Foreign Policy

USMC Colonel (Ret.) Eric Buer: The Silent Response – Iran’s Strategic Calculus After Nuclear Strikes

BY Eric F. Buer / September 25, 2025

Iran’s muted response to Operation Midnight Hammer shows a regime more concerned with survival and internal security than revolutionary posturing, revealing cracks in both its proxy network and its long-claimed mantle of regional power.

Operation Midnight Hammer. Image Credit: US Department of War, USCENTCOM

The world watched with anticipation as the sun rose on June 23, 2025, amid the most significant military escalation between the United States and Iran in decades. Operation Midnight Hammer involved US stealth aircraft and naval forces striking key Iranian nuclear sites. Though US officials regarded the attacks on the nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan as an operational success – the assessment of the strikes as a strategic success has required more time. Strategic success is often hard to define – however, in the months that followed, the Iranian government responded with unusual caution and restraint. This quiet approach likely highlights the effectiveness of the US strikes while exposing Iran’s internal vulnerabilities and the perils of further global isolation.

This measured response also represents a dramatic departure from Iran’s typical patterns of retaliation and proxy warfare. More intriguingly, Iranian proxy militias remained largely silent, leaving Iran “isolated in war”, suggesting that Tehran’s influence over its regional network may be weaker than previously assumed, or that domestic pressures have compelled a fundamental recalculation of its foreign policy approach.

The Anatomy of Iran’s Restrained Response

Iran’s initial reaction to the nuclear strikes was tellingly modest – missiles fired against a US military base in Qatar. With American casualties calculated as unlikely, Iran’s response appeared almost perfunctory compared to the magnitude of the attack on its nuclear infrastructure. This timid response was reminiscent of their equally restrained counters to Israeli strikes throughout 2024 and 2025. This restraint is particularly striking given Iran’s historical pattern of asymmetric retaliation through proxy networks and its doctrine of strategic patience combined with calculated escalation.

The silence from Tehran’s proxy network has been even more remarkable. While the Houthis have remained Iran’s most consistent proxy, firing ballistic missiles at Israel now and then, both Hamas and Hezbollah have remained conspicuously quiet despite vowing retaliation for US strikes on Iran. This divergence between rhetoric and action suggests that Iran’s control over its “Axis of Resistance” may be more tenuous than previously believed, or that these groups are prioritizing their own survival over Tehran’s strategic objectives.

Internal Pressures and the Security State’s Response

The Iranian government’s muted response and its recent engagement with the International Atomic Energy Commission reflect intense internal pressures and a recognition of the regime’s vulnerability on multiple fronts. The US strike has not only damaged critical infrastructure, but it has also exposed the limitations of Iran’s air defense systems and its inability to protect what it considers its most vital strategic assets. The US strikes were likely measured against previous and successful Israeli strikes against Iranian key leaders, both inside and outside of Iran’s borders. These combined failures have undoubtedly triggered a comprehensive internal security review and an investigation into those deemed responsible for the intelligence failures.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Iran’s extensive security apparatus are conducting sweeping investigations into how intelligence about the nuclear facilities reached Western and Israeli operatives. The regime’s paranoia about internal threats has historically intensified following major security failures, leading to purges, arrests, and increased surveillance of both civilian and military populations. The current silence may partially reflect the regime’s preoccupation with internal security threats rather than external retaliation.

Within Iran’s corridors of power, there are likely intense debates about the wisdom of the nuclear program itself and the costs of confronting Israel and the United States directly. Pragmatic voices within the government may argue for de-escalation to avoid further catastrophic strikes, while hardliners may advocate for asymmetric responses through proxy networks. The current silence suggests that, for now, the pragmatists may have gained the upper hand.

The Unique Nature of the Islamic Republic’s Decision-Making

Iran’s response—or lack thereof—cannot be understood without recognizing the unique characteristics of the Islamic Republic’s political system and its distinct approach to international relations. Unlike conventional nation-states that operate primarily through diplomatic and military channels, Iran has built its regional influence through a complex network of ideological, religious, and strategic relationships that transcend traditional state boundaries.

The Islamic Republic operates on multiple levels simultaneously: as a Persian nationalist state protecting its territorial integrity and economic interests; as the self-proclaimed leader of the Shia Muslim world; and as an anti-Western revolutionary movement seeking to export its ideology. This multi-layered identity creates internal contradictions that become particularly acute during crisis moments, such as the current one.

The regime’s revolutionary ideology advocates bold responses to Western aggression, but its nationalist instincts prioritize the survival of the Iranian state over ideological ideals. The current silence suggests that state survival has become more important than revolutionary posturing, a lesson clearly learned from the fall of Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Bashar al-Assad, and others. Although each of those cases involved systems of despotism and ruthlessness, lessons were learned. This significant shift by Iran may indicate the maturation of the Islamic Republic from a revolutionary movement into a conventional state actor primarily focused on self-preservation.

Two ways to continue to read this article.

Economic Realities and Strategic Constraints

Iran‘s restrained response must also be understood within the context of its economic vulnerabilities and the cumulative impact of decades of sanctions. The Iranian economy has been severely weakened by international sanctions, internal mismanagement, and the costs of supporting proxy networks across the region. The nuclear strikes have likely damaged not only Iran’s nuclear capabilities but also its economic infrastructure, given the dual-use nature of many nuclear facilities.

The regime faces a stark choice – invest its limited resources in rebuilding its nuclear program and supporting proxy networks or focus on addressing the mounting economic pressures that threaten domestic stability. Popular discontent in Iran has been simmering for years, fueled by financial hardship, political repression, and the perceived waste of national resources on foreign adventures. The regime’s silence may reflect a calculation that further escalation could trigger the kind of domestic unrest that poses an existential threat to its survival.

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.” – Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander Allied Expeditionary Force, 1945

Moreover, Iran’s proxy networks themselves face significant constraints. Hezbollah is dealing with domestic political and economic crises in Lebanon, Hamas has been severely weakened by its conflict with Israel, and various Shia militias in Iraq face pressure from their own governments. The “Axis of Resistance” may be more fractured and less reliable than Tehran initially calculated, forcing the regime to reconsider its reliance on proxy warfare as a primary strategic tool.

The Search for Internal Enemies

The Iranian regime’s historical pattern following major security failures involves intensive internal investigations and purges designed to identify and eliminate perceived threats to the system. The current period of external moderation likely corresponds to a period of internal turbulence as the security apparatus searches for scapegoats and potential dissidents who might have contributed to the intelligence failures that enabled the nuclear strikes.

Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence (MOIS) and the IRGC’s Intelligence Organization are likely conducting comprehensive reviews of personnel with access to sensitive nuclear facilities and information. This process typically involves interrogations, surveillance, and preventive arrests of individuals deemed potentially disloyal to the regime. The scope of these investigations may extend beyond government and military personnel to include scientists, engineers, and contractors involved in the nuclear program.

The regime’s paranoia about Western and Israeli intelligence penetration has deep historical roots, stretching back to operations like the Stuxnet cyber-attack and various assassinations of nuclear scientists. The success of the June strikes has likely intensified these fears and triggered a comprehensive security review that may take months or even years to complete. During this period, the regime is likely to maintain a low external profile while focusing on consolidating internal security.

Regional Dynamics and Proxy Network Limitations

The silence of Iran’s proxy networks reveals important limitations in Tehran’s regional strategy and the autonomous nature of these relationships. While Iran has invested billions of dollars in supporting groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis, these organizations maintain their own strategic calculations and priorities that may not always align with Tehran’s interests.

Hezbollah, for instance, faces significant domestic pressure in Lebanon not to provoke further conflict that could devastate the already fragile Lebanese economy and infrastructure. Hamas, despite its ideological alignment with Iran, has its own complex relationship with other regional powers and may be reluctant to escalate tensions that could further alienate them from the Palestinian civilian populations. Even the Houthis, while remaining more responsive to Iranian direction, face their own military and political constraints in Yemen.

This divergence between Iranian interests and those of proxy groups suggests that the “Axis of Resistance” is, and has always been, a loose coalition of convenience rather than a tightly controlled strategic network. Iran’s current silence reflects a recognition that its proxy networks cannot be relied upon for significant escalatory responses and that direct confrontation with the United States and Israel carries unacceptable risks.

Conclusion: Strategic Patience or Strategic Weakness

The Iranian regime’s subdued response to both US and Israeli-led strikes represents either a calculated strategic patience or a recognition of fundamental weakness, and quite possibly both. The Islamic Republic finds itself in an unprecedented position – its nuclear program has been severely damaged, its proxy networks have proven unreliable, and its domestic situation remains fragile.

The current silence should not be interpreted as permanent capitulation, but rather as a tactical retreat while the regime reassesses its strategic options and consolidates its domestic position. Iran’s historical pattern suggests that it may be preparing for a longer-term response that attempts to avoid direct confrontation while rebuilding its capabilities and exploring alternative approaches to regional influence.

However, the extended nature of this silence, combined with the reluctance of proxy networks to act decisively on Iran’s behalf, suggests that the Islamic Republic is undergoing a fundamental strategic reassessment. The revolutionary regime that once proclaimed its intention to export its ideology across the region may be evolving into a more conventional state actor focused primarily on survival and domestic consolidation.

This transformation, if it continues, could have profound implications for regional stability and international relations. A more cautious, inward-looking Iran might contribute to regional de-escalation. Still, it could also indicate that the current regime is vulnerable to internal challenges that could ultimately prove more destabilizing than external confrontations. The world watches and waits to see whether Iran’s current silence represents strategic wisdom or a temporary pause before a more dramatic response unfolds.

What readers are saying

Generating a quick summary of the conversation...

This summary is AI-generated. AI can make mistakes and this summary is not a replacement for reading the comments.