now feel compelled to interfere in order to accomplish what Tel Aviv could not.

All this suggests that the risk of escalation remains high. The war could soon expand to include oil infrastructure across the Gulf and target US military bases scattered throughout the region.

This leaves a crucial question hanging in the balance: Will key regional powers, Egypt, Turkey, Algeria, and Pakistan, recognize the gravity of what is unfolding? And will they act accordingly, acknowledging that the war being waged by the US-Israeli alliance poses a serious threat to their own security, sovereignty, and future stability?