The report that Iran is weighing strikes on U.S. military targets in Europe raises real alarms for U.S. policymakers and NATO partners, suggesting Tehran is exploring asymmetric options—from attacking bases to cutting subsea infrastructure—that could drag allies into a wider confrontation if deterrence fails.
Reports from regime insiders signal a brazen posture out of Tehran and force us to reckon with both the capability and the appetite of Iran to widen the battlefield. If accurate, these deliberations are not idle saber-rattling; they are contingency planning that would complicate any U.S. decision-making and put European facilities and communications at risk. The central question for American leaders is how to deter attacks on forward bases and subsurface networks without allowing Tehran to think time and attrition will work in its favor. From a Republican viewpoint, strength and clear red lines matter; hesitation buys Tehran leverage.
Two regime insiders told the FT that Iranian forces have assessed striking US assets in south-eastern European countries such as Bulgaria, which last month approved the use of its Bezmer air base for US refuelling aircraft.
One of the insiders added that Cyprus, where a British air base was struck by a drone in March, was also among potential targets for retaliation in the event of any renewed US offensive.
Even limited missile or drone strikes on bases in eastern or southeastern Europe risk rapid escalation if allied forces suffer casualties or infrastructure is damaged. NATO countries hosting U.S. personnel would understandably respond, and that response could draw in collective defense mechanisms that Tehran likely underestimates. The idea of striking allied soil to retaliate against U.S. action is a dangerous escalation ladder that could create a theater-wide crisis. American planners should assume Tehran could miscalculate the political will and the technical response time of NATO.
The insiders said Iranian forces have separately examined attacking subsea fibre-optic cables in the Strait of Hormuz in the event of an escalation.
The threats reflect the defiant mood in Tehran, where many within the regime increasingly see a resumption of the war as a matter of when, not if.
Threats to subsea fiber-optic cables are particularly worrying because they target global communications and commerce rather than military units alone. Damaging undersea cables can create cascading civilian and economic consequences that ripple far beyond the battlefield, and attribution in that domain can be complex. Tehran loses little by using proxies or covert means to harass commercial shipping and cables, and those grey-zone attacks can blur the line between criminality and warfare. That ambiguity is precisely what makes such threats useful to regimes that want to inflict pain without provoking a full-scale conventional answer.
Iran does possess a mix of missiles and cruise systems that, in theory, give it options against targets across parts of Europe and the eastern Mediterranean. Ballistic systems like the Khorramshahr-4 have long-range claims, while shorter-range systems could reach southeastern states. Cruise missiles such as the Soumar and Paveh could complicate defenses, though they are reportedly more susceptible to interception. Accuracy and sustainment remain questions for Tehran, but even imprecise strikes carry enormous political risk if allied forces or civilian infrastructure are hit.
NATO member Turkey, which shares a border with Iran and hosts about 1,700 permanently assigned U.S. active-duty personnel, has already been the target of Iranian fire. Turkish officials said in March that NATO air defenses had intercepted several Iranian ballistic missiles.
Incidents like the one involving Turkey show the downside of Tehran’s current posture: even limited operations risk provoking responses from NATO members protecting their own territory. Once allied air defenses activate and intercept, the incident can escalate into broader conflict dynamics with multiple capitals involved. From the U.S. perspective, preserving freedom of movement for our forces and deterring attacks on partners must be core priorities. That means credible defense and the willingness to respond in ways that do not invite miscalculation.
Politically, time favors Iran if American domestic politics lead to reduced operational resolve or constrained options next year. Tehran’s calculus likely includes political timelines and hopes that overseas platforms will be harder to defend if U.S. policy becomes more restrained. Republicans should press for clear strategies that sustain pressure on Iran while denying it safe avenues for escalation. Deterrence requires clarity, capability, and the credibility to use both.
Editor’s Note: Thanks to President Trump and War Secretary Pete Hegseth’s leadership, the warrior ethos is coming back to America’s military.
Help us continue to report on Trump and Hegseth’s successes as they make our military great again. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
“NATO countries hosting U.S. personnel would understandably respond, and that response could draw in collective defense mechanisms that Tehran likely underestimates.”
Ya think!!! Tehran and the whole Islamist Fake Religion Political Satanic Ideology are nut jobs who are hellbent for POWER but they are going to bring on their own demise which could very well be a few Nukes Obliterating their entire country! That old adage “Don’t shoot yourself in your own foot,” is them all the way! NUTS!!!
May as well get her done because they will NEVER wake up or want to make a Real Peace; all they want is power, death and destruction! Look at those Ayatollahs and Mullahs running around with robes on like they’re still in the Ancient Times and as backward as they look! WHY? Because they actually are worshiping Satan!!!