What Would Happen if the U.S. Targeted Iran’s Spy Ship Behshad?

Introduction: Could the U.S. Strike Iran’s Spy Ship Behshad?

The waters of the Red Sea have become a battleground of covert operations, proxy warfare, and escalating maritime threats. At the center of this storm sits the MV Behshad—a seemingly innocuous Iranian vessel that, according to Western intelligence, is anything but ordinary. Suspected of serving as a floating intelligence hub for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the Behshad has been linked to the Houthis’ increasingly sophisticated attacks on commercial and military shipping - including purported Houthi attacks against the USS Harry S. Truman and its Carrier Strike Group. With Iran using the ship to coordinate regional militant actions, the question looms: Would the United States risk a direct strike on this asset? And if so, what would the consequences be?

In recent years, Washington has taken an increasingly aggressive stance against Iranian military assets. The 2020 targeted killing of IRGC Quds Force Commander Qassem Soleimani, the U.S. Navy’s ongoing interdiction of weapons shipments to the Houthis, and multiple cyber offensives against Iranian military infrastructure suggest a willingness to take decisive action. However, striking a vessel like the Behshad would carry significantly higher stakes. Unlike airstrikes on ground-based Iranian proxy forces, a direct attack on an Iranian naval intelligence platform in international waters—or even within Yemeni waters—could be perceived as an act of war.

This article explores the full spectrum of possibilities:

Why the U.S. might target the Behshad and how it could execute such a strike.
Iran’s potential response, from direct military retaliation to asymmetric warfare.
The impact on regional security, global shipping, and the fragile balance of power in the Middle East.
The risks of escalation, including a broader conflict between U.S. and Iranian forces.

Would a U.S. strike deter Iran, or would it ignite a chain reaction of escalation across the region? Could it trigger Iranian retaliation against American bases, cyberwarfare against Western targets, or even a full-scale naval confrontation? In a world where warfare is increasingly defined by gray zones and covert actions, the fate of one ship could determine the trajectory of an entire conflict.

II. Strategic Importance of the Behshad

A Floating Intelligence Hub in the Red Sea

At first glance, the MV Behshad appears to be a standard cargo vessel, but intelligence reports suggest it is a critical node in Iran’s maritime surveillance and military operations. Operated under the supervision of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the Behshad is believed to function as a floating SIGINT (Signals Intelligence) platform, intercepting communications, tracking vessel movements, and relaying targeting data to Iranian-aligned forces—particularly the Houthi rebels in Yemen.

For years, Iran has used proxy forces like the Houthis to disrupt global shipping, attack Western-aligned Gulf states, and project power beyond its borders. The Behshad plays a crucial role in coordinating drone and missile strikes on Red Sea shipping lanes, including U.S. warships and commercial tankers. The Houthis’ ability to target ships with increasing precision suggests that they are receiving real-time intelligence from a sophisticated surveillance source—likely the Behshad.

Why the U.S. and Allies See It as a Threat

The Behshad’s operations pose a direct threat to international shipping and U.S. naval forces in the region. The U.S. has made securing the Red Sea a priority, especially after repeated Houthi missile and drone attacks on vessels transiting the Bab el-Mandeb Strait.

Key reasons why the Behshad is a high-value target for U.S. military planners:

Intelligence Coordination for Houthi Attacks – The Houthis lack indigenous high-tech surveillance capabilities. The accuracy of their strikes strongly indicates that they are receiving real-time targeting data from the Behshad.
Force Multiplier for Iran’s Proxy War – The ship extends Iran’s ability to conduct hybrid warfare without direct confrontation. It allows Tehran to plausibly deny involvement in Red Sea attacks while maintaining influence over Houthi operations.
Threat to U.S. Naval Forces – U.S. warships in the region have intercepted and destroyed multiple incoming missiles and drones over the past months. A vessel like the Behshad, actively feeding intelligence to Houthi forces, significantly increases the threat level for U.S. naval operations.
Regional Power Projection – The Behshad is not just a Houthi enabler; it’s a symbol of Iran’s growing presence in the Red Sea. The longer it remains operational, the more Iran cements its strategic footprint in a waterway critical to global trade.

Iran’s Maritime Intelligence Network

The Behshad is part of a broader Iranian maritime intelligence network that consists of other vessels suspected of similar roles. In previous years, Iran operated the MV Saviz, another intelligence-gathering ship that functioned as a logistics and surveillance base for the IRGC. The Saviz was eventually targeted and damaged in an attack widely attributed to Israel.

Given this precedent, the Behshad is viewed as a high-priority target not just for the U.S., but also for Israel and Western allies looking to weaken Iran’s asymmetric warfare capabilities.

Would a U.S. Strike Be Justified?

Legally, the justification for attacking the Behshad hinges on whether the U.S. can prove that the ship is directly coordinating attacks on U.S. and allied forces. If definitive evidence emerges that the vessel is providing actionable intelligence for Houthi strikes, the U.S. could argue that it is acting in self-defense under international law.

However, a direct military strike on an Iranian-flagged vessel would be a significant escalation—one that could draw Iran into a larger conflict. The U.S. has a range of options, from cyberwarfare to covert sabotage, that could neutralize the Behshad without triggering an outright war.

With tensions rising in the Red Sea and Washington weighing its response, the next logical question becomes: Would the U.S. actually pull the trigger? And if it did, how would Iran respond?

III. The U.S. Decision to Strike: Scenarios and Consequences

Would the U.S. Actually Strike the Behshad?

Targeting the MV Behshad presents a high-risk, high-reward calculation for Washington. On one hand, eliminating a key Iranian intelligence asset could disrupt Houthi attacks, protect Red Sea shipping, and weaken Iran’s ability to project power. On the other hand, it risks direct military escalation with Tehran—a conflict neither side may want but could be forced into.

U.S. policymakers would have to weigh several factors:

The Evidence Threshold – Does Washington have undeniable intelligence linking the Behshad to attacks on U.S. and allied vessels? The stronger the case, the easier it is to justify military action under Article 51 of the UN Charter (self-defense).
Risk of Iranian Retaliation – Would a strike lead to an immediate Iranian military response, or would Tehran absorb the blow and respond through proxies and cyberattacks?
International Support – Would NATO, the EU, and Gulf allies back a U.S. strike, or would it be seen as an unilateral act of aggression?
Political Will in Washington – With the Biden administration facing an election year, does it want to risk another Middle East war, or would it opt for covert, deniable action?

If the decision is made to act, the U.S. has several options.

U.S. Options for Neutralizing the Behshad

1. Kinetic Strike (Direct Military Action)

The most decisive option is an airstrike, missile attack, or naval bombardment to destroy the Behshad outright.

Potential methods:

Submarine-launched Tomahawk missiles from the USS Florida (or similar assets).
Aerial drone strike using MQ-9 Reapers.
Naval gunfire from a U.S. destroyer operating in the Red Sea.

Pros:
✔ Rapid elimination of a major intelligence threat.
✔ Sends a clear message to Iran and its proxies.

Cons:
❌ Direct military confrontation with Iran.
❌ Risk of Iranian retaliation against U.S. forces in Iraq, Syria, or the Gulf.
❌ Possible international backlash, especially from China and Russia.

2. Cyber Warfare Attack

A more covert and deniable approach would be to cripple the Behshad’s intelligence capabilities through cyberattacks.

Potential methods:

GPS spoofing to send the ship off course.
Electronic warfare to disable communications and intelligence-gathering equipment.
Malware injection to corrupt or erase intelligence data.

Pros:
✔ Minimal risk of direct military escalation.
✔ Deniable—no visible U.S. involvement.

Cons:
❌ Temporary solution—Iran could restore operations within weeks.
❌ Does not physically eliminate the threat.

3. Covert Sabotage (Special Operations or Proxies)

Instead of an overt military attack, the U.S. could use special forces or regional allies to sabotage the ship.

Possible methods:

Underwater demolition teams (Navy SEALs) planting explosives.
Covert Israeli operation (similar to previous attacks on Iranian ships).
Saudi or UAE-backed operatives attacking the vessel.

Pros:
✔ Deniability—keeps U.S. involvement in the shadows.
✔ Prevents escalation to full-scale war.

Cons:
❌ Requires precise intelligence and operational risk.
❌ If discovered, it could still lead to retaliation.

Political and Military Risks of a U.S. Strike

Regardless of the method used, taking action against the Behshad would not go unanswered by Iran. Tehran would see an attack as a direct challenge to its sovereignty and military operations, triggering a range of possible responses.

Iranian Missile Strikes on U.S. Bases – Iran has the capability to strike U.S. military installations in Iraq, Syria, and the Persian Gulf.
Houthi Retaliation in the Red Sea – Expect an immediate increase in attacks on commercial shipping, Western military vessels, and even Gulf state infrastructure.
Cyberattacks on the U.S. – Iran could retaliate by hacking U.S. financial institutions, government networks, or energy grids.
Asymmetric Proxy Attacks – Hezbollah, Iraqi militias, and other Iranian-backed groups could escalate attacks on U.S. assets in the Middle East.

With these risks in mind, the U.S. must decide: Is taking out the Behshad worth the cost of escalation?

IV. Iranian Response Scenarios: How Tehran Might Retaliate

Would Iran Escalate?

If the U.S. were to strike the MV Behshad, Iran would face a difficult strategic decision. It could choose to escalate into a direct military confrontation, or it could respond asymmetrically, leveraging proxies, cyberwarfare, and economic pressure to retaliate without inviting full-scale war.

Iran’s response would depend on three key factors:

The severity of the attack – A full destruction of the Behshad would demand a harsher response than a cyberattack or covert sabotage.
The level of U.S. attribution – If Washington takes open credit for the strike, Iran would be under domestic and international pressure to retaliate.
The regional environment – If tensions are already high (e.g., ongoing Israeli-Iranian clashes, unrest in Iraq or Syria), Tehran might feel it has less to lose by escalating.

Iran has multiple retaliation pathways, each with different risks and consequences for the U.S. and its allies.

Scenario 1: Direct Military Action Against U.S. Assets

Missile Strikes on U.S. Military Bases

Iran has a large arsenal of ballistic missiles, including Fateh-110s and Shahab-3s, which could target U.S. bases in Iraq, Syria, or the Persian Gulf.
The IRGC has previously launched missile strikes on U.S. bases in retaliation for the Soleimani strike, causing dozens of injuries.
A U.S. military response to a direct Iranian missile strike would be inevitable, making this the highest-risk scenario.

Naval Confrontation in the Persian Gulf

Iran’s IRGC Navy could attempt to harass, capture, or attack U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf.
Iranian fast attack boats, mines, and anti-ship missiles could threaten shipping lanes and U.S. aircraft carriers stationed in the region.
However, Iran would likely lose a direct naval engagement against U.S. forces, making this a less probable response unless Tehran wants an open war.

➡ Probability: Low (unless Iran wants to risk full-scale war)
➡ U.S. Response: Heavy military retaliation, airstrikes on Iranian bases

Scenario 2: Houthi Escalation in the Red Sea

The most likely and immediate response would be an escalation of Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping, as Iran’s proxies provide plausible deniability.

How the Houthis Could Retaliate

Increased missile and drone attacks on international shipping.
More aggressive targeting of U.S. warships in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden.
Attempted blockade of the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, a chokepoint for 12% of global trade.

This response allows Iran to hit back indirectly, keeping the conflict in the gray zone while avoiding a direct U.S.-Iran confrontation.

➡ Probability: High (proxy retaliation is Iran’s preferred method)
➡ U.S. Response: Increased Navy patrols, counterstrikes on Houthi positions

Scenario 3: Cyberwarfare Against the U.S. and Allies

Iran has a well-developed cyberwarfare division, with a history of attacks on U.S. financial institutions, critical infrastructure, and military networks. A cyber retaliation could include:

Attacks on U.S. banking and financial systems (as seen in 2012).
Disrupting oil and gas facilities in Saudi Arabia, UAE, or even the U.S. (Iran-backed hackers hit Saudi Aramco in 2012).
Targeting U.S. military communications and satellites to degrade regional operations.

Iran’s cyber strategy offers a low-cost, low-risk retaliation option, making it one of the most probable responses to a U.S. attack on the Behshad.

➡ Probability: Very High (cyberwarfare is an effective asymmetric tool)
➡ U.S. Response: Sanctions, counter-cyber operations

Scenario 4: Proxy Attacks on U.S. Troops and Allies

Iran has a network of proxy militias across the Middle East that could be activated to retaliate against the U.S. and its allies.

Potential Targets

U.S. troops in Iraq and Syria – Iranian-backed militias have already launched drone and rocket attacks on U.S. forces.
Israel – If tensions with Hezbollah escalate, Iran could encourage rocket barrages on northern Israel.
Saudi Arabia and the UAE – Iranian proxies could target Gulf state oil facilities, disrupting global energy markets.

➡ Probability: Medium-High (depends on regional factors)
➡ U.S. Response: Retaliatory airstrikes, sanctions, military reinforcements

Scenario 5: Iran Doubles Down on Its Nuclear Program

If Iran feels that a U.S. attack signals a larger campaign against Iranian assets, it could abandon nuclear restraint and move aggressively toward weaponization.

Possible Nuclear Escalation Moves

Expanding uranium enrichment beyond 90% (weapons-grade).
Kicking out IAEA inspectors, reducing international oversight.
Announcing missile advancements capable of delivering a nuclear warhead.

While Iran is not likely to go nuclear immediately, a sustained U.S. pressure campaign could push Tehran toward crossing the nuclear threshold faster than expected.

➡ Probability: Medium (depends on Iran’s risk tolerance)
➡ U.S. Response: Sanctions, diplomatic pressure, potential Israeli airstrikes

Which Scenario Is Most Likely?

Iran has multiple ways to retaliate, but some are far more probable than others.

Direct military action, such as missile strikes on U.S. bases or a naval confrontation in the Persian Gulf, remains less likely unless Iran wants to escalate into full-scale war. These responses would trigger severe U.S. retaliation, making them high-risk options.

Houthi attacks on shipping in the Red Sea are the most likely immediate response. Iran can maintain plausible deniability, while still inflicting economic and strategic costs on the U.S. and its allies. With the Houthis already engaged in a campaign against commercial and military vessels, intensifying these attacks is an easy move for Tehran.

Cyberwarfare is another highly probable retaliation. Iran has previously launched successful attacks on U.S. financial institutions, Saudi oil infrastructure, and global networks. A well-coordinated cyberattack could disrupt banking systems, energy markets, or military communications—all without crossing the line into outright war.

Proxy attacks on U.S. troops and regional allies are also a strong possibility. Iranian-backed militias in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon could step up operations against U.S. forces, forcing Washington into difficult countermeasures.

Finally, Iran’s nuclear program could take a drastic turn. If Tehran sees U.S. attacks as a broader strategy to undermine its military capabilities, it might abandon all remaining constraints and accelerate uranium enrichment to weapons-grade levels.

The Bottom Line

The most immediate and low-risk retaliation for Iran would be:

Escalating Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping.
Launching cyberattacks against U.S. infrastructure.
Activating proxy forces in Iraq and Syria to target U.S. troops.

If these responses don’t deter further U.S. actions, Iran could escalate further, increasing the risk of an uncontrollable regional conflict.

V. Regional and Global Fallout: How a U.S.-Iran Clash Would Reshape the Red Sea and Beyond

A U.S. strike on the MV Behshad would not happen in a vacuum. It would send shockwaves far beyond the Red Sea, disrupting global trade, straining international alliances, and possibly pulling multiple countries into a broader conflict. While the immediate confrontation would center on Iran and its proxies, the geopolitical consequences would unfold on a much larger scale.

1. The Red Sea Becomes a No-Go Zone for Global Shipping

The Bab el-Mandeb Strait is one of the world’s most critical maritime chokepoints, with over 6 million barrels of oil and 12% of global trade passing through it daily. Houthi attacks on shipping have already driven insurance rates sky-high, forcing some companies to reroute around Africa. If Iran retaliates by fully weaponizing the Red Sea through its proxy forces, it could trigger:

A full-scale maritime crisis, with major shipping companies avoiding the region entirely.
Severe oil price spikes, leading to economic ripple effects worldwide.
Potential naval escalation, as the U.S. and its allies increase patrols and counterstrikes.

While some Gulf states—particularly Saudi Arabia and the UAE—want the Houthis neutralized, they would also be deeply concerned about a wider conflict spilling over into their own territories.

2. A Tectonic Shift in Middle Eastern Power Dynamics

If Iran perceives the U.S. attack as part of a broader Western campaign to weaken its regional influence, it may double down on its military partnerships and proxy strategies. The balance of power in the Middle East could shift in several ways:

Iran strengthens military ties with Russia and China: Tehran has already deepened military cooperation with Moscow, supplying drones for Russia’s war in Ukraine. A direct U.S. attack would likely push Iran into an even closer strategic alignment with Russia and China.
Gulf states rethink security partnerships: If a U.S.-Iran confrontation spirals out of control, Gulf nations like Saudi Arabia and the UAE may seek more autonomy from Washington and look for alternative security arrangements, possibly leaning toward China’s expanding Middle East influence.
Israel-Iran tensions flare further: If Tehran believes Washington is actively targeting its intelligence assets, Israel may escalate its own covert operations against Iran’s nuclear and military infrastructure, triggering more shadow warfare across the region.

3. The Risk of Direct Confrontation Between the U.S. and Iran

Although Iran typically avoids direct military confrontations, an attack on an Iranian-flagged vessel could force Tehran’s hand.

Possible flashpoints include:

Iranian missile strikes on U.S. bases in Iraq, Syria, or the Persian Gulf.
An attempted Iranian blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, threatening nearly a third of the world’s oil supply.
U.S. and Iranian naval forces clashing in the Gulf, escalating from harassment to full combat.

While neither Washington nor Tehran wants an outright war, miscalculations and rapid escalation could lead to an unavoidable confrontation.

4. The Global Energy Market Goes Haywire

Oil markets are already volatile, and any military escalation in the Red Sea or Persian Gulf would send crude prices skyrocketing. Possible economic consequences include:

Oil prices spiking above $100 per barrel, leading to higher costs for consumers worldwide.
Energy-dependent economies, like Europe, suffering supply chain disruptions.
Iran leveraging its oil exports to China as a geopolitical tool, strengthening economic ties between Beijing and Tehran.

In previous crises, Washington has leaned on Saudi Arabia to ramp up oil production to offset price shocks. However, Riyadh’s warming relations with Beijing and desire to remain neutral may prevent it from fully cooperating with U.S. demands.

5. U.S. Political and Strategic Consequences

With a new administration in power, a U.S. strike on the Behshad would serve as one of the first major tests of Trump’s foreign policy approach in his second term.

Key considerations include:

Trump’s Military Strategy Toward Iran – In his first term, Trump ordered the assassination of Qassem Soleimani, a move that nearly triggered war. Would his second-term strategy lean toward military deterrence or disengagement?
Congressional and Public Reactions – A direct confrontation with Iran could put Republican hawks and isolationists at odds, while Democrats might criticize escalation as reckless.
Military Resource Allocation – With ongoing commitments in Ukraine and Taiwan tensions rising, does the U.S. have the bandwidth for another Middle East conflict?
Energy Prices and Global Economic Fallout – Given Trump’s pro-energy independence stance, could his administration leverage U.S. oil production to offset market instability?

Ultimately, the decision to strike the Behshad would signal Trump’s strategic direction for dealing with Iran and its proxies—either escalating toward confrontation or seeking to deter Tehran without committing to full-scale conflict.

The Big Picture: Is It Worth the Risk?

The decision to strike the Behshad would be one of the most consequential moves the U.S. could make in the region. While it may neutralize an immediate threat, it could also:

Trigger a wider Middle East conflict, drawing in multiple regional actors.
Severely disrupt global trade and energy markets.
Push Iran closer to China, Russia, and military escalation.

Would Washington be willing to take this gamble? And if it did, would the cost of escalation outweigh the benefits of eliminating one intelligence ship?

VI. Long-Term Consequences: The Future of Iranian Maritime Intelligence and U.S. Rules of Engagement

A U.S. strike on the MV Behshad—whether kinetic, cyber, or covert—would be a flashpoint, but not the endgame. The long-term impact would be felt far beyond the immediate battlefield. Iran has consistently adapted to Western pressure, and any successful attack on its intelligence assets would likely push it to evolve its maritime intelligence strategy. At the same time, a direct confrontation would force the U.S. to reevaluate its military posture in the region, especially as it balances growing conflicts elsewhere.

1. Would Iran Replace the Behshad?

Iran has a history of replacing lost military assets with more advanced and resilient alternatives. If the Behshad were destroyed, Iran would likely:

Deploy a new intelligence vessel with upgraded defenses – A replacement ship might be fitted with stealth technology, electronic countermeasures, or decoy systems to make it harder to target.
Rely more on satellite and drone-based surveillance – Iran has made significant advances in low-orbit satellite technology and UAV reconnaissance, potentially reducing its reliance on large, slow-moving spy ships.
Increase intelligence-sharing with China and Russia – Tehran could deepen its military-technical cooperation with these powers, gaining access to better surveillance technology, satellite coverage, and electronic warfare capabilities.

Eliminating the Behshad might disrupt Iran’s operations temporarily, but it would likely accelerate Tehran’s shift to a more dispersed and resilient intelligence network.

2. Redefining U.S. Rules of Engagement in the Region

If the U.S. openly strikes an Iranian-flagged vessel, it would mark a major shift in military engagement rules for the Middle East. Up until now, most U.S. actions against Iran have been against proxies, not direct Iranian military assets.

A successful strike on the Behshad would raise critical questions:

Would the U.S. now target other Iranian assets more aggressively?
Would Iran retaliate with direct action, setting a new precedent for military confrontations?
How would allies like Saudi Arabia and Israel react to a more forceful U.S. stance?

3. The Rise of Maritime Gray Zone Warfare

If Iran loses a key intelligence vessel, it might retaliate by escalating its asymmetric maritime operations. This could include:

Using swarming tactics with smaller, harder-to-detect vessels to gather intelligence.
Expanding the use of “ghost fleets” and disguised civilian ships for surveillance and logistics.
Sabotaging Western commercial or military vessels through deniable means, such as limpet mines or cyberattacks.

The battle for maritime intelligence control in the Red Sea and Persian Gulf would likely intensify, with covert naval engagements and electronic warfare playing a bigger role than conventional military strikes.

4. Will This Push Iran Toward Nuclear Brinkmanship?

If Tehran views an attack on the Behshad as part of a larger Western strategy to cripple its military capabilities, it could use the moment to justify accelerating its nuclear program.

Potential escalation steps include:

Abandoning all remaining JCPOA restrictions and enriching uranium beyond 90% weapons-grade levels.
Withdrawing from international nuclear agreements and expelling IAEA inspectors.
Expanding Iran’s ballistic missile program, increasing its nuclear delivery capability.

If Iran moves closer to nuclear breakout status, it could trigger:

A preemptive Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.
Increased Western sanctions and possible U.S. military intervention.
A new nuclear crisis in the Middle East, forcing global powers to take sides.

5. Could This Spark a New Middle East Arms Race?

A U.S. strike on the Behshad could have ripple effects beyond just Iran. If other regional powers perceive this as a new phase of U.S.-Iran confrontation, they may seek to bolster their own military capabilities.

Saudi Arabia and the UAE could accelerate defense spending, including acquiring more long-range missile systems and naval assets.
Turkey might take a more aggressive military posture in the region, leveraging its own maritime expansion in the Mediterranean and Red Sea.
Israel could push for even stronger U.S. military coordination to prepare for a worst-case scenario of open war with Iran.

The longer-term result? A high-tech arms race in the Gulf, with more nations investing in drones, missile defenses, cyber capabilities, and naval expansion to prepare for a potential U.S.-Iran war.

6. The Bigger Picture: U.S. Global Strategy and the Iran Dilemma

With growing tensions between the U.S. and China in the Indo-Pacific, as well as the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, Washington has to decide how much bandwidth it has for another prolonged Middle East conflict.

If the U.S. escalates against Iran, it risks overextending itself militarily at a time when its strategic focus is shifting toward Asia and great-power competition.
If the U.S. avoids confrontation, Iran could become bolder in its regional aggression, believing Washington is unwilling to engage.
If Trump is in power, he may lean toward a high-risk, high-reward gamble, potentially leading to either a decisive U.S. victory or an uncontrollable escalation.

At its core, a U.S. decision to target the Behshad would force a long-term recalibration of American military posture in the Middle East—one with consequences far beyond just one intelligence ship.

Conclusion: Is It Worth the Risk?

A U.S. strike on the MV Behshad would be a high-stakes move with far-reaching geopolitical consequences. While it could temporarily cripple Iran’s intelligence-gathering operations, it would also:

Escalate tensions in the Red Sea, risking regional war.
Trigger unpredictable Iranian retaliation, including cyberattacks and proxy strikes.
Potentially accelerate Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Pull U.S. military focus back into the Middle East at a time of global instability.

Would Washington take the risk? Or would it seek an alternative strategy to counter Iran without crossing the threshold of open conflict?

At the end of the day, the real question isn’t just whether the U.S. can take out the Behshad—it’s whether the consequences of doing so would drag the world into a conflict neither side truly wants.