Iran Warns of a Harsh Response to Possible US and Israeli Strikes

A sharp statement by the Speaker of the Iranian parliament, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, became a direct signal of Tehran’s readiness to respond with force in the event of an attack by the United States or Israel. The wording was exceptionally tough and left little room for ambiguous interpretation, indicating a rise in regional tensions.

The trigger for the speech was remarks made by Donald Trump on December 29, in which he said he would approve strikes on Iran, particularly on facilities linked to ballistic missiles. In Tehran, these statements were perceived as legitimizing a potential military scenario and as direct encouragement of forceful actions by Israel.

Ghalibaf emphasized that Iran does not consider it necessary to seek permission for self-defense and reserves the right to deliver a large-scale and unexpected response. The emphasis on unpredictability signals a refusal to specify in advance the format, direction, or instruments of possible actions, which is used as an element of strategic deterrence.

This rhetoric reflects a shift in Iran’s approach. Instead of appealing to international mechanisms and diplomacy, the public focus is moving toward demonstrating readiness for direct and asymmetric actions. This increases uncertainty for potential adversaries and complicates their strategic calculations.

The consequences of such statements go beyond information pressure. They raise the risk of miscalculation, heighten nervousness in regional markets, and complicate diplomatic channels. For Middle Eastern countries, this means a growing threat of unintended escalation amid the absence of clearly defined red lines.

At the same time, it remains unclear where the boundary lies between rhetoric and practical steps. Neither Iran nor the United States has outlined conditions under which a transition to direct action would occur. As a result, the situation is developing in a logic of mutual warnings, where any incident could become a trigger for a broader conflict.