Iran has announced a shift towards an “offensive” military doctrine, warning that it could invade countries that attack it and target bases used for US military operations. US President Donald Trump, meanwhile, has indicated that Washington could carry out further strikes on Iran, raising concerns about another escalation.
The announcement signals a change in how Tehran says it would respond to a future attack. Instead of limiting its military action to retaliation, Iran says it could also launch offensive operations against its adversaries. With the US warning of security risks in the region and Iranian commanders reportedly preparing for a broader response, the key questions are what the doctrine means, why Iran is adopting it and whether it signals an imminent return to war.
What Is Iran’s New Offensive Doctrine?
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has announced a shift towards an “offensive and asymmetrical” military doctrine, indicating that its response to an attack would no longer be limited to retaliatory strikes.
“Our defence doctrine was previously defensive; we used to say that if a country attacks us, we will respond. Now we say that if a country attacks us, we will both respond and launch an offensive,” IRGC spokesman Hossein Mohebi said, according to Al Jazeera.
In simple terms, a defensive doctrine focuses on protecting a country and responding after it is attacked, whereas an offensive doctrine places greater emphasis on taking military action against an adversary. In Iran's case, the IRGC says its response could combine retaliation with offensive operations, including action against countries that attack it. The announcement signals a broader military posture but does not establish that Tehran has decided to launch a pre-emptive strike.
Mohebi also claimed that Iran’s missile stockpile had increased 1.5 times since the 12-day war between Iran and Israel in June 2025.
“The quality of the missiles has improved significantly, and their range, destructive power and accuracy in hitting targets have increased,” he said.
Al Jazeera reported that Mohebi did not provide specific figures to substantiate the claimed increase.
Mohebi also said Iranian forces were preparing to unveil what he called the “father of all bombs”, describing it as a new capability for Iran's adversaries. He did not provide technical details establishing the weapon's capabilities or operational readiness.
As Al Jazeera reported, Iran’s strategy relies in part on asymmetric warfare, which involves using methods such as missiles, drones and disruption of shipping routes to impose costs on an adversary with superior conventional military capabilities.
Why Has Iran Changed Its Military Approach?
Iran’s announcement reflects its stated intention to make future attacks more costly for the US and its allies. Analysts cited by Al Jazeera said Tehran was drawing lessons from the conflicts of 2025 and 2026, arguing that its previous approach of retaliating after attacks had failed to prevent further military action against it.
“Tehran now wants to establish a new equation: Any future attack on Iran will come at a much higher cost for the aggressors,” Negar Mortazavi, a senior fellow at the Centre for International Policy, told Al Jazeera.
The strategy also involves expanding the potential consequences of a conflict beyond Iran’s territory. Political analyst Rami Khouri told Al Jazeera that Tehran wanted the damage caused by an attack to be felt by the US, Israel and regional countries supporting their military operations.
“That’s one part of the strategy, that the suffering and the damage have to be equal and reciprocal,” Khouri said.
The Strait of Hormuz is still central to these calculations. Before the war, roughly one-fifth of the world's oil and natural gas supplies passed through the waterway. Although shipping through the strait remained below pre-war levels, oil shipments from the wider region had returned to pre-war levels as exporters used alternative routes, including pipelines. Renewed attacks have again raised concerns about energy supplies and shipping security.
Iran’s ability to threaten shipping gives it a means of exerting pressure beyond the battlefield. However, the consequences would not be limited to its adversaries: disruptions could also affect energy-importing countries and businesses dependent on regional trade.
The doctrine therefore serves both a military and a deterrent purpose. Tehran is signalling that another attack could lead to a wider confrontation, although its actual ability to sustain such a campaign remains uncertain.
What Has Donald Trump Said About Further Strikes?
Trump has indicated that further US military action remains possible, while reiterating Washington’s opposition to Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon.
“This should have been done a long time ago by other presidents, the Iran war, and we’ve knocked the hell out of them, and we may do it a little bit further,” Trump told reporters at the White House, according to Anadolu Agency.
Asked about public reaction to the conflict, Trump said: “Well, in one way they love it because I’m doing what should have been done by other presidents. In another way, maybe they don’t.”
He added: “There’s a price to pay, which I knew immediately when I did it. But we can’t let Iran have a nuclear weapon.”
Trump had also said that Washington was no longer negotiating with Tehran and that “something one way or the other” would happen “fairly soon”.
Anadolu Agency also reported that US and Israeli militaries had developed plans for renewed strikes after the US midterm elections, although Trump's approval of those plans remained uncertain.
These remarks indicate that the US president has not ruled out further military action. They do not, however, confirm that he has approved a new round of strikes.
The diplomatic impasse remains significant. Reuters reported in September that Iran had proposed reopening the Strait of Hormuz within seven days, subject to conditions including an end to the US blockade of Iranian ports, the release of frozen Iranian funds and the lifting of oil sanctions. Tehran reiterated the proposal in October, although disagreements over Iran's nuclear programme continued to obstruct negotiations.
The US State Department has ordered non-emergency diplomatic personnel and their families to leave Saudi Arabia following Houthi attacks, according to Al Jazeera.
Does the Doctrine Mean War Is Imminent?
Reuters, citing three senior Iranian officials and an insider familiar with the discussions, reported that Iranian commanders were considering a broader response to renewed US attacks. It also reported that allied groups in Lebanon, Yemen and Iraq had been instructed to prepare for possible coordinated action.
Reuters reported that no final decision had been made on the proposed response, meaning the reported preparations should not be interpreted as confirmation that Iran has decided to launch an attack.
Diplomacy has not been entirely abandoned. Reuters reported that Tehran had continued pursuing negotiations through regional mediators, despite Iranian officials’ doubts about the likelihood of an agreement. The competing military and diplomatic efforts show that Iran is preparing for the possibility of renewed attacks while still seeking a way to end the confrontation.
Iran has announced a shift towards a broader military response to future attacks, Reuters has reported contingency planning, and Trump has left the possibility of further US strikes open. These developments point to the risk of renewed escalation, but none establishes that another attack is imminent.
