Ask Onix
Iran defies expectations with long-range missile test
Washington and Tel Aviv have maintained for weeks that sustained airstrikes had crippled Iran's military leadership and degraded its operational capacity. Yet Tehran's weekend actions suggest the opposite: the conflict is accelerating, not winding down.
On Saturday, Iran launched two missiles toward the joint US-UK base on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, covering a distance of approximately 3,800 km. The projectiles fell short of the island, but the test shattered previous assumptions about Iran's maximum range, which analysts had pegged at roughly 2,000 km. Whether the capability was previously concealed or developed under bombardment, the message was clear: military pressure has not halted Iran's progress.
Leadership vacuum fuels uncertainty
US and Israeli officials have claimed that precision strikes eliminated much of Iran's senior command, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, former parliament speaker Ali Larijani, senior Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders, and the armed forces' chief of staff. Key missile production sites were also reportedly destroyed. Yet Iran's coordinated responses-including a strike on Dimona in Israel's Negev desert, home to an undeclared nuclear program-suggest a command structure still functioning, if not thriving.
The question of who is directing these operations remains unanswered. Mojtaba Khamenei, reportedly unharmed in the strike that killed his father and other relatives, was named as the new leader but has not appeared in public. Beyond two written statements, his condition and authority remain unclear. In a system built on centralized control, this silence creates instability at the highest level.
Escalation outpaces diplomacy
Iran's actions reflect a strategy of proportional retaliation. After Israeli strikes targeted energy infrastructure near Bushehr-home to Iran's sole nuclear power plant-Tehran responded by hitting Dimona, signaling that no site is off-limits. This tit-for-tat dynamic undermines the US-Israeli assumption that decapitating Iran's leadership would lead to paralysis. Instead, the conflict appears to be operating on a logic of resilience, not collapse.
The diplomatic landscape is equally fraught. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has maintained a low profile since Mojtaba Khamenei's rise, further narrowing channels for negotiation. Early in the conflict, Pezeshkian apologized to neighboring countries affected by Iranian strikes, a move that reportedly angered hardliners within the IRGC. His silence since has left little room for dialogue.
Negotiations as a trigger for strikes
From Tehran's perspective, recent events offer little incentive to trust negotiations. In the 14 months since US President Donald Trump returned to office, two rounds of talks aimed at reviving a nuclear deal have been followed by military action. Iranian officials say they addressed most US concerns during the second round of negotiations in Geneva on February 27, with technical discussions in Vienna scheduled to follow. Trump, however, expressed dissatisfaction with the progress, and strikes began the next day.
"For Iranian decision-makers, the message is clear: negotiation does not prevent attacks; it may even invite them,"
Ultimatums and off-ramps
Tensions reached a new peak on Saturday when Trump issued a 48-hour ultimatum demanding Iran reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a critical oil chokepoint. Failure to comply, he warned, would result in the US "obliterating" Iranian power plants. Iran rejected the demand and countered with a threat to mine parts of the Persian Gulf, raising the specter of a broader regional confrontation.
Yet hours before the deadline expired, Trump abruptly reversed course. In a post on Truth Social, he announced a five-day pause on planned strikes against Iranian energy infrastructure, citing "very good and productive conversations" with Tehran. The timing of the announcement-just ahead of his own ultimatum-created a potential off-ramp, though its durability remains uncertain.
Markets reacted cautiously, with oil prices dipping slightly on the news. The relief was tempered by skepticism about whether the pause reflects genuine progress or a temporary reprieve. More fundamentally, the question persists: who in Iran is empowered to negotiate, and who controls the IRGC and security forces, which appear to be operating with a "fire at will" posture?
Limited options and high stakes
Both sides now face narrowing choices. Iran cannot easily de-escalate without appearing weak, while the US and Israel lack the ground presence to achieve a decisive victory through airstrikes alone. Further escalation risks becoming a self-perpetuating cycle of destruction with little strategic gain, leaving only the most extreme options on the table.
For Iran, the war has provided a temporary respite from domestic unrest, allowing authorities to tighten internal control. Yet the balancing act is precarious: escalation serves both as a response to external threats and a tool for managing internal dissent, but it also increases the risk of miscalculation.
If the Strait of Hormuz remains contested, the consequences could be severe. Disruptions to electricity and essential services could affect up to 170 million people across the region, including more than 90 million in Iran. With diplomatic channels limited, Trump's options are dwindling, and the path to de-escalation appears increasingly narrow.
