Introduction Israel and America perhaps understand well the danger posed to the international peace by the Iranian decision to pursue the nuclear weapon program. American Foreign Policy Project posits, “no one would dispute that the United States must keep force on the table with Iran” (Para.1). Any attack to Iran by Israel or the US would probably pave the way to similar repercussions especially considering the close links that exist between these two nations in endeavors to deal with terrorism. The world expects Iran to respond to any military action on its soil or its nuclear facilities by either Israel or America. Such designed responses serve the “purposes of deterrence and intimidation” (Kam 102). It is sometimes impossible to carry out or rather execute some responses because of the Iranian military limitations. However, as the paper unveils, whether in theory or practice, Iran may respond in a number of ways incase Israel or the US attacks it. It might consider impeding oil exports, missile attacks, closing the Hormuz channel, setting free its activists against Israel, and commencing projectile attacks amongst other options. Possible options for Iran in case of US or Israel attacks There are some assumptions warranted while attempting to peruse through the myriad of options available to Iran in case of any attacks by Israel or the U.S. Arguably, the American Foreign Policy Project’s high anticipation for Iran to respond in similar ways when attacked by either Israel or the US might not be the case. This is perhaps because of the reason that Iran may not want to indulge in long-term confrontations with the U.S. However, considering the enormous concerns of both Israel and the U.S to attack Iran, Iran would treat an inversion of its territories by either of the two nations as a collaboration effort between the two. Lastly, and more importantly, the paper assumes that, opposed to Iraq’s failure to respond to bombings of its nuclear facilities in 1981, Iran will indeed respond. With these assumptions, Iran may decide to consider the following options. Molesting the United States forces in Afghanistan and Iraq Most likely, Iran might consider a missile attack against the American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Kam notes, one would expect “Iran to conduct terrorist attacks against American forces in Iraq through Iraqi Shiite militias that receive aid from Iran, or even Iranian groups” (104). However, Iran needs to be careful to conceal its involvements in such attacks, in fear of harsh American responses. Additionally, the level of compliance of Iraqi Shiite militias is questionable since this group has remarkably varying interests compared to the Iranian interests. Furthermore, Iran‘s decision to interfere with the United States forces would imperil the US’ direct retribution against Iran. In spite of the fact that the president would prefer to take out, this can escalate the hostility between the two states. Consequently, the United States may end up lengthening the existence of its military in Iraq (Bolton Para 5). On the other hand, such an attempt would attract massive jeopardy for Iran by captivating on the United States even in a primarily partial way. Iran is also likely to respond by