01/14/2026
The Weapons the US Could Employ in Any New Strike on Iran
Analysis by Brad Lendon
The Trump administration touted last year’s bombing of Iranian nuclear sites as one of its major military successes. US Air Force B-2 bombers dropped 14 of the world’s largest conventional bombs, striking two Iranian nuclear installations without any US casualties or loss of aircraft. The operation involved dozens of fighter jets, refueling tankers and support aircraft working in coordination to execute the mission.
Now, Donald Trump is again threatening military action against Iran, this time framing it as an act of solidarity with the hundreds of thousands of ordinary Iranians who have taken to the streets to oppose the hardline regime in Tehran.
However, analysts say any new US attack on the Islamic Republic would be very different from the limited, one-time strikes that hit three nuclear targets last summer. An operation intended to support protesters would likely focus on command centers and facilities tied to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), its affiliated Basij forces and the Iranian police, institutions leading the violent crackdown on dissent.
Many of those command centers, though, are located within densely populated areas. That reality raises the risk that US strikes could kill civilians, the very people Washington claims it wants to support. Analysts warn that civilian casualties could quickly undermine any intended political or moral advantage.
“Whatever the US does, it has to be very precise with no non-IRGC casualties,” said Hawaii-based analyst Carl Schuster. Any attack that harmed civilians, even inadvertently, risks alienating dissidents “who are united only in their hatred of the regime.” Such losses, he said, could make the US appear like “a foreign power trying to suppress and dominate Iran, not a liberating influence.”
What Could the US Target?
Peter Layton, a visiting fellow at the Griffith Asia Institute in Australia, echoed concerns about civilian casualties but noted that Washington still has a wide range of potential targets.
Iran’s top leadership could be vulnerable, though likely indirectly. Iran has learned from Israeli strikes last year that killed senior military officials and nuclear scientists, prompting leaders to disperse and conceal critical assets. “We have shown we can hit what we can find,” Schuster said. Even so, Layton argued that striking the homes or offices of senior regime figures could send a powerful symbolic message. “The military value is small,” he said, “but it is theater, doing something visible for the protesters.”
Another option would be economic pressure through military means. Analysts say Iran’s leadership and the IRGC control extensive commercial enterprises across the country. “Attack the specific facilities that are financially important to them as individuals and their families,” Layton said. Australian government estimates suggest that one to two thirds of Iran’s gross domestic product is controlled by the IRGC, providing numerous potential “weak spots.”
Schuster added that there is some distance between Iran’s top leadership and the IRGC itself. “The goal is to make the IRGC leadership and rank and file worry more about their own survival than that of the regime,” he said, noting that “the IRGC has never been suicidal.”
What Weapons Might the US Use?
While B-2 bombers formed the backbone of last summer’s nuclear strikes, analysts say the broader range of targets now under consideration could be better suited to other weapons systems.
“Regional IRGC headquarters and bases can be hit by Tomahawk cruise missiles,” Schuster said. These highly accurate missiles can be launched from US Navy submarines and surface ships positioned far from Iranian shores, reducing the risk to US personnel.
Another option is the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM). With a 1,000-pound penetrating warhead and a range of up to 620 miles (1,000 kilometers), JASSMs can be launched from a variety of US Air Force aircraft—including F-15, F-16 and F-35 fighters, as well as B-1, B-2 and B-52 bombers—and from US Navy F/A-18 fighters.
Drones could also play a role. Layton said it is “unlikely to see crewed aircraft dropping short-range ordnance or free-fall bombs,” which would be considered too risky.
Although the US often keeps an aircraft carrier in the Middle East, the nearest one at the time, the USS Abraham Lincoln, was operating thousands of miles away in the South China Sea. Carrier strike groups bring additional missile platforms and logistical support, but recent redeployments have reduced the options available for immediate action against Iran.
As a result, any near-term airstrikes would likely originate from US airbases in the Persian Gulf region or from aircraft flying long-range missions from farther away. During last summer’s B-2 strikes, the stealth bombers flew nonstop from Missouri to Iran with multiple aerial refuelings. All of the aircraft mentioned above are capable of in-flight refueling, and analysts say movements of tanker aircraft or strike platforms closer to Iran could signal imminent action.
Military ‘Theater’
Whatever course the Trump administration might choose, analysts expect it to be dramatic. “The administration is attracted to theater—media-grabbing, head-turning events,” Layton said.
He also expects any operation to be brief, mirroring last year’s limited strikes. “The administration likes short-duration raids that carry the lowest possible risk to US forces.”
One way to achieve that, Layton suggested, would be strikes on oil facilities in the Persian Gulf. “They are the easiest and safest target set,” he said. Such attacks could damage Iran economically over the medium to long term while producing visually dramatic scenes, large plumes of smoke, that would be easy for international media to cover.
