It is extremely difficult to claim that a country with a military budget as modest as Iran's can make Washington's hawks think twice or thrice. However, it would be the most prudent course of action given the current situation.

The United States is a superpower with nearly $1 trillion in defence spending and the most interventionist nation on the planet, followed by none other than Iran.

Iran's interventions span from Yemen, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza to Africa, including Sudan, Mali, Burkina Faso, the Central African Republic, and Congo.

Iran acts as a highly interventionist player, doing so with the skill of one commanding a vast network of militias and supplying light weapons, missiles, and drones.

This nation of 90mn inhabitants has become a global power in missiles and drones, surpassing the West in volume and cost-effectiveness in both areas, and is very close to becoming a nuclear power.

With 440kg of uranium enriched to 60% it could produce a weapon in less than a month.

The Persians reached this level by prioritising these developments, resulting in limited investment in the country's water and electricity networks.

Today, Iran faces water scarcity and needs to import electricity from Azerbaijan.

Iran faced a surprise attack from Israel in June of last year, but kept nearly all its arsenal hidden in bunkers, suffering minimal losses.

Even after losing several leaders, the country was able to organise and react, inflicting significant damage on Israel, whose attacks severely hit Iran's energy and government infrastructure.

Today, Iran's anti-ship missiles boast greater range and speed than many Western equivalents. Models like the Khalij Fars, Zolfaghar Basir, and Hormuz are all supersonic.

As I wrote in recent days, Iran's anti-ship missile arsenal has a range of up to 2,000 km, about 30% above the naval Tomahawk.

There is also a wide variety of aerial and maritime drones, both surface and submersible, forming an ecosystem with dozens of models and thousands of units in stock.

This raises questions: How will the US Navy approach the coast close enough to have range to attack Iran? It won't, and a war at sea is exactly what Iran wants.

Therefore, it is likely that the US will operate in the initial waves from its nearby bases, only approaching its navy in a second phase.

Even if all this unfolded in a cinematic fashion, with hundreds of targets in flames in Iran following a surprise attack, the government and Khamenei would still be there to rebuild the country as soon as the attack ceased.

The only way to change the government would be a ground invasion, which is not being considered.

That role then falls to militias like those in Baluchistan, Kurdistan, and small urban cells, which together do not exceed 10,000-15,000 fighters or even less.

But let's suppose they reached 30,000-40,000. How would they face an active army of nearly 1mn? This without counting the scattered militias that could be mobilized, plus thousands from experienced Houthis.

The American attack plan for regime change lacks backing in a reality that isn't pre-arranged and bought, like in Venezuela.

Although Iran is weaker than ever, there is no internal force capable of militarily confronting the government.

But while the chances of overthrowing the government are small, the opposite holds for the probability of things not going as planned.

In addition to the anti-ship missiles I mentioned, Iran has also converted some of its large ballistic missiles for attacks on moving maritime targets. I'm talking about missiles with warheads over a ton and mid-course guidance via HALE drones and LEO satellites.

Iran is one of the few countries that manufactures HALE drones and is capable of producing and placing its own LEO satellites into orbit.

If a missile like the Shahab-3 hit an aircraft carrier, just from the kinetic force, without counting the explosive payload, the damage would already be devastating. It would be a massive defeat for Trump, even if he ordered reinforcements and more attacks on Iran.

Add to that: Imagine the earthquake in the US if a nuclear Ohio-class submarine were lost to a mini-submarine Ghadir, which is highly stealthy and knows those waters very well?

American submarines need range and would operate at the entrance to the strait. But facing around 30 submarines, ranging from Ghadir and Fateh to three Russian Kilo subs in pursuit, there are already high chances of things going wrong.

This scenario I describe is quite realistic in a conflict involving naval forces. There will be casualties, and they won't be few.

It is a high-risk venture, where even in victory, Iran's government would remain standing.