A US nuclear attack on Iran would unleash a war of an entirely different magnitude, fundamentally changing the rules of engagement, an analyst has warned, saying Tehran would abandon conventional retaliation.
Speaking to the Press TV website, Patricia Marins, an independent defense analyst based in Brazil, noted that Iran’s retaliation to a potential US nuclear strike will be different from its previous responses.
“No one knows Iran's exact retaliation capability, but all the technicians involved in monitoring the Iranian program agree with the idea that Iran may have already developed a weapon," she said.
"And at this point, I would say this is highly probable and that the idea of a nuclear attack on Iran could trigger a war on an entirely different level, fundamentally changing the rules of engagement of the conflict."
The remarks came amid continued US and Israeli threats to attack Iran’s Kolang Mountain (Pickaxe Mountain) facility, an underground installation near the Natanz nuclear complex in central Iran that US President Donald Trump and his aides have repeatedly threatened to target.
On November 1, Trump said Washington still had "one or two sites" to deal with in Iran, explicitly naming Kolang Mountain, and claimed the United States could strike it within minutes.
He had previously threatened to hit the area "pretty soon, and very heavily."
The facility is a heavily fortified underground complex, buried deep inside a mountain and protected by dense rock formations. The limitations of conventional bunker-busters and tactical nuclear weapons have made the site an exceptionally difficult target.
Against this backdrop, Marins stressed that a nuclear attack would have consequences extending far beyond the destruction of the facility itself.
“In the face of a nuclear attack, there is no way Iran would lean toward a conventional response as it has been doing,” she said.
“A nuclear attack would have a much broader magnitude than what is speculated, as the effects would not be restricted to a single mountain. Iranian cities would be hit directly or indirectly, as would agriculture.”
She added that there would be no way to deploy a subterranean nuclear device in such circumstances, adding that “the artifact would indeed have to be detonated practically on the surface of the lower regions of the mountain.”
The analyst said Iran's response framework had already been established following the suspension of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections, which she described as the point at which the country became an "ambiguous power."
She maintained that Iran's deterrence capability already existed, although its precise nature remained unknown.
The risk, she warned, was that Washington and Tel Aviv might underestimate it, just as they had underestimated Iran's conventional military capabilities before they launched the aggression on February 28.
“Iranian deterrence already exists. It remains to be seen whether it will be mistakenly ignored, just as its military capability was,” Marins said.
Wider regional war
Asked whether Tehran would confine its response to Israeli and American military installations in the region, the analyst said those would remain the primary targets. However, she added that a new confrontation could also draw in US naval forces and European military assets operating in the region.
“The Iranian response would basically be restricted to Israel and American bases in the region, but unlike other times, I believe that now it would also involve the US fleet and other vessels from European countries, which, although few people know, maintain several ships and hundreds of special forces troops in the region,” she said.
Marins suggested that Tehran believed these countries could provide direct support for another attack, explaining why Iranian authorities had spoken of a geographically unrestricted response.
“Iran knows there is a high probability that these countries would participate with direct support in a new attack, and that is why it speaks of a geographically unrestricted response,” she said.
“I do not see Iran firing missiles at bases in Europe, although it has the technology to do so,” she added.
The analyst also rejected the prospect that a US nuclear threat or actual attack would necessarily lead Tehran to abandon its current nuclear posture and openly announce its pursuit of nuclear weapons.
She said Iran has chosen to remain an "ambiguous nuclear power" and “it did this because it knows there is no room for the coexistence of an Iran openly pursuing nuclear weapons right under the nose of the US and Israel.”
“Given the current situation, it was a correct choice by Iran, which maintained both the prospect of an open door to scale back its program and the possibility of responding in kind if attacked,” she said.
“We will not see Iran openly announce its pursuit of nuclear weapons, not least because this obscurity is typical of the development of nuclear programs."
Netanyahu's influence over Washington
The analyst also addressed the Israeli regime's influence over US decision-making and the possibility that Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu could push Washington toward an escalation with consequences neither side could control.
Marins noted that Israel had considerable influence over American politics, pointing to campaign financing by organizations such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), as well as indirect support from companies aligned with Israeli interests and active in the US market.
“This Israeli influence extends into the media, the financial sector, and even within the structure of the Pentagon itself. Never has Israel been as deeply entrenched in American structures as it is under Netanyahu,” she said.
However, Marins added that Netanyahu's ability to shape Trump's decisions had diminished following the Republicans' defeat in the midterm elections.
“Trump's defeat in the midterm elections has distanced him from Netanyahu's influence at this moment, as he blames Netanyahu for this electoral loss,” she said.
“Right now, I do not see Israel having the power to influence President Trump's decision-making the way it did this past February."
Russia and China cannot guarantee restraint
On the likely international reaction to a potential US nuclear attack, the analyst predicted strong condemnation from Russia and China, as well as European institutions and most countries around the world.
However, she warned that international condemnation would be accompanied by an intense battle over the narrative surrounding Iran's nuclear capabilities.
“There would be a war of narratives, with rumors emerging that Iran already possessed its weapons and was planning to use them,” she said.
While describing Moscow and Beijing as the “pillars of Iran's political support,” she cautioned against assuming that either power could prevent Washington and Tel Aviv from escalating the war.
The analyst added that Netanyahu had shown little concern for international criticism, pointing to the destruction of nearly an entire territory and the killing of tens of thousands of innocent people in the Gaza Strip since October 2023.
Trump, by contrast, was more pragmatic and likely to exercise greater caution, she said, although his concern about being perceived as having lost the confrontation with Iran could also influence his decisions.
“All of this carries weight in this escalation, which, in my view, is not contained by the Russians and Chinese, but rather by Iran's nuclear ambiguity,” Marins told the Press TV website.
The analyst pointed to the previous US and Israeli attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities as evidence that international pressure alone would not necessarily restrain the aggressors.
“Israel and the US bombed Iranian nuclear facilities without the slightest fear,” she said, adding that had those facilities contained nuclear material at a particular stage of development, the strikes could have caused an unprecedented nuclear disaster in the region.
“If those sites contained nuclear material at a specific stage and were hit, Iran today would be experiencing a nuclear disaster unprecedented in the history of the region,” she said.
“Trump and Netanyahu did this without worrying about the Russians and Chinese. Why would they do it now?”
She added that Iran's security ultimately depended on its own capabilities rather than external guarantees.
“Iran's security basically depends on itself and, even critics must admit that Iran has reached levels of missile technology that place it among the world's major powers in this field,” she said.
This makes it easy to access the Press TV website