Iran reveals ‘offensive’ doctrine, US issues alert: Is war imminent?

Iran’s previous doctrine was described as defensive. It promised retaliation after an attack. The new doctrine adds offensive action, meaning Tehran says it could strike first against wider targets after being attacked. “Asymmetric” means relying on methods that exploit an opponent’s vulnerabilities rather than copying its superior conventional forces.

The IRGC says Iran could use missiles, drones and pressure around the Strait of Hormuz. Its spokesman also claimed missile numbers rose 1.5 times since the 12-day Iran-Israel war in June 2025. He said missile range, accuracy and destructive power had improved.

The shift matters because Iran wants future US or Israeli attacks to become much more expensive. Analysts say Tehran is seeking deterrence after retaliation failed to stop repeated attacks. The doctrine remains a threat, not proof that Iran has begun invading neighbours or launching a new offensive.

Iran’s IRGC says a renewed attack could produce more than a limited missile response. Tehran has threatened to invade countries that attack it and to hit bases used for US military operations. It has also warned that its wider offensive strategy could impose costs on the United States, Israel and regional states supporting their operations.

The immediate trigger described in the article was the possibility of renewed US attacks. Washington had joined Israel in the war, and media reports said the US and Israel were planning potential attacks on Iran. The article also describes nearly eight months of war and continuing threats.

Iran says its old defensive approach did not prevent repeated attacks. Its new position seeks to make future strikes more costly through missiles, drones, action around Hormuz and possible attacks beyond Iran’s borders. The threats come while negotiations appear stalled.

Washington ordered some diplomatic personnel to leave Saudi Arabia amid attacks from Yemen’s Houthis. The article presents this as a precaution during a rapidly worsening regional conflict. It does not identify a specific attack on a diplomatic facility or give the number of personnel involved.

The decision came alongside threats from Iran, fighting involving Israel and the United States, and reports of possible future strikes on Iran. The Houthis were also attacking Saudi Arabia while fighting the Saudi-backed, internationally recognised Yemeni government. These developments increased risks around US personnel in the region.

The withdrawal does not mean the United States ended its wider involvement. President Donald Trump had indicated that a decision on the conflict could come soon. The move instead signals concern about immediate security conditions as attacks and diplomatic uncertainty continue.

Before the war, one-fifth of the world’s oil and natural gas supplies passed through the Strait of Hormuz. That makes the waterway a global energy chokepoint. A chokepoint is a narrow route where traffic is concentrated, so attacks or mines can disrupt many shipments at once.

The article reports that four vessels accused of illegal oil transfers were struck and caught fire in the northern Gulf. Three other vessels hit mines west of the strait. These incidents show how attacks can threaten both ships and the route they use.

Shipments through Hormuz remain below their pre-war levels, although regional exports returned to pre-war levels last month through pipelines and other routes. The concentration of energy traffic still makes the strait strategically important. Further attacks could again disrupt supply and unsettle global energy markets.

When traffic through Hormuz is threatened, energy buyers fear that fewer oil and gas supplies will reach markets. That risk can raise prices even before a large physical shortage appears. Disrupted shipping also makes transport more expensive because vessels face danger, delays, insurance risks and longer alternative routes.

The article reports that recent attacks and fighting involving Yemen’s Houthis sent oil prices surging. Brent crude climbed above $110 a barrel on Thursday. Exporters had previously used pipelines and other routes to keep regional shipments moving, but those alternatives do not remove the strategic importance of the strait.

The immediate effects are higher market anxiety and more pressure on energy supplies. If attacks continue, costs could rise for exporters, shippers and consumers. The article does not provide a precise shipping-cost increase, but it links renewed violence with fears of further disruptions to regional energy supplies.

Asymmetric warfare means using different tools and tactics from a stronger opponent. Iran cannot match the conventional military capabilities of the United States, according to analyst Negar Mortazavi. Instead, it can threaten targets and systems that are important to stronger forces but harder to protect everywhere.

The article identifies missiles, drones and leverage over the Strait of Hormuz as Iran’s main asymmetric tools. Missiles can threaten distant targets, drones can create continuing pressure, and action around Hormuz can affect energy shipments. Iran also says its missile stockpile and capabilities improved after the 2025 war.

This approach aims to widen the consequences of any US or Israeli attack. Costs could be military, through attacks on bases; economic, through energy disruption; or political, through pressure on Washington. The strategy does not guarantee success, but it gives Iran ways to challenge stronger forces without fighting them conventionally.

Deterrence is the effort to prevent an attack by threatening consequences severe enough to change an opponent’s decision. It depends on both capability and credibility. A government must appear able and willing to impose costs after an attack. Iran says its new doctrine will make aggression against it much more dangerous.

Tehran could threaten missile strikes, drone attacks, action near the Strait of Hormuz and operations affecting countries that support US military activity. These measures could raise military, economic and political costs. Analyst Negar Mortazavi said Iran wants to establish a new equation in which any attack brings a much higher price.

Iran believes wider costs might make future American administrations think twice. The article says Tehran even hopes economic fallout could affect the November 3 US midterm elections. Deterrence is not guaranteed, however. Threats can also increase escalation if opponents doubt Iran’s intentions or respond with force.