The Middle East teeters on the edge of a catastrophic war after Iran launched approximately 180 ballistic missiles at Israel overnight, marking one of the most significant escalations in the region in recent years. While Israel and its key ally, the United States, successfully intercepted the majority of these missiles, the boldness of the attack has left the international community grappling with the possibility of full-scale regional conflict.
The missile barrage represents a dramatic shift in Iran’s military strategy. For years, the Islamic Republic has primarily relied on its regional proxies—most notably Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza—to engage in confrontations with Israel. This allowed Tehran to maintain its role as the leader of the “axis of resistance” while avoiding direct involvement that might provoke a wider war or destabilize its own regime. However, the missile strike overnight suggests Iran has moved away from this indirect approach and is willing to risk direct conflict with Israel, a development that could have far-reaching consequences.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wasted no time responding to the assault, calling it a “big mistake” on Iran’s part. In a televised address, Netanyahu vowed that Iran would “pay for” the attack, hinting at swift and decisive retaliation.
This escalation comes after weeks of intensifying clashes between Israel and Iran’s proxies. Israel has been ramping up airstrikes targeting leaders and facilities linked to Hamas and Hezbollah in both Gaza and Lebanon, putting immense pressure on Iran to intervene more directly. Iranian leaders had previously expressed outrage, particularly after the killing of senior Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran in July, but until now, Tehran had largely refrained from direct military action.
Why Iran Has Chosen This Moment
For Iran, the decision to launch ballistic missiles at Israel was not made lightly. The regime is acutely aware of the risks associated with entering into a direct military conflict, especially given the internal challenges it faces. Over the past few years, Iran has been rocked by waves of popular uprisings. These protests, many of which have been sparked by dissatisfaction with the regime’s social policies and economic mismanagement, have revealed deep-seated discontent within the country. The “Women, Life, Freedom” movement, which arose after the death of Mahsa Amini while in police custody in 2022, highlighted the extent to which the Iranian people are willing to challenge the regime’s legitimacy.
Despite these domestic pressures, the Iranian government has, for the most part, managed to suppress dissent through a combination of force and strategic appeasement. Yet, there has been an ongoing debate within Iran about whether the country’s longstanding anti-Israel and anti-U.S. foreign policy is still serving the regime’s interests.
This internal debate has only intensified under the leadership of Iran’s new president, Masoud Pezeshkian, a reformist who came into office with the ambition of improving Iran’s relationship with the West. Pezeshkian has been vocal about his desire to revive the 2015 nuclear deal, which was negotiated under the Obama administration and provided sanctions relief in exchange for limits on Iran’s nuclear activities. However, the geopolitical landscape has shifted dramatically since that deal was first struck.
Following the conflict between Israel and Hamas that began a year ago, Iran has been more isolated than ever. Its support for militant groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, along with its continued calls for Israel’s destruction, have made it difficult for any Western country to engage with Tehran diplomatically. This makes Pezeshkian’s efforts to mend ties with the West extremely challenging, particularly as Iran becomes more directly involved in the conflict with Israel.
Pressure from the Revolutionary Guard
While Pezeshkian may have had aspirations of a more conciliatory foreign policy, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, remains the ultimate decision-maker when it comes to matters of war and peace. Khamenei, along with Iran’s Supreme National Security Council and the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), has long maintained a hardline stance against Israel and the United States.
The IRGC, in particular, has been pushing for a more aggressive response to Israeli actions in Gaza and Lebanon. Senior generals within the IRGC have argued that Iran cannot afford to appear weak in the face of repeated Israeli airstrikes against its allies. According to these military leaders, the missile barrage against Israel is the clearest signal yet that Iran is prepared to take on a more direct leadership role in the ongoing conflict.
This is a gamble, however, as direct confrontation with Israel could lead to a far wider war, one that might involve the United States and potentially destabilize the entire Persian Gulf region. But for now, the IRGC and its backers appear to believe that the risks are worth taking to preserve Iran’s image as the leader of the anti-Israel resistance.
A Delicate Balance for the Iranian Regime
The decision to launch missiles at Israel has put Iran’s leadership in a precarious position. On the one hand, Tehran needs to demonstrate its commitment to challenging Israel and upholding the principles that have defined the Islamic Republic since its inception. Fighting Israel is a central tenet of Iran’s state identity, and failing to act could undermine the regime’s legitimacy both at home and among its supporters across the Middle East.
On the other hand, there are very real risks associated with a direct military conflict. Domestically, the Iranian regime is already struggling with a crisis of legitimacy. The protests that have rocked the country in recent years have exposed deep dissatisfaction with the government’s handling of economic and social issues. There is also a growing faction within Iran that questions the regime’s commitment to its anti-Israel and anti-U.S. foreign policy, arguing that this stance has done more harm than good for the country.
For now, the regime seems to have calculated that the benefits of confronting Israel directly outweigh the risks. But if the conflict escalates and Iran finds itself in a prolonged war, the situation could quickly spiral out of control. A drawn-out conflict would strain Iran’s already struggling economy, embolden internal dissent, and potentially weaken the regime’s grip on power.
What Comes Next?
Israel’s immediate response to Iran’s missile strike has been measured, but that is unlikely to last. Netanyahu’s government has been advocating for years that the United States take more decisive action against Iran, and now Israel has a clear justification to retaliate. With U.S. backing, Israel could launch a large-scale military campaign against Iranian targets, potentially drawing in other countries from the region, including Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, which have long viewed Iran as a destabilizing force.
Iran, too, is prepared for the possibility of a broader conflict. Its allies across the region—Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and various Shiite militias in Iraq—are likely to become more involved in the fighting. These groups have already carried out attacks against Israeli and U.S. targets in recent weeks, and they could escalate their operations in the coming days.
The Persian Gulf region is also at risk. Any major retaliation by Israel or the United States could prompt Iran to target U.S. assets in the Gulf, including naval ships and commercial vessels. This could have serious implications for global trade and security, particularly in terms of oil exports from the region.
For now, the world waits anxiously to see what Israel’s next move will be. Netanyahu has promised that Iran will “pay” for its missile strike, but how and when that payment will come remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that the Middle East is closer to a full-scale war than it has been in years, and the consequences of such a conflict would be devastating not just for the region, but for the world.
The latest missile attack marks a turning point in the long-standing conflict between Israel and Iran. By choosing to directly engage Israel, Iran has shown that it is willing to bear the costs of escalation, even at the risk of internal dissent and international isolation. As Israel prepares to respond, the world watches nervously, knowing that any misstep could plunge the Middle East into a conflict that will be difficult to contain. For now, the focus remains on Israel’s retaliation, but the broader implications for the region and the world cannot be ignored.
