After Iran Strikes: Will Tehran’s Revenge Hit US Bases or Homeland?

The United States’ recent airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, including the heavily fortified Fordo site, have escalated tensions in the Middle East, raising questions about whether the US faces greater threats domestically or abroad.

Potential Iranian Retaliation: Strategies and Risks

Iran’s response to the US strikes is likely to be multifaceted, balancing the need to project strength with the risk of provoking a devastating counterattack. Below are the primary retaliation strategies Iran may pursue, based on its capabilities and historical tactics:

Direct Missile and Drone Attacks on US Military Bases

Iran possesses a robust arsenal of ballistic missiles and drones, despite recent losses from Israeli and US strikes. Tehran could target US military installations in the region, particularly those within the 700-mile range of its missile forces. Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has warned of “irreparable damage” to US interests, signaling potential strikes on American bases.

• Likelihood: High, given Iran’s history of retaliatory missile barrages, such as the 2020 attack on Al-Asad Air Base in Iraq following the assassination of Qassem Soleimani.

• Impact: Limited physical damage due to US air defenses, but casualties could provoke a broader US response, escalating the conflict.

• Constraints: Israel’s strikes have degraded Iran’s missile production (estimated at 50 missiles per month pre-conflict) and launch sites, reducing the scale of potential salvos.

Asymmetric Warfare via Proxies

Iran’s “Axis of Resistance,” including Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis, has been weakened, but remnants could still target US interests. Proxies may conduct low-cost, deniable attacks to bleed US resources without triggering a full-scale war.

• Houthi Attacks: The Houthis in Yemen could resume strikes on US ships in the Red Sea, violating a May 2025 truce. Their ballistic missiles and drones threaten US naval assets, including the 5th Fleet HQ in Bahrain.

• Iraqi and Syrian Militias: Iran-backed groups could attack US bases in Iraq (e.g., Al-Asad) or Syria, though their capabilities are diminished.

• Likelihood: Moderate, as proxies are less coordinated after losses in Lebanon and Gaza.

• Impact: Prolonged low-intensity conflict could strain US military resources and domestic political support.

Cyberattacks and Terrorism

Iran has a capable cyber corps, honed since the US-Israeli Stuxnet attack on its nuclear program. Tehran could target US critical infrastructure, such as energy grids or financial systems, to cause economic disruption.

• Terrorism: Iran’s Quds Force could orchestrate attacks on US embassies, tourists, or soft targets abroad via proxies, claiming plausible deniability.

• Likelihood: High for cyberattacks, moderate for terrorism due to logistical constraints.

• Impact: Cyber disruptions could affect US domestic stability, while terrorism abroad could heighten anti-US sentiment globally.

Disruption of the Strait of Hormuz

Iran could mine or attack ships in the Strait of Hormuz, through which 30% of global oil transits. This would spike oil prices and disrupt global energy markets, indirectly harming the US economy.

• Likelihood: Low, as it risks alienating allies like China and inviting massive US naval retaliation.

• Impact: Severe economic consequences globally, with potential US military escalation to secure the strait.

Nuclear Escalation

The most dangerous scenario is Iran withdrawing from the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and accelerating its nuclear program. Tehran has enough enriched uranium for several weapons, and surviving scientists could rebuild capabilities over time.

• Likelihood: Low in the short term, as US strikes likely set back Iran’s program by years.

• Impact: A nuclear-armed Iran could embolden its regional ambitions, threatening Israel and US allies, potentially leading to preemptive strikes.

US Military Sites Near Iran: Potential Targets

The US maintains over 40,000 troops across 19 bases in the Middle East, many within Iran’s missile range. Below are key sites vulnerable to attack:

1. Naval Support Activity Bahrain (5th Fleet HQ, Mina Salman):

   • Location: Bahrain, 120 miles from Iran’s coast.

   • Strategic Importance: Hosts US Navy’s 5th Fleet, overseeing Persian Gulf operations.

   • Vulnerability: Within range of Iran’s short-range ballistic missiles and naval assets. Houthi drones could also reach Bahrain.

   • Defenses: US Patriot systems and naval interceptors, but saturation attacks could overwhelm.

2. Al Udeid Air Base, Qatar:

   • Location: Qatar, 200 miles from Iran.

   • Strategic Importance: Largest US air base in the region, hosting B-52 bombers and fighter jets.

   • Vulnerability: Exposed to Iran’s medium-range missiles (e.g., Shahab-3).

   • Defenses: THAAD and Patriot systems, but prolonged barrages could strain resources.

3. Al-Asad Air Base, Iraq:

   • Location: Western Iraq, 500 miles from Iran.

   • Strategic Importance: Key hub for US operations against ISIS.

   • Vulnerability: Previously targeted in 2020; within range of Iran’s missiles and proxy attacks.

   • Defenses: Limited compared to Gulf bases, increasing risk.

4. Prince Sultan Air Base, Saudi Arabia:

   • Location: Central Saudi Arabia, 600 miles from Iran.

   • Strategic Importance: Supports US air operations and missile defense.

   • Vulnerability: Longer range reduces risk, but still within Iran’s missile envelope.

   • Defenses: Robust Patriot and THAAD systems.

5. Camp Arifjan, Kuwait:

   • Location: Kuwait, 300 miles from Iran.

   • Strategic Importance: Major US Army logistics hub.

   • Vulnerability: Close proximity to Iran increases risk of missile and drone strikes.

   • Defenses: Patriot systems, but ground-based nature limits evasion.

Risk Assessment: Bahrain and Qatar are primary targets due to proximity and strategic value. Iran’s degraded capabilities limit the scale of attacks, but even symbolic strikes could escalate tensions.

How US Bombs Damaged Iran’s 500-Meter-Deep Fordo Site

The Fordo Fuel Enrichment Plant, buried 80-90 meters (260-300 feet) under a mountain near Qom, was designed to withstand conventional attacks. The US used the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), or “bunker buster,” to strike this facility. Here’s how it worked:

GBU-57 MOP Specifications

• Weight: 30,000 pounds (13,600 kg).

• Length: 20.5 feet (6.2 meters).

• Penetration: Can bore through 200 feet (60 meters) of reinforced concrete or 130 feet (40 meters) of rock.

• Delivery Platform: B-2 Spirit stealth bombers, which can carry two MOPs each.

• Guidance: GPS/INS for precision targeting.

Strike Execution

• Operation: On June 21, 2025, six B-2 bombers dropped 12 MOPs on Fordo, supplemented by 30 Tomahawk cruise missiles targeting Natanz and Isfahan.

• Penetration Mechanism: The MOP’s hardened steel casing allows it to punch through rock before detonating its 5,300-pound explosive warhead. Multiple bombs were dropped sequentially to deepen the crater and collapse underground chambers.

• Damage Assessment: President Trump claimed Fordo was “completely obliterated,” but Iranian officials downplayed the damage, asserting key materials were evacuated. US intelligence suggests the facility was “taken off the table,” though formal assessments are pending.

Challenges

• Depth Uncertainty: While Fordo is officially 80-90 meters deep, some estimates suggest critical components may be deeper, potentially beyond the MOP’s reach.

• Evacuation: Iran’s claim of evacuating materials reduces the strategic impact, though centrifuge destruction would still delay enrichment.

• Collateral Risk: No radiological leaks were reported, as Fordo lacks operational reactors, but debris could pose environmental hazards.

Technical Verdict: The MOP likely caused significant structural damage, but complete destruction of a 500-meter-deep facility (if true) would require multiple strikes and precise intelligence, which remains unverified.

Regional Impacts of the US Strikes

The US intervention has reshaped the Middle East’s security landscape, with far-reaching consequences:

Escalation Risk

• Iran’s Response: Retaliation against US bases or proxies could trigger a cycle of strikes, drawing in allies like Saudi Arabia or Qatar, risking a regional war.

• Israeli Involvement: Israel’s ongoing campaign, now bolstered by US support, may provoke Iran to target Israeli cities, overwhelming Iron Dome defenses.

Economic Disruption

• Oil Prices: Strikes on Iran’s energy infrastructure and threats to the Strait of Hormuz have spiked oil prices, impacting global markets.

• Trade Routes: Houthi attacks in the Red Sea could disrupt shipping, raising costs for US consumers.

Diplomatic Fallout

• Allied Concerns: Gulf states like Qatar and Saudi Arabia fear nuclear fallout and have urged restraint, straining US alliances.

• UN Condemnation: The UN called the strikes a “dangerous escalation,” isolating the US diplomatically.

• Failed Talks: Iran’s cancellation of nuclear negotiations in Oman dims prospects for de-escalation.

Iranian Regime Stability

• Internal Pressure: Economic losses and military humiliation could fuel dissent, but the regime’s survival instinct may harden its resolve.

• Proxy Weakness: The decimation of Hezbollah and Hamas limits Iran’s regional influence, shifting power to US-aligned Gulf states.

Nuclear Proliferation

• Iran’s Program: If Iran rebuilds its nuclear capabilities, it could spark a regional arms race, with Saudi Arabia and Turkey pursuing nuclear ambitions.

• Global Norms: US strikes undermine the NPT, encouraging other states to flout non-proliferation agreements.

Domestic vs. Foreign Threats to the US

• Abroad: The primary danger lies in the Middle East, where US troops face immediate risks from Iranian missiles, drones, and proxies. Bases in Bahrain, Qatar, and Iraq are on high alert, and naval assets in the Persian Gulf are vulnerable to swarming tactics.

• At Home: Domestic threats are less immediate but include cyberattacks on infrastructure and potential terrorist plots inspired by anti-US rhetoric. Iran’s cyber capabilities could disrupt power grids or financial systems, while lone-wolf attacks are a low-probability but high-impact risk.

Verdict: The US faces greater danger abroad due to its military presence in Iran’s backyard. However, prolonged conflict could erode domestic support for intervention, especially if oil prices soar or cyberattacks hit home.

Retaliation risks

The US strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites, particularly Fordo, have dealt a blow to Tehran’s ambitions but ignited a powder keg of retaliation risks. Iran’s options—missile strikes, proxy attacks, cyberattacks, or nuclear escalation—threaten US bases in Bahrain, Qatar, and Iraq, while economic and diplomatic fallout looms large. The technical feat of penetrating Fordo underscores US military prowess but leaves questions about long-term efficacy. As the region teeters on the brink, the US must navigate a delicate balance to avoid a wider war, with dangers both abroad and at home hanging in the balance.