Iran's Next Move: Will Tehran Retaliate Against Israel?

Ofelia Schmeler 23 Jun 2025

The Middle East remains a tinderbox, perpetually on the brink of wider conflict, and at the heart of this tension lies the enduring rivalry between Iran and Israel. The question of "will Iran retaliate against Israel" is not merely speculative; it is a critical concern that dictates regional stability, global energy markets, and international diplomacy. Recent direct confrontations have shattered long-held assumptions about proxy warfare, pushing both nations into uncharted territory where direct military exchanges are no longer unthinkable.

Understanding the intricate dance of deterrence, provocation, and retaliation between these two regional powers requires a deep dive into their historical animosities, recent escalations, and the strategic calculus guiding their decisions. The stakes are incredibly high, as any misstep could plunge the entire region into a devastating war with far-reaching global consequences. This article aims to unpack the complexities surrounding Iran's potential responses, examining the various options at its disposal, the constraints it faces, and the implications for the future of the Middle East.

A Volatile History: Understanding the Iran-Israel Dynamic
Operation True Promise: A Direct Confrontation
Israel's Measured Response and its Impact
The Calculus of Retaliation: Deterrence vs. Escalation
Iran's Asymmetric Options and Regional Reach
- The Proxy Network: A Double-Edged Sword
- Economic and Cyber Warfare
Israel's Potential Targets in Iran
- Critical Infrastructure and Military Sites
- Nuclear Facilities: The Red Line
The Diplomatic Path and International Pressure
The Unpredictable Future: What Lies Ahead?

A Volatile History: Understanding the Iran-Israel Dynamic

The animosity between Iran and Israel is deeply rooted, stemming from the 1979 Iranian Revolution which transformed Iran from a pro-Western monarchy into an anti-Zionist Islamic Republic. Since then, Iran has consistently viewed Israel as an illegitimate entity and a primary adversary in the region, often referring to it as the "Little Satan" in contrast to the "Great Satan" (the United States). This ideological opposition has fueled decades of indirect conflict, primarily through Iran's extensive network of proxy groups. For a long time, Iran has strategically used these groups, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and various Shiite militias in Iraq and Syria, as both an asymmetrical way to attack Israel and as a shield against a direct assault. This strategy allowed Iran to project power and exert influence across the Middle East without engaging in direct military confrontation, thereby avoiding the full wrath of Israel's superior conventional military. However, recent years have proven challenging for these forces. Analysts note that it's been a rough few years for those forces, which Iran has long used as both an asymmetrical way to attack Israel and as a shield against a direct assault. The effectiveness and cohesion of this proxy network have faced increasing pressure from Israeli counter-operations and internal regional dynamics. Furthermore, Iran has a history of seeking to organize terrorist attacks against Israeli interests throughout the world, extending its reach beyond the immediate geographical confines of the Middle East. This global dimension adds another layer of complexity to the question of "will Iran retaliate against Israel," as Tehran's response might not always be confined to the region itself. The ongoing shadow war, characterized by covert operations, cyberattacks, and targeted assassinations, has been the norm for decades, shaping the expectations of both sides regarding future escalations.

Operation True Promise: A Direct Confrontation

The landscape of the Iran-Israel conflict dramatically shifted in April 2024 with Iran's unprecedented direct attack on Israeli soil, dubbed "Operation True Promise." This marked a significant departure from Iran's long-standing strategy of relying solely on proxies. The catalyst for this direct military action was Israel's bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus, Syria, which resulted in the deaths of several high-ranking Iranian military officials. Iran vowed revenge at the end of last month after a top Hamas leader was killed in Tehran, leading many in Israel to fear an imminent attack. This incident crossed a perceived red line for Tehran, necessitating a direct, overt response to restore deterrence. More recently, in April 2024, Iran launched Operation True Promise to retaliate against Israel for its bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus. The scale of the attack was substantial, involving an estimated 170 drones, 30 cruise missiles, and 120 ballistic missiles. This massive barrage was a clear signal of Iran's capability and willingness to project power directly. Explosions were reported over Jerusalem and Tel Aviv Friday evening as Iran launched a broad retaliatory strike against Israel, marking a significant escalation in an already volatile region. This direct Iranian attack on Israeli soil, the first of its kind, was a moment of profound tension for the international community. Iran retaliated by firing more than 180 ballistic missiles against Israel, demonstrating a significant leap in the conflict's intensity. While the immediate physical damage in Israel was limited due to Israel's sophisticated air defense systems, the psychological and strategic impact was immense. It showed that Iran was willing to break from its traditional playbook and risk a direct military confrontation, fundamentally altering the dynamics of the conflict and raising urgent questions about whether Iran would retaliate against Israel again.

Israel's Measured Response and its Impact

Following Iran's unprecedented direct missile and drone attack, the world held its breath awaiting Israel's response. Israel launched a retaliatory strike against Iran, responding to the October 1 missile barrage that Tehran sent across Israel. This counter-strike was widely anticipated, yet its nature and scope were carefully calibrated to avoid a full-blown regional war while still signaling Israel's resolve. WSJ's Sune Engel Rasmussen broke down how the conflict escalated, highlighting the tit-for-tat nature of these exchanges. In Washington's view, Iran's April and October missile strikes against Israel had only limited impact on the ground, while Israel's latest counterstrike was quite effective at diluting Iran's offensive and defensive military capabilities—an imbalance that suggests Tehran would be ill-advised to strike a third time. This assessment from a key Israeli ally underscores the perceived success of Israel's defensive measures against the Iranian attack and the precision of its own counter-strike. Hours later, Israel announced it had “achieved its objectives” and warned Tehran against retaliation, signaling a desire to de-escalate after demonstrating its capabilities. The Israeli response was reportedly targeted and precise, aiming to degrade specific Iranian military assets without causing widespread damage that could provoke an uncontrollable escalation. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz took care to emphasize Israel’s “precise and targeted” attack in contrast to the “massive missile attack against Israel” (by Iran), highlighting the international community's preference for restraint. This measured approach from Israel, while effective in its immediate goals, leaves the overarching question of "will Iran retaliate against Israel" hanging in the air. The cycle of escalation suggests that each side feels compelled to respond to the other's actions, creating a dangerous feedback loop that is difficult to break.

The Calculus of Retaliation: Deterrence vs. Escalation

The decision facing Tehran regarding whether and how to retaliate against Israel is a complex strategic calculus, balancing the imperative of deterrence with the risk of uncontrollable escalation. Analysts say that Tehran may decide against forcefully retaliating directly for now, not least because doing so might reveal its weaknesses and invite a more potent Israeli response. This highlights a critical dilemma for Iran: a strong, direct retaliation might satisfy domestic calls for revenge and bolster its image as a formidable regional power, but it could also expose vulnerabilities and invite a devastating counter-strike from Israel, possibly backed by the United States. The decision will reveal whether Iran’s true priority is to create meaningful deterrence against Israel or to avoid regional escalation—because Tehran probably cannot do both. If Iran prioritizes deterrence, it must demonstrate a credible capacity and willingness to inflict significant damage on Israel, ensuring that any future Israeli strikes on Iranian interests come at an unacceptable cost. However, such a demonstration inherently risks escalating the conflict beyond control, drawing in other regional and global powers. Conversely, if Iran prioritizes avoiding regional escalation, it might opt for a more restrained, indirect, or even non-military response, which could be perceived as weakness and undermine its deterrence posture. This strategic tightrope walk is further complicated by internal pressures within Iran, where hardliners often advocate for robust responses, and by the external pressure from the international community urging de-escalation. The memory of past conflicts and the potential for immense human and economic costs weigh heavily on decision-makers. The question of "will Iran retaliate against Israel" is therefore not just about military capability, but about a profound strategic choice between two often conflicting objectives: establishing a credible deterrent and preserving regional stability.

Iran's Asymmetric Options and Regional Reach

Should Iran decide to retaliate, it possesses a diverse array of asymmetric options that extend beyond conventional military confrontation. Iran’s response is asymmetric and not in the region, meaning it can choose to strike in ways that are unconventional, difficult to trace directly back to Tehran, or geographically distant from the immediate conflict zone. This strategy aims to inflict pain without necessarily triggering a full-scale war. Iran has already developed a range of options to retaliate for strikes from Israel or the United States, potentially plunging the region into deeper turmoil. These options are designed to exploit vulnerabilities and leverage Iran's unique geopolitical position. US troops in the Middle East, shipping, and oil facilities could be in Iran’s line of fire, representing potential targets for non-direct or covert operations. The Strait of Hormuz, a vital chokepoint for global oil supplies, remains a potent leverage point for Iran, capable of disrupting international commerce and raising energy prices.

The Proxy Network: A Double-Edged Sword

Iran's most established asymmetric tool is its network of regional proxies. While recent years have been tough for these forces, they remain a significant component of Iran's strategy. Iraqi groups backed by Iran so far haven’t become involved, leaving just Yemen’s Houthi rebels as the only member of the axis to launch attacks on Israel since its campaign against Iran began. This suggests a degree of control or strategic patience within the "Axis of Resistance," where not all elements are activated simultaneously. However, this could change rapidly if Iran decides to escalate. The Houthis, for instance, have demonstrated their capacity to target shipping in the Red Sea and launch drones and missiles towards Israel, albeit with limited success against Israeli air defenses. Activating other proxies, particularly Hezbollah, would represent a major escalation, as Hezbollah possesses a vast arsenal of rockets and missiles capable of overwhelming Israel's defenses.

Economic and Cyber Warfare

Beyond military proxies, Iran's asymmetric toolkit includes economic and cyber warfare. Iran has a sophisticated cyber warfare unit capable of launching disruptive attacks on critical infrastructure, financial systems, or government networks. Such attacks can cause significant damage and chaos without direct military engagement, making them an attractive option for deniable retaliation. Economically, Iran could seek to disrupt oil markets through actions in the Persian Gulf or by encouraging attacks on oil infrastructure in allied states, driving up global energy prices and creating economic instability. While not explicitly mentioned in the provided data, these are well-known capabilities that fit the "asymmetric and not in the region" description of Iran's potential responses.

Israel's Potential Targets in Iran

While the world debates "will Iran retaliate against Israel," it's equally important to consider how Israel could respond to any future Iranian aggression. Israel possesses a highly advanced military and intelligence apparatus, including the Mossad, Israel's foreign intelligence agency, which has reportedly conducted daring operations against Iran. Should Israel decide to escalate further or respond to another Iranian attack, it has a number of sensitive sites in Iran that could be targeted.

Critical Infrastructure and Military Sites

Among the most likely targets for Israeli retaliation are Iran's oil infrastructure and military installations. Iran's economy heavily relies on oil exports, making its oil facilities, refineries, and export terminals highly vulnerable. Disrupting these could severely cripple Iran's financial capabilities, impacting its ability to fund its military and regional proxies. Military installations, including air bases, missile sites, and command-and-control centers, would also be prime targets, aimed at degrading Iran's conventional military capacity and its ability to launch further attacks. Such strikes would be designed to diminish Iran's offensive and defensive military capabilities, reinforcing the imbalance that Washington views as a reason for Tehran to be "ill-advised to strike a third time."

Nuclear Facilities: The Red Line

The most sensitive and potentially escalatory targets are Iran's nuclear facilities. While Israel has long expressed concerns about Iran's nuclear program, a direct strike on these sites would be seen by Iran as an existential threat and could provoke an all-out war. Such an action would aim to set back Iran's nuclear ambitions significantly, but it carries immense risks, including the potential for regional nuclear proliferation and a devastating military response. Both sides understand the gravity of targeting nuclear facilities, making them a "red line" that, if crossed, would fundamentally alter the nature of the conflict. The strategic decision to strike such targets would only be made under extreme circumstances, highlighting the high stakes involved in any future escalation.

The Diplomatic Path and International Pressure

Amidst the escalating tensions and the looming question of "will Iran retaliate against Israel," international diplomacy plays a crucial, albeit often challenging, role. Many global powers, including European nations and the United States, have consistently urged de-escalation, recognizing the catastrophic potential of a full-blown regional conflict. This has to stop now and presents an opportunity for a peaceful development in the Middle East, as articulated by German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, reflecting a widespread desire for stability. Interestingly, Tehran is well positioned to use diplomacy against Israel, a point often overlooked amidst the focus on military options. Iran has better ties with the Gulf than in the past, suggesting a potential avenue for regional de-escalation through dialogue with Arab states who also have an interest in avoiding a wider war. These improved ties could provide a platform for indirect communication or even mediation efforts, leveraging shared concerns about regional stability. However, the effectiveness of these urgings may go unheeded. Both Iran and Israel operate under complex domestic and strategic imperatives that often prioritize national security interests and deterrence over external calls for restraint. The deep-seated mistrust and ideological animosity make genuine diplomatic breakthroughs incredibly difficult. While international pressure can sometimes deter immediate military actions, it often struggles to address the root causes of the conflict or to compel long-term strategic shifts. The diplomatic path remains vital, offering the only non-military avenue for resolving the crisis, but its success hinges on the willingness of both Tehran and Jerusalem to prioritize long-term stability over short-term retaliatory impulses.

The Unpredictable Future: What Lies Ahead?

The question that continues to dominate geopolitical discussions is, "Will Iran answer back, and what could that mean for the region?" The immediate aftermath of Israel's retaliatory strike against Iran saw a period of relative calm, but the underlying tensions remain acutely high. There's no question Iran will retaliate, say some analysts, believing that Tehran cannot afford to be seen as weak or deterred, especially after its direct attack on Israel. The world has been bracing for an Israeli retaliation against the Iranian regime ever since Iran's military launched a barrage of more than 180 ballistic missiles at Israel more than three weeks ago, illustrating the continuous cycle of anticipation and fear that grips the region. The future remains highly unpredictable. While Iran has demonstrated its capacity for direct strikes, its strategic calculus is complex. Tehran may opt for a delayed response, a covert operation, or a renewed activation of its proxies rather than another direct military confrontation. The immediate objective for both sides appears to be re-establishing deterrence without triggering an all-out war, a delicate balance that could be easily disrupted by miscalculation or unforeseen events. The recent history, including Israel recently conducting its most daring operation against Iran since the Mossad, Israel's foreign intelligence agency, highlights that the shadow war continues beneath the surface, constantly threatening to break out into open conflict. Ultimately, the decision of whether Iran will retaliate against Israel, and in what form, will be a critical determinant of regional stability. It will hinge on Iran's assessment of its own vulnerabilities, the effectiveness of its deterrence posture, and the potential for a more potent Israeli response. The international community will continue to exert pressure for de-escalation, but the final choice rests with Tehran. The Middle East stands at a crossroads, with the path ahead uncertain and fraught with peril.

The intricate dance between Iran and Israel continues to shape the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East, with each move carrying the potential for widespread implications. The question of "will Iran retaliate against Israel" is not a simple yes or no, but rather a complex calculation of strategic objectives, domestic pressures, and regional dynamics. While direct military confrontations have shattered old norms, both nations still navigate a delicate balance between deterrence and escalation. The world watches, hoping that diplomacy and restraint will prevail over the dangerous cycle of retribution.

What are your thoughts on Iran's potential next steps? Do you believe a full-scale conflict is inevitable, or can diplomatic efforts still steer the region away from the brink? Share your insights in the comments below, and don't forget to share this article to foster further discussion on this critical global issue. For more in-depth analysis of Middle Eastern affairs, explore our other articles on regional security and international relations.

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

Accelerate Your Potential

Iran's Next Move: Will Tehran Retaliate Against Israel?

Table of Contents