What Will Iran Do To Israel? Unraveling The Middle East Conundrum

Mr. Clifford Terry 17 Jun 2025

The geopolitical landscape of the Middle East is perpetually on a knife-edge, with the long-standing animosity between Iran and Israel serving as a primary source of regional instability. The question of what will Iran do to Israel is not merely hypothetical; it is a pressing concern that dictates strategic decisions in capitals across the globe, influencing everything from defense budgets to global energy markets.

This intricate dance of aggression, retaliation, and deterrence has seen periods of overt conflict interspersed with clandestine operations, each move carrying significant implications for international security. Understanding the potential actions Iran might take requires a deep dive into its motivations, capabilities, internal pressures, and the broader geopolitical context, particularly the role of its allies and adversaries.

The Escalating Tensions: A Historical Context

The animosity between Iran and Israel is deeply rooted in ideological differences, regional power struggles, and existential fears. For decades, Israel has viewed Iran's nuclear program as its gravest threat, perceiving it as a direct challenge to its security and regional dominance. This perception has driven Israel's strategic doctrine, often leading to preemptive or retaliatory actions aimed at degrading Iran's capabilities.

Israel has publicly described its attacks on Iran as aimed at preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. This stated purpose underpins much of Israel's aggressive posture. However, the effectiveness of these strikes in achieving that stated goal remains a subject of intense debate and scrutiny. Nearly a week into a recent escalation, it is less than clear that this stated purpose is being definitively achieved, raising questions about the true impact of such military interventions.

Iran's Retaliatory Capabilities and Past Actions

Iran has consistently vowed to respond to Israeli aggression, often emphasizing that Israel has "crossed red lines" with its actions. This rhetoric is not without substance, as Iran has demonstrated its capacity for direct and indirect retaliation. The scale and nature of Iran's responses are critical in understanding what will Iran do to Israel in future confrontations.

In a significant escalation, Iran has retaliated by launching hundreds of drones and missiles against Israel. This direct assault marked a notable shift from previous proxy-based responses. While Israel's vaunted aerial defense system intercepted a significant portion of these projectiles, some did penetrate, unfortunately killing two dozen people so far. This event underscored Iran's willingness to engage directly and its evolving missile and drone capabilities, which pose a tangible threat despite advanced defensive systems.

The Calculus of Direct Engagement

Iran's decision to launch a direct missile and drone attack on Israel signals a potential shift in its strategic calculus. Historically, Iran has preferred to operate through its network of proxies, maintaining plausible deniability and avoiding direct confrontation with Israel or its powerful ally, the United States. However, the recent direct strikes suggest a heightened willingness to absorb the risks of escalation, perhaps driven by perceived Israeli overreach or a desire to project strength both regionally and domestically.

The success, or lack thereof, of these direct strikes will undoubtedly influence future Iranian actions. If Iran perceives that its direct attacks can inflict significant damage or psychological impact, it might be emboldened to repeat such actions. Conversely, if the attacks are largely neutralized, it might revert to, or intensify, its proxy warfare strategy, which offers a lower risk of full-scale war.

The Role of Proxies: Hezbollah and Hamas

Beyond direct military action, Iran's influence extends significantly through its well-established network of regional proxies, most notably Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. These groups have historically served as Iran's forward deterrents, capable of launching attacks against Israel, thereby creating a multi-front threat that complicates Israeli defense planning.

However, recent events suggest a weakening of these proxy capabilities. Reports indicate that Israel has massively degraded its proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas. The extensive military campaigns in Gaza and ongoing skirmishes with Hezbollah have taken a significant toll on their operational capacity, command structures, and arsenals. This degradation of proxies could force Iran to reconsider its options. A weaker proxy network might compel Iran to either rebuild these forces, seek new alliances, or, paradoxically, rely more on direct military action if it feels its deterrence posture is compromised. The answer to what will Iran do to Israel is thus heavily influenced by the health of its proxy network.

Israel's Strategic Objectives and Offensive Posture

Israel's military doctrine against Iran is characterized by a proactive and often aggressive stance, aimed at disrupting Iran's nuclear program and degrading its military capabilities. This approach involves a combination of overt military strikes, covert operations, and targeted assassinations. The goal is to maintain a qualitative military edge and prevent Iran from achieving nuclear weapon capability or overwhelming regional influence.

In the early hours of Friday, Israel began a series of strikes on Iranian military and nuclear targets, culminating in the killing of top army and political leaders. This was not an isolated incident; Israel launched air strikes into Iran early Friday, targeting Iran's nuclear facilities and killing top military leaders, officials, and nuclear scientists in the process. Such actions are designed to send a clear message, disrupt Iranian progress, and exact a heavy price for any perceived transgressions. Early Friday, Israel changed the face of the Middle East by launching an unprecedented attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities and killing a slew of senior Iranian commanders, demonstrating a willingness to escalate to unprecedented levels.

Targeting Nuclear Ambitions and Military Leadership

The precision and targets of Israeli strikes reveal a clear strategy: to cripple Iran's nuclear program and decapitate its military leadership. Israel’s attack is likely to do damage to Iran’s military program, aiming to set back its conventional and unconventional capabilities. However, a critical assessment reveals that none of its previous strikes have been seen as making substantial inroads against Iran’s nuclear program. This suggests that while Israel can inflict damage, it has yet to find a definitive military solution to Iran's nuclear aspirations, leaving the core challenge unresolved.

The assassination of key military figures and nuclear scientists, as seen in the recent strikes, is a tactic designed to disrupt the continuity of Iran's programs and instill fear. This strategy aims to create internal disarray and slow down the advancement of sensitive projects. However, it also carries the significant risk of provoking a severe and unpredictable response from Iran, as such actions are often viewed as profound violations of sovereignty and "red lines" that demand retaliation. The question of what will Iran do to Israel becomes more acute after such high-profile attacks.

The American Factor: Influence and Intervention

The United States plays a pivotal, if often complex, role in the Iran-Israel dynamic. As Israel's closest ally, the U.S. provides substantial military aid, intelligence sharing, and diplomatic backing. This support is crucial for Israel's sustained military operations and its ability to withstand regional pressures. Iran will also know that while Israel will have its own limit on how much fighting it can endure, the support of the US gives it the ability to replenish munition stocks easier than Iran can. This strategic advantage significantly impacts Iran's calculus regarding its responses.

Both Israel and its closest ally, the US, have vowed to punish Iran for launching 180 missiles at Israel. This united front presents a formidable deterrent, but also raises the stakes for any Iranian retaliation. The U.S. has a history of both threatening and engaging in diplomacy with Iran. President Donald Trump, for instance, threatened Iran's actions and stated he would make a decision about attacking Iran "within the next two weeks," allowing two weeks for diplomacy to proceed before deciding whether to launch a strike in Iran. This oscillating approach of threat and diplomacy highlights the complex nature of U.S. policy, which seeks to contain Iran while often attempting to avoid full-scale war.

A critical element in the current situation is that Israel is waiting for the United States to get directly involved. This suggests that Israel might be seeking a broader, more decisive intervention from its ally, perhaps to deliver a blow to Iran that Israel cannot or will not deliver alone. However, direct U.S. involvement carries massive geopolitical risks, including regional destabilization and potential global economic repercussions.

The Diplomatic Chessboard and Global Reactions

Beyond military considerations, the conflict between Iran and Israel is heavily influenced by diplomatic efforts and global reactions. European diplomats held talks with Iran, indicating an international desire to de-escalate tensions and find diplomatic solutions, even amidst escalating hostilities. These diplomatic channels, though often strained, remain crucial for preventing a wider conflict.

The economic impact of the conflict is also a significant factor. Global equity markets rose on Monday as fighting in the Middle East escalated, an interesting counter-intuitive reaction that might reflect investor confidence in a contained conflict or anticipation of increased defense spending. Historically, geopolitical tensions in the Middle East have had a direct impact on energy markets. During the first few months of the Trump presidency, the price of oil and gasoline fell, which was a key reason inflation dropped to 2.4% over the past 12 months. This historical context suggests that major escalations could have significant economic ripple effects, influencing global inflation and energy prices, adding another layer of complexity to the decision-making of all parties involved.

Internal Dynamics and External Pressures on Iran

Understanding what will Iran do to Israel also requires an examination of Iran's internal vulnerabilities and the diverse external pressures it faces. Domestically, Iran has never been weaker internally after nationwide protests a few years ago. These protests, fueled by economic hardship and social discontent, indicate a populace that is increasingly weary of the regime's policies and its regional entanglements. This internal fragility could limit the regime's appetite for a full-scale war, as it risks further destabilizing its grip on power.

Externally, Iran faces a complex web of alliances and antagonisms. While it relies on its proxies, their degradation, as mentioned, reduces its leverage. Furthermore, the international community's stance, particularly that of the U.S. and European powers, plays a significant role in shaping Iran's options. Negar Mortazavi, an expert on Iran and a senior fellow with the Center for International Policy (CIP), argues that Israel’s allies may push the narrative that the killing was a clandestine operation, rather than a direct act of war, perhaps to manage international reactions and de-escalate tensions. This highlights the importance of narrative control in shaping perceptions and influencing the course of the conflict.

Interestingly, some voices within the Iranian diaspora, such as Pahlavi, have voiced support for Israel’s actions, drawing praise from certain circles. While not representative of the entire Iranian population, such internal divisions and external pressures from former regime figures add another layer of complexity to Iran's strategic considerations. These internal and external pressures collectively constrain Iran's freedom of action and influence what will Iran do to Israel in response to ongoing provocations.

Potential Scenarios: What Will Iran Do Next?

Given the intricate web of factors at play, predicting what will Iran do to Israel is challenging, but several potential scenarios emerge. The most immediate concern for Israel is the response by Iran’s allies, particularly for the assassination of Shukr (likely referring to a significant figure, or a typo for a more widely known name, but taken as is from the data). Any major assassination or strike against high-value targets is seen by Iran as having "crossed red lines" and a response is inevitable, according to Iranian officials.

1. **Limited Retaliation via Proxies:** Despite their degradation, Iran might still utilize its remaining proxy capabilities to launch limited, deniable attacks against Israeli interests or targets in the region. This would allow Iran to save face without escalating to a full-blown war, conserving its direct military assets. 2. **Renewed Direct Strikes (Calculated):** If Iran perceives that its previous direct strikes were somewhat effective or if the provocation is severe enough, it might launch another round of direct missile or drone attacks. However, these would likely be carefully calibrated to avoid triggering a massive U.S. response, focusing on military targets rather than civilian ones. 3. **Cyber Warfare:** Iran possesses significant cyber capabilities. A less overt, but potentially damaging, response could involve cyberattacks against Israeli infrastructure, military networks, or economic systems. This offers deniability and avoids direct kinetic engagement. 4. **Focus on Nuclear Acceleration:** Instead of direct military action, Iran might choose to accelerate its nuclear program as a form of deterrence and retaliation. This would signal its resolve and raise the stakes for Israel and the international community without engaging in open warfare. 5. **Diplomatic Maneuvering:** Iran might also choose a diplomatic path, seeking to leverage international condemnation of Israeli actions or to engage in talks that could alleviate sanctions or gain concessions, rather than engaging in further military escalation. 6. **Internal Consolidation:** Given its internal weaknesses, Iran might prioritize consolidating power domestically, suppressing dissent, and rebuilding its economy, thus limiting its external adventurism for a period.

The choice of response will depend on Iran's assessment of the risks and rewards, its internal stability, the perceived level of U.S. commitment to Israel, and the effectiveness of its own military and proxy capabilities. The Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has stated that Iran will pay a heavy price, indicating Israel's resolve to respond to any Iranian action, further complicating Iran's decision-making process regarding what will Iran do to Israel.

The Economic Ripple Effect of Conflict

While the immediate focus of "what will Iran do to Israel" is often military, the economic consequences of any major escalation are profound and far-reaching. The Middle East is a critical global energy hub, and any significant disruption to oil production or shipping lanes can send shockwaves through the world economy. For instance, during the first few months of the Trump presidency, the price of oil and gasoline fell, which was a key reason inflation dropped to 2.4% over the past 12 months. This demonstrates how even periods of relative stability or diplomatic engagement can impact global markets.

Conversely, an escalation of hostilities, particularly involving key oil-producing or transit nations, could lead to a sharp increase in oil prices, triggering inflationary pressures globally. Such economic instability could have severe repercussions for ordinary citizens, affecting everything from gasoline prices at the pump to the cost of consumer goods. Governments and central banks would be forced to react, potentially leading to interest rate hikes or other measures designed to curb inflation, which could in turn stifle economic growth. The economic dimension, therefore, acts as a powerful constraint on the actions of both Iran and Israel, as neither side wishes to trigger a global economic crisis that could rebound negatively on their own nations.

Navigating the Precipice: A Path Forward?

The current trajectory of Iran-Israel relations is fraught with peril, characterized by a cycle of provocation and retaliation that constantly threatens to spiral out of control. The question of what will Iran do to Israel is not just about military actions, but about the broader strategic game being played in the region. For a path forward, several elements are crucial.

Firstly, de-escalation mechanisms are vital. This includes direct or indirect communication channels, even through third parties, to prevent miscalculation. Secondly, a renewed focus on diplomatic solutions to Iran's nuclear program is essential. While Israel's previous strikes have not made substantial inroads against Iran’s nuclear program, a comprehensive diplomatic framework, perhaps involving the P5+1 nations, might offer a more sustainable solution than military force alone.

Thirdly, the role of international actors, particularly the United States, remains paramount. The U.S. has the unique ability to both support Israel's security and engage Iran diplomatically. Balancing these roles is critical to managing the conflict. Lastly, addressing the internal vulnerabilities within Iran could also contribute to regional stability. A more stable and prosperous Iran, less reliant on external adventurism to distract from domestic issues, might be a less aggressive regional actor.

Conclusion: The Unfolding Saga

The question of what will Iran do to Israel remains one of the most critical and unpredictable aspects of Middle Eastern geopolitics. Iran's past actions demonstrate a willingness to retaliate, both directly and through proxies, but its responses are tempered by internal vulnerabilities, the degradation of its proxy forces, and the overwhelming military and diplomatic support Israel receives from the United States. Israel, for its part, continues to pursue a proactive strategy aimed at preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, even as the effectiveness of this approach is debated.

The future actions of Iran will be a complex interplay of its desire for deterrence, its internal political stability, the effectiveness of its military and proxy capabilities, and the diplomatic and military posture of the United States. As the region continues to navigate this precipice, understanding these dynamics is crucial for anyone seeking to comprehend the potential for conflict and the prospects for peace. We encourage our readers to share their thoughts and perspectives on this complex issue in the comments below, and to explore other articles on our site for further insights into global security challenges.

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

RealTime Reports