ANALYSIS Why does Iran strike countries in the region? Asymmetric response strategy and deterrence signals in an escalating conflict

In recent days, the conflict between the United States, Israel, and Iran has seen a significant military escalation, marked by the sinking of an Iranian frigate by an American submarine in the Indian Ocean and Tehran's promise to "avenge" this attack. The Iranian frigate Dena was struck "without warning" in international waters, according to Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who described the incident as an "atrocity," and authorities confirmed the recovery of dozens of bodies of sailors. Meanwhile, Iran claims to have struck an American oil tanker, signaling that it does not limit its response to declarative dimensions but resorts to military actions with regional and maritime impact.

On the other hand, the United States and Israel continue a campaign of strikes against Iran, which has led to over 1,000 deaths and significant destruction in Tehran and other areas. Israeli forces have dropped over 5,000 bombs on Iranian territory, targeting thousands of sites and reportedly pursuing a systematic degradation of the regime's capabilities. American President Donald Trump describes the current intensity of the conflict with Iran as being at "level 15" on a scale from 1 to 10 and emphasizes that the U.S. has an "almost unlimited" capacity to supply essential weapons, which accentuates the asymmetric nature of the confrontation.

Why does Iran attack neighboring countries? Political and deterrent motivations

Drone attacks launched from Iran against Azerbaijan illustrate how Tehran is extending the conflict to neighboring countries, using asymmetric means to project its regional influence and convey that the front of confrontation is not limited to its borders. Drones launched from Iranian territory struck the autonomous Nakhchivan region of Azerbaijan: one exploded in the village of Shakerabad, injuring two people and damaging a school, while another hit the local airport terminal building, causing significant damage to infrastructure and amplifying the perception of civilian vulnerability. According to authorities in Baku, the explosions caused material damage, such as broken windows and damaged interior structures, but at the time of the impact, there were no students in the classrooms, which significantly reduced the potential number of victims.

The targeting of the airport and an area near a school indicates Iran's interest in objectives with symbolic and strategic impact, which can affect mobility, logistics, and the sense of security of the population in a key region at its northern border. Nakhchivan, an Azerbaijani enclave separated from the rest of the main territory and located between Iran, Armenia, and Turkey, has special geostrategic importance: it is a direct contact point between Azerbaijan and Iran, but also an area from which political and military pressures can be projected towards Turkey. Attacks on this region thus send a signal both to Baku and Ankara that the escalation of the conflict with Tehran has direct consequences for their security, including sensitive civilian infrastructure.

These actions are part of a strategy through which Iran seeks to convey that it can strike targets in neighboring states when faced with direct military pressure from the United States and Israel. Since the onset of American-Israeli attacks against Iran, which have included massive strikes on Tehran and military infrastructure, Tehran has sought to respond not only along the direct axis with Israel but also by expanding the "circle" of conflict to surrounding countries. In this way, Iran signals that the offensive against it will not only have effects within its borders but will generate instability throughout the neighborhood, which could raise the political and security costs for all actors involved or associated with Washington.

In addition to drones, there are also attempts to attack with ballistic missiles, such as the attempt to target Turkey, an episode that shows that Iran is not limited to using drones to convey its strategic messages. The Qatari Foreign Ministry explicitly condemned the "attempt to target the Republic of Turkey with a ballistic missile" and the attack on an airport in Azerbaijan with Iranian drones, describing these actions as "dangerous escalation" and a "flagrant violation" of the sovereignty of states. The fact that an Iranian missile was directed towards Turkey, a NATO member and a key entry point for the alliance in the Middle East and eastern Mediterranean, directly links these attacks to tensions with the United States and the Western security infrastructure in the region.

The attempt to strike Turkey with a ballistic missile, in the context where NATO intercepted an Iranian projectile directed towards Turkish territory, sends a double message: on one hand, Iran shows that it is willing to test the limits of the alliance's tolerance towards attacks on a member state; on the other hand, it implicitly raises the question of whether and to what extent the U.S. and NATO are prepared to escalate further in defense of Turkey.

From a military perspective, the use of drones and missiles allows Iran to generate significant regional effects with relatively limited resources, avoiding direct confrontation with vastly superior air and naval forces. Shahed-type drones, for example, are designed to strike at a distance and to saturate or test the defense systems of adversaries, and their use against an airport and a civilian area in Nakhchivan demonstrates Tehran's ability to project violence beyond its own borders. Ballistic missiles directed at Turkey, even if intercepted by NATO defense systems, function as instruments of psychological and strategic pressure, forcing Ankara and its allies to remain on high alert and allocate additional resources for air defense.

Politically, Iran's actions unfold in a context where Western leaders insist on the need to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear capabilities, placing the conflict in a particularly sensitive security register. Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani states that Iran "cannot equip itself with nuclear weapons" to threaten Israel and the European Union, highlighting concerns regarding possible developments in the field of weapons of mass destruction. President Trump's statements, which speak about "what happens when madmen have atomic weapons," reinforce the perception that, from a Western perspective, the conflict with Iran also has a preventive dimension related to controlling nuclear proliferation.

In this framework, Iranian strikes on targets in Azerbaijan and the attempt to attack Turkey can be interpreted as forms of conventional deterrence, meant to show that Iran has significant response options even without resorting to or using nuclear weapons. By expanding the spectrum of targets to states that maintain relations with Washington or are integrated into Western structures (such as Turkey, a NATO member), Tehran seeks to raise the perceived costs of participation or cooperation in the military campaign against it. The implicit message is that, as the U.S. and Israel maintain military pressure on Iran, the countries associated with them may face attacks on their infrastructure.

Therefore, attacks on Azerbaijan and attempts to strike Turkey can be understood as part of a broader strategy through which Iran combines asymmetric military response, conventional deterrence, and internal and external political messages. Targeting a region like Nakhchivan, with sensitive civilian and airport infrastructure, and sending missiles towards Turkey transforms the conflict from a bilateral confrontation into a test for the security architecture of the entire region.

The balance of forces and Iran's constraints

Analyses of the balance of forces show that it is difficult to imagine a scenario in which Iran's military capacity is comparable to that of the United States, despite statements from Iranian officials claiming that the country has the "capacity to withstand the enemy" longer than Washington anticipates. Assessments from the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) highlight that the U.S. has considerable resources, and Donald Trump states the existence of an "almost unlimited" capacity to supply essential weaponry, which provides a structural advantage. The high pace of operations has already led to a faster consumption of weapons than the production rate on both sides, suggesting that a prolonged conflict would put significant pressure on Iran's stocks.

In this context, Tehran's option to resort to drones and missiles launched at neighboring countries reflects the need to use military tools that maximize effect at relatively low costs. Drones and missiles allow for striking precise targets, such as airports or civilian infrastructure, with more limited risks for Iranian military personnel compared to large-scale conventional operations. At the same time, opening new fronts involves additional risks: affected states may decide to strengthen their cooperation with the U.S. or with other regional actors, which could exacerbate Iran's diplomatic isolation.

Regional consequences: the risk of conflict expansion

Drone attacks on Azerbaijan and attempts to strike Turkey have generated firm reactions from regional states and have fueled concerns about the expansion of the conflict. The Qatari Foreign Ministry condemned the "attempt to target the Republic of Turkey with a ballistic missile" and the attack on an airport in Azerbaijan, describing these actions as "dangerous escalation" and a "direct threat to regional security and stability." Baku announced that "the attack will not go unanswered" and that it is preparing a "necessary retaliation" to protect territorial integrity and the safety of civilians and infrastructure.

Neighboring states are closely monitoring developments. Armenia, for example, claims to have been working for about a year and a half on scenarios to cope with potential consequences of the escalation around Iran and the Middle East. Meanwhile, there are concerns expressed by European officials, such as the head of EU diplomacy, Kaja Kallas, that Gulf countries fear the risk of a possible civil war in Iran as a result of the conflict with the United States and Israel. This perspective adds an additional internal dimension to the regional picture, suggesting that the destabilization of Iran could have ripple effects throughout the entire region.

In this context, Iran's attacks on neighboring countries fit into a strategy of asymmetric response to the military pressure from the U.S. and Israel, but at the same time, intensify the risk of uncontrolled conflict expansion and geopolitical realignments with long-term effects.

*****Synthesis made with the help of a data monitoring stream provided by the media monitoring platform NewsVibe Romania. The analysis, data, and images presented have been enhanced with the help of Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence tools.