Iran's Retaliation: Unpacking How It Might Attack Israel

Otha Denesik 20 Jun 2025

The Middle East remains a tinderbox, perpetually on the brink of wider conflict. Recent events have brought the region dangerously close to a full-scale confrontation between two of its most powerful adversaries: Iran and Israel. The question of "how is Iran going to attack Israel" is no longer hypothetical; it has become a pressing concern following an unprecedented exchange of hostilities that has reshaped regional dynamics.

Understanding the potential methods and motivations behind Iran's actions requires a deep dive into recent escalations, historical grievances, and the complex web of alliances and proxy forces that define the modern Middle East. This article will explore the various dimensions of Iran's potential strategies, drawing on recent developments and expert analysis to shed light on what could happen if Iran attacks Israel again.

Recent Escalations: A Dangerous Precedent
Iran's Stated Motivations: Retaliation and Red Lines
Iran's Capabilities and Methods of Attack
- Direct Attack vs. Proxy Warfare: The Balancing Act
- Missile and Drone Arsenal: A Growing Threat
Israel's Defense Mechanisms: A Shield Against Barrages
The De-escalation vs. Escalation Dilemma
International Reactions and Diplomatic Efforts
Historical Context of Tensions: A Long Shadow
- Past Allegations and Cyber Warfare
- Ongoing Attacks on Iranian Assets
Potential Future Scenarios: What Could Happen Next?

Recent Escalations: A Dangerous Precedent

The region witnessed a significant shift when Iran launched an unprecedented attack against Israel, firing a barrage of missiles at the country. This marked a direct confrontation, a departure from the long-standing shadow war fought primarily through proxies. The attack came amid weeks of soaring violence and tensions in the region, particularly following the October 7th events that saw Hamas lead an attack on Israel, triggering the ongoing war in Gaza.

While Iran has denied that it played a role in Hamas’ October 7th terrorist attack, and a senior Hamas official has said Iran did not order or sanction the operation, both Israel and the United States have viewed Iran as a significant supporter of the group. This underlying tension, coupled with direct provocations, set the stage for Iran's retaliatory strike. The Middle East has been bracing for Iran to launch a retaliatory attack on Israel for some time, and the recent direct engagement has escalated fears of a broader conflict.

Iran's Stated Motivations: Retaliation and Red Lines

Iran's leadership has been unequivocal about its reasons for recent actions and its intent to retaliate. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Israel would be punished for the attack on an Iranian diplomatic facility in Syria, while President Ebrahim Raisi said it would “not go unanswered,” state news agency IRNA reported. This statement clearly indicated that Iran viewed Israel's strike on its consulate in Damascus as a direct assault requiring a forceful response.

Furthermore, the Biden administration is convinced Iran is going to attack Israel in retaliation for the assassination of Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran earlier this week and is preparing to counter it, three U.S. officials stated. This suggests multiple triggers for Iranian retaliation, each pushing the region closer to the precipice. Iran's mission issued a statement on X saying that Iran’s military action was in response to Israel’s attack on an Iranian diplomatic facility in Syria, an apparent reference to the Damascus strike. These public declarations underscore Iran's perceived need to uphold its deterrence capabilities and respond to perceived aggressions against its assets or allies.

Iran's Capabilities and Methods of Attack

When considering how is Iran going to attack Israel, it's crucial to understand the range of capabilities at Tehran's disposal. Iran possesses a significant arsenal of missiles, drones, and a well-established network of proxy forces across the Middle East. These tools offer Iran flexibility in its approach, allowing it to choose between direct confrontation and indirect pressure.

Direct Attack vs. Proxy Warfare: The Balancing Act

Through almost 10 months of war in Gaza, Iran has tried to strike a balance, putting pressure on Israel with sharply increased attacks by its allies and proxy forces in the region, while avoiding direct, all-out war. This strategy of "strategic patience" or "calculated escalation" has been a hallmark of Iranian foreign policy. Proxy groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon, various militias in Iraq and Syria, and the Houthis in Yemen have been instrumental in this strategy. Indeed, some of the projectiles in the recent barrage came from Yemen, indicating the continued involvement of these proxy forces even in a direct Iranian attack.

However, the recent direct missile and drone barrage against Israel marked a significant departure from this long-standing strategy. It demonstrated Iran's willingness to engage directly when its perceived red lines are crossed, such as the attack on its diplomatic facility. The question now is whether this direct engagement will become a more frequent tactic or if Iran will revert to its preferred method of proxy warfare to avoid full-scale conflict while still exerting pressure.

Missile and Drone Arsenal: A Growing Threat

Iran has invested heavily in its missile and drone programs, developing a diverse array of weapons capable of reaching Israel. These include ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and various types of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Israel assessed that Iran was likely to attack three Israeli air bases and an intelligence base located just north of Tel Aviv, a person briefed on the matter said before the attack. This assessment highlights the specific targets Iran might prioritize in a direct strike, focusing on military infrastructure to degrade Israel's defensive and offensive capabilities.

The recent attack involved a combination of these weapons, designed to overwhelm Israel's air defenses. An initial wave of strikes was carried out on Friday morning, followed by a second, separate attack on the city of Tabriz, northwest Iran, which was reported by local media later on Friday. This multi-pronged approach, using different types of projectiles from various locations (including proxies like Yemen), demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of how to maximize impact and challenge defensive systems. The sheer volume of munitions fired in such an attack aims to saturate air defenses, increasing the likelihood of some projectiles getting through.

Israel's Defense Mechanisms: A Shield Against Barrages

Israel possesses one of the most advanced air defense systems in the world, including the Iron Dome, David's Sling, and Arrow systems, designed to intercept short-range rockets, medium-range missiles, and long-range ballistic missiles, respectively. The effectiveness of these systems was evident during Iran's unprecedented attack, as many of the projectiles were shot down by Israel and other nations. This successful defense played a crucial role in limiting damage and casualties.

The involvement of other nations, particularly the United States, United Kingdom, France, and Jordan, in intercepting Iranian projectiles underscored the international commitment to Israel's security and the broader regional concern over Iranian aggression. This multi-national interception effort significantly bolstered Israel's defense, preventing what could have been a far more devastating outcome. The successful defense against Iranian missiles could have a de-escalatory effect, demonstrating that Iran's ability to inflict significant damage is limited by robust defensive capabilities and international cooperation.

The De-escalation vs. Escalation Dilemma

Whether Israel will then feel the need to respond to Iran’s attempts at retaliation is going to depend very much on the level of damage and casualties it sustains. This is the core of the de-escalation dilemma. A successful defense, as seen recently, where significant casualties were avoided, can create an opening for de-escalation. It allows both sides to claim a degree of success without forcing a further, potentially catastrophic, response.

However, if a future attack by Iran were to cause significant casualties or severe damage to critical infrastructure, it will almost certainly lead Israel to seek to strike Iran again. This tit-for-tat escalation could quickly spiral out of control, drawing in regional and international powers. The strategic calculus for both nations hinges on their ability to inflict damage versus their desire to avoid a full-blown war. Each side is testing the other's red lines, and the consequences of miscalculation are immense.

International Reactions and Diplomatic Efforts

The international community, particularly the United States and European powers, has been actively engaged in trying to de-escalate tensions. The Biden administration is convinced Iran is going to attack Israel in retaliation for the assassination of Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran earlier this week and is preparing to counter it, three U.S. officials stated. This indicates a proactive approach by the U.S. to deter Iranian aggression and support Israel's defense.

Despite the heightened tensions, there have also been signals of a willingness to engage in diplomacy. Iran is ready to consider diplomacy if Israel's attacks stop, the Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said after a meeting with the E3 (France, Germany, UK) and the EU in Geneva Friday, according to a statement posted. This suggests that while Iran is prepared to retaliate, it also recognizes the value of diplomatic off-ramps, provided its security concerns are addressed. The role of international mediation and pressure is vital in preventing a wider conflict, pushing both sides towards a more stable, albeit fragile, equilibrium.

Historical Context of Tensions: A Long Shadow

The current tensions are not isolated incidents but rather the latest chapters in a decades-long rivalry marked by mistrust, proxy conflicts, and covert operations. Understanding this historical context is crucial to comprehending how is Iran going to attack Israel, as past grievances often inform present strategies.

Past Allegations and Cyber Warfare

Iran has blamed Israel for a number of attacks over the years, including alleging that Israel and the U.S. were behind the Stuxnet malware attack on Iranian nuclear facilities in the 2000s. Stuxnet, a sophisticated computer worm, caused significant damage to Iran's nuclear program by disrupting centrifuges. This incident highlighted the dimension of cyber warfare in the conflict, a realm where attribution is difficult but impact can be substantial. Such past attacks contribute to Iran's sense of grievance and its determination to develop its own offensive capabilities, including in the cyber domain.

Ongoing Attacks on Iranian Assets

The shadow war has also involved physical attacks on Iranian assets and personnel. Israel’s ongoing attacks on Iranian nuclear sites, generals, and scientists have been a consistent source of friction. Iran’s ambassador told the U.N. Security Council that these attacks killed 78 people and wounded more than 320 on Friday, though this claim's specifics would need independent verification. These alleged attacks, whether on nuclear facilities or high-ranking military figures, are perceived by Iran as acts of aggression that demand a response. They fuel the cycle of retaliation and counter-retaliation, making it difficult to predict how Iran is going to attack Israel next, as the target and method might be chosen to specifically avenge a prior Israeli action.

Potential Future Scenarios: What Could Happen Next?

The question of what could happen if Iran attacks Israel again is complex, with several potential scenarios emerging. Given Iran's recent direct strike, a repeat of a similar large-scale missile and drone barrage remains a possibility, especially if Iran perceives another major Israeli provocation. These attacks could target military bases, strategic infrastructure, or even population centers, depending on Iran's desired level of escalation and the specific trigger.

Alternatively, Iran might revert to its traditional strategy of relying more heavily on its proxy forces. This would involve intensified attacks from Hezbollah in Lebanon, Houthi rebels in Yemen, or Iraqi and Syrian militias. These proxy attacks offer Iran deniability and allow it to exert pressure on Israel without risking a direct, all-out war that could devastate its own country. The type of attack chosen by Iran will largely depend on the perceived effectiveness of its recent direct strike, the international reaction, and the specific event that might trigger the next round of hostilities.

A significant factor will be the level of damage and casualties Israel sustains in any future attack. As noted, a successful defense could have a de-escalatory effect, while significant casualties would almost certainly lead Israel to seek to strike Iran again. This creates a precarious balance, where each side's actions are heavily influenced by the potential for reciprocal escalation. The strategic implications are immense, potentially leading to a broader regional conflict that could draw in global powers, disrupt energy markets, and destabilize the entire Middle East. The world watches with bated breath, hoping that diplomacy and deterrence can prevail over the dangerous cycle of retaliation.

Conclusion

The recent direct confrontation between Iran and Israel has fundamentally altered the dynamics of their long-standing rivalry. The question of "how is Iran going to attack Israel" has moved from theoretical discussions to a stark reality, with Iran demonstrating a willingness to employ its direct military capabilities. While its vast network of proxy forces remains a potent tool for exerting pressure, the direct missile and drone barrage against Israel signals a new, more dangerous phase.

The delicate balance between de-escalation and further escalation hinges on the impact of future attacks and the responses they provoke. International diplomatic efforts are crucial in preventing a full-scale regional war, but the underlying grievances and strategic imperatives of both nations continue to fuel tensions. As the Middle East braces for further developments, understanding the multifaceted ways Iran might choose to act—from direct strikes to proxy warfare and cyber operations—is essential for grasping the precarious future of regional stability.

What are your thoughts on the evolving dynamics between Iran and Israel? Share your perspectives in the comments below, and don't forget to explore our other articles on regional security and international relations for more in-depth analysis.

Iran says no to nuclear talks during conflict as UN urges restraint

Beyond The Classroom