Further US attacks would fail to force Iran into submission, argued Iranian Professor Mohammad Marandi and former US Marine Corps captain and State Department officer Matthew Hoh, warning of wider regional retaliation and questioning Washington's ability to sustain another military campaign.

Speaking on Al Mayadeen's The Grand Standoff: Iran and the World, on November 13, Marandi said Tehran was preparing for renewed war based on US military movements, while Hoh argued that Washington's military limitations sharply restricted what President Donald Trump could achieve through escalation.

Their assessments converged on the view that threats against Iranian infrastructure would neither deter Tehran nor resolve the difficulties facing Washington in the US-Israeli war on Iran.

Tehran is preparing for renewed war

Marandi said Iran's military assessment rested on the deployment of US forces and equipment across the region, rather than Trump's public statements or reports of meetings between American and Israeli officials.

"The Iranian assumption is that we are going to have war. This is the working assumption in Tehran."

He pointed to a substantial influx of American military hardware and the use of regional airspace by US refueling aircraft, combat aircraft, and drones. These movements, he argued, carried greater significance than diplomatic messaging.

"Iran looks at the battlefield. It looks at the theater of warfare," he said on Al Mayadeen.

The Iranian professor warned that an American campaign against Iranian infrastructure would trigger retaliation against "Israel" and regional countries assisting the attacks.

"Iran will destroy the Israeli regime's infrastructure in any new round of war, but it will also destroy the infrastructure of the regimes in the region that assist the United States," he warned.

Marandi, in fact, framed these warnings as an effort to deter escalation, arguing that Tehran would not allow neighboring governments to provide territory and facilities for attacks on Iran without facing consequences.

Iranian retaliation becoming more forceful

Marandi also described a shift in Iran's response to recent US military action.

According to his account, Tehran has initially concentrated on maritime targets while responding to aircraft and drones, before expanding its strikes to include US assets in Oman and Bahrain.

"So I think it's clear that from now on, the Iranian military strikes will become more robust."

He said attacks on shipping have also intensified, describing the increased use of missiles, mines, and heavier drones as a signal that Iran was prepared for further escalation.

Hoh similarly argued that Iran's continued ability to threaten important American military facilities undermined claims that Washington possessed a viable military solution.

Discussing a reported Iranian attack on a US radar system, he said such facilities were high-priority assets whose vulnerability raised questions about American detection, interception, and defensive capacity.

He expected Iran to respond more forcefully if exchanges continued, arguing that Tehran was demonstrating both its willingness and its ability to retaliate.

US military constraints limit Trump's options

Hoh argued that the American military was overstretched and that shortcomings in US weapons production constrained its ability to sustain operations against Iran.

"It's not a question of the American military being able to win a war against Iran. It's a question of the American military even being able to fight a war against Iran."

He interpreted reports of a brief, intensive campaign against Iranian infrastructure as evidence of those limitations. Such attacks, he argued, could inflict suffering on civilians without forcing the population to surrender or decisively weakening Iran's military.

Hoh also described Trump's shifting statements about negotiations, ending the war, and escalating attacks as a source of uncertainty for the entire region.

Waiting for the president to settle on a course of action, he argued, would leave prospects for peace dependent on his changing calculations.

The war has also become a political liability for Trump, Hoh said, linking tensions within the administration to the president's inability to secure a successful outcome.

Purpose of public messaging questioned

Both guests cautioned against treating media leaks and reports of US-Israeli consultations as reliable indicators of Washington's next move.

Hoh said leaks could serve an administration's efforts to shape public opinion, drawing a comparison with messaging used before the US invasion of Iraq.

Marandi likewise argued that disclosures about meetings and negotiations should be assessed against developments on the ground.

For both guests, the central issue was whether Washington could achieve its objectives through further force. Hoh argued that US military weaknesses limited that possibility, while Marandi maintained that Iran was preparing to confront renewed attacks and widen its response.

Read more: US pressure will not force Iran to concede: Marandi, McGovern | Excl.