Iranian leaders are pursuing a careful mix of military deterrence and diplomatic outreach in response to Israel's week-long airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities and military infrastructure, even as tensions continue to rise.

Since Israel launched its opening attack on June 13, Iran has retaliated with waves of missile launches while consistently stating that it will not return to nuclear negotiations with the U.S. amid Israeli attacks.

Washington and Tehran had held multiple rounds of negotiations in an effort to reach a deal aimed at lifting U.S. sanctions on Iran while addressing concerns over its nuclear program, but the talks were derailed by the Israeli offensive.

Iran has nonetheless kept its diplomatic engagement active both publicly and behind the scenes. Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi has participated in sessions with European officials in Geneva, indicating that Iran could show flexibility in the nuclear issue as long as Israel stops its bombing campaign. Reuters reported on Thursday that Araghchi has also spoken to Steve Witkoff, the U.S.'s Middle East envoy, over the phone since the beginning of the conflict.

This position is grounded in Tehran's measured calibration of its strategic approach, aligning with the perception of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as a pragmatic decision-maker who weighs ideological positioning against practical outcomes.

Despite a history of strong anti-Israel and anti-U.S. rhetoric, Khamenei has demonstrated flexibility – most notably when he endorsed the 2015 nuclear deal – by prioritizing national stability and safeguarding Iran's long-term interests. His approach to the ongoing war in Gaza has further reinforced that perception, as he consistently took steps to avoid dragging Iran into a broader regional conflict while demonstrating solidarity with the Palestinians as well as deterrence against Israel.

Diplomacy aside, Tehran also appears to be holding on to the hopes that its retaliatory strikes will eventually pressure Israel to halt the conflict it initiated.

"Iranians are quite confident that they can inflict enough retaliatory pain to make Israel stop," Hassan Ahmadian, an assistant professor at Tehran University, told Al Jazeera.

Recent reports indicated that Israel is running low on its air defense interceptors, though the Israeli military denied it on Friday, and the U.S. is also reportedly racing to Israel's aid. The two foes have been exchanging fire for eight days, resulting in at least 430 deaths in Iran and 24 in Israel. While Israel boasts of a success rate of over 90 percent in intercepting Iranian strikes, quite a few projectiles have managed to breach its defense systems. On Thursday, an Iranian strike hit the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange building, a key hub of Israel's financial system.

The unpredictability of U.S. policy under President Donald Trump, however, has posed challenges to Tehran. Trump's shifting signals, including his two-week diplomatic pause and threats for unconditional surrender, have created uncertainty in Tehran and raised the prospect of direct confrontations with the U.S.

Still, analysts are divided over whether the U.S. will join Israel's operation to dismantle Iran's nuclear program, a possibility recently floated by Trump. Some argue that such a move could permanently ease Western fears about a nuclear-armed Iran, delivering a strategic victory for America. Others say it would alienate segments of Trump's support base, many of whom oppose deeper military entanglements abroad, and risk exposing U.S. forces and bases across the Middle East to Iranian retaliation.

In the worst-case scenario, one significant strategic lever available to Iran is the potential closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Ali Yazdikhah, a lawmaker, said on Thursday such a move remains on the table if national interests are threatened.

"If the United States officially and operationally enters the war in support of the Zionists (Israel), it is the legitimate right of Iran in view of pressuring the U.S. and Western countries to disrupt their oil trade's ease of transit," Yazdikhah was quoted as saying by the Mehr News Agency.

Tehran has yet to enact that measure, indicating a willingness to hold this option as potentially a last resort rather than escalate precipitously. 

"It is a double-edged sword: while it can serve to deter and pressure adversaries, it would also harm the interests of other regional countries and the global economy, potentially drawing widespread discontent," Wei Liang, an associate research fellow of the Institute of West-Asian and African Studies of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told CGTN.

Nearly 18 million barrels of oil – about one-fifth of the world's total – are shipped through the Strait of Hormuz on a daily basis. Located between Iran and Oman, it is a key route for oil exports from major Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Iraq and Kuwait. At its narrowest point, it's only about 33 kilometers (21 miles) wide, making it one of the most important – and vulnerable – chokepoints in global energy trade.

Noting that Iran's relations with Gulf states have notably improved since the Saudi-Iran rapprochement in 2023, Wei said closing the strait is not Iran's preferred tool of confrontation at this stage.

Within Iran and the broader Middle East, popular support for Tehran is rising. Massive crowds rallied in Tehran, Beirut and Baghdad on Friday to protest the Israeli offensive, waving flags of the Islamic Republic and chanting slogans against Israel and the U.S. Widespread public backing may give Iranian leaders more leeway to sustain a prolonged response without significant internal pressure to disengage.

This unity contrasts with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's public call for Iranians to overthrow their leadership – a suggestion that appears to have backfired, rallying Iranians behind their country in response.