Before Zero Hour: Trump vs Khamenei's Cards
In the calculations leading up to zero hour, the American President has confirmed that the strike will be launched from two bases: Diego Garcia and from Britain—specifically RAF Fairford airbase. By choosing these two distant locations, Trump is deliberately selecting launch points that are difficult for Iran to retaliate against directly, thereby protecting the Gulf states from becoming immediate targets.
The plan is precise: a bomber-focused strike targeting Iran's 15 most critical "Missile Cities." In this scenario, Israel would remain silent while the US destroys Iran's missile infrastructure. The response from Iran, however, would be immediate.
Trump's "Limited Strike" Playbook: Midnight Hammer 2.0
The question is: how will Iran respond? Will it target the sources of fire outside the Gulf? Iran has already sent a direct communiqué to the United Nations stating that all American assets will be bombed.
What the American President envisions is essentially a repeat of the previous strike—the one carried out by B-2 Spirit bombers—but this time using the more advanced B-21 Raider and other heavy bombers. This tactic, described as "limited," is anything but limited. It involves striking Iran's missile cities with heavy bombers, just as the previous operation targeted Fordow and other nuclear sites.
This is "Midnight Hammer" with a different target: previously it was the nuclear program, now it is the missile program. The Iranian fires would originate from Diego Garcia and Fairford. This is precisely why Britain decided to block the use of its bases—because Netanyahu is pushing the American President to the front line while standing behind him, and Trump, in turn, is trying to push Britain and its bases to the forefront against Iran.
Britain's Refusal and Iran's UN Letter
The British Prime Minister intervened directly to prevent the use of these bases because they would be immediately exposed to retaliatory strikes. The American President is pushing to burn the British card—whether at Diego Garcia or at Fairford.
In response, Iran made a calculated diplomatic move. In a series of letters to the UN Secretary-General—dated December 13, December 29, and January 22—Iran documented the continuous American threats. The Iranian letter directly quoted the American President's own words from February 3, 2026:
"If Iran decides not to reach an agreement, the United States may have to use Diego Garcia base and the airport located in Fairford to eliminate a potential attack from Iran."
Note the phrase: "a potential attack." This is the preemptive strike doctrine in diplomatic language.
Iran's Strategic Sacrifice and Gain
Iran came to the United Nations and declared: there is no potential attack from Iran, and there will be no preemptive strike. This is a second rejection of everything the IRGC hawks—who refused the ceasefire during the 12-Day War and advocated for a preemptive strike—had demanded.
By renouncing the preemptive strike, Iran simultaneously expanded its retaliatory scope. Since Britain has refused the use of its bases, Iran now classifies all American assets—whether in Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Fairford, or Diego Garcia—as legitimate targets of the aggressor state. Diego Garcia equals Al Udeid; they are both American assets.
Iran's letter to the UN was explicit:
Iran holds the United States fully responsible and calls upon it to immediately cease its illegal threats and abide by its obligations under the Charter, particularly Article 4(2), and refrain from any action that would escalate tensions. The Security Council and the Secretary-General must act immediately before it is too late.
The letter's most dangerous sentence:
In the framework of Iran's defensive response, all bases, installations, and assets belonging to the aggressor force in the region will be considered legitimate targets. The United States will bear full and direct responsibility for any unforeseen and uncontrollable consequences.
The Calculus: Loss and Gain
Iran lost the preemptive strike card, but it gained something far more powerful through international law: the right to strike all assets of the aggressor state anywhere in the region.
"In the region"—when we return to the original text, Iran specifically said "in the region." This encompasses the entire Middle East, which includes Israel. Iran will choose how and where to deliver its response.
The response will be "decisive and proportionate." If the US strikes with 160 missiles, Iran responds with 160. This proportionality doctrine, combined with the regional scope, creates an extraordinarily dangerous equation:
- Muwaffaq Al-Salti: Final warning—if operations continue from this base, it will be bombed
- All Gulf assets: Every American installation becomes a legitimate target
- Israel: Falls within "the region" and can be targeted under Article 51 self-defense
The American Dilemma
From the American perspective, the plan was clear: strike the missile cities with bombers, launch from Diego Garcia and British bases, mix the cards, and end the matter. A "limited" operation—like Midnight Hammer—but targeting the missile program instead of the nuclear program. Trump would win, and the negotiations would resume with Iran's uranium suspension proceeding as planned.
But Iran has refused categorically. This strike will not pass because it targets not the regime, as the American President claims, but the missile cities—Iran's most critical strategic deterrent.
The Countdown
The window is narrowing. Between this Saturday and next Saturday, the situation is extremely critical. If there is no strike by the end of next week, doubt will grow exponentially about whether this operation will ever materialize.
The American calculation was to bypass all internal problems and deliver a speech by Tuesday. But between the divided advisors, the fractured Western alliance, Britain's refusal, and Iran's masterful UN diplomacy, zero hour is approaching with both sides holding cards that could set the entire region ablaze.
Note: This article is part of our Political Economy series, providing deep strategic analysis on global macroeconomic and geopolitical shifts.