The decades-long, covert hostilities between Israel and Iran have exploded into open warfare. For years, this conflict played out largely through clandestine operations, cyberattacks, and proxy wars in countries like Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon. However, recent events have shifted the nature of the conflict into the spotlight, suggesting that de-escalation is far from imminent.
October 1, 2024, marked a significant turning point in the Israel-Iran conflict. On that day, Iran launched a large-scale missile and drone attack against Israel, signaling the start of a new phase in the long-standing enmity between the two nations. This assault was ostensibly in response to Israel’s assassinations of two prominent militant leaders: Ismail Haniyeh, the head of Hamas, and Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s Secretary General.
This attack wasn’t a first for 2024. On April 13, a similar barrage of more than 300 ballistic and cruise missiles struck Israel. However, Israel’s sophisticated missile defense systems—primarily the Iron Dome and the more advanced David’s Sling—limited the damage. The immediate Israeli retaliation in April was notably restrained, consisting of a single airstrike on an advanced Iranian air defense system in Isfahan. This measured response, possibly due to U.S. urging, hinted that both sides were wary of escalating into a full-scale conflict. However, the events since April have shattered any illusions of restraint.
The killing of Hamas’ leader, Haniyeh, on July 31, 2024, in Tehran shocked the Iranian regime. The assassination was a glaring display of Israel’s capability to strike deep within the heart of Iran. Not only was it a severe blow to Hamas, a key Iranian ally, but it also exposed vulnerabilities in Iran’s internal security apparatus. The Iranian leadership, specifically Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, vowed severe retaliation.
Yet, weeks passed, and no Iranian counterstrike followed. This inaction raised questions among regional analysts and experts about whether Iran would respond at all. Was Iran’s deterrence strategy faltering? Some speculated that Tehran was reassessing its regional commitments and military posture, especially given its involvement in Syria, Yemen, and Iraq.
However, Israel’s continued military operations against Hezbollah in September made an Iranian response inevitable. Israel had pivoted its focus from Gaza, where Hamas was already crippled, to Lebanon, where Hezbollah, another Iranian-backed group, had been launching rocket attacks into northern Israel. These attacks had forced tens of thousands of Israelis to evacuate, intensifying tensions between the two nations.
In mid-September, Israel began a campaign to destabilize Hezbollah, first by sabotaging their communications, then launching a series of airstrikes that took out Hezbollah’s top commanders, including Nasrallah. Israel followed up with a limited ground incursion into southern Lebanon, aiming to neutralize Hezbollah positions along the northern border. Iran’s decision to launch its October 1 attack, therefore, was likely a combination of retaliation for the high-profile assassinations and a strategic move to stall Israel’s advances in Lebanon.
Iran’s attack on Israel was about more than revenge; it was a calculated attempt to restore deterrence and shore up its standing among its network of regional allies and proxies. Over the years, Iran has invested heavily in creating a web of proxy forces across the Middle East, from Hezbollah in Lebanon to Shia militias in Iraq and the Houthis in Yemen. These groups, collectively referred to as the “Axis of Resistance,” have been key components of Iran’s regional defense strategy.
Tehran uses this network to project power, spread its influence, and deter attacks against its own territory. Iran’s forward-defense doctrine relies on its proxies to engage its enemies, while its arsenal of long-range ballistic missiles and drones provides a strategic deterrent. The October 1 missile strike, therefore, was not just about punishing Israel for its actions but also about reassuring Iran’s proxies that Tehran would continue to support them.
There was a second strategic layer to the Iranian strike: buying Hezbollah time. Hezbollah, often described as the most formidable guerrilla force in the world, now faced an existential crisis with its top leaders eliminated and Israeli forces advancing. Iran’s missile barrage was likely intended to distract and delay Israel, giving Hezbollah the space it needed to regroup, appoint new leadership, and reorganize its defenses. The stakes for Iran were high. The loss of Hezbollah would be a significant blow to Iran’s regional influence and a devastating loss in its ideological fight against Israel.
Despite Iran’s efforts, Israel has demonstrated remarkable tactical superiority in this unfolding conflict. The assassination of Nasrallah and other Hezbollah leaders occurred despite ongoing fighting, and even after Israel publicly announced its intentions to confront Hezbollah. This success underscores the effectiveness of Israeli intelligence and military planning.
Hezbollah’s performance during the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war earned it a reputation as a resilient and capable force, but Israel’s recent operations have shown that the militant group may not be as formidable as it once was. Israel’s success in eliminating Hezbollah’s top leadership and sowing chaos within its ranks dealt a significant blow to Iran’s prestige.
Nonetheless, Israel’s ground invasion of southern Lebanon is far from over. Israeli soldiers now face Hezbollah’s well-entrenched and battle-hardened fighters in a region known for its difficult terrain and complex, asymmetrical warfare. Israel may have gained an upper hand in the initial phases, but it must now contend with a reinvigorated Hezbollah, buoyed by Iranian support.
Iran’s October 1 attack is also about saving face. In recent years, Israel has consistently demonstrated its ability to strike within Iranian borders, from the killing of nuclear scientists to cyberattacks targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities. This erosion of Iran’s deterrence capacity poses a significant challenge for Tehran, which needs to demonstrate that it can still defend itself and its allies.
Iran’s leadership is particularly sensitive to how its actions are perceived by its proxies, both within the Middle East and beyond. A failure to respond effectively to Israel’s provocations could lead these groups to question Tehran’s ability to protect them, potentially weakening Iran’s influence across the region.
Perhaps most importantly, Iran’s response is about restoring deterrence. Iran’s strategy has long relied on the threat of its ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and drones. By launching a massive missile barrage, Tehran sought to remind Israel and its allies that any attack on Iranian interests would come at a significant cost.
However, the effectiveness of the October 1 strike remains unclear. While Tehran claimed that 90% of its missiles reached their targets, Israeli and U.S. officials have downplayed the attack, describing it as largely ineffective. Unverified footage circulating online suggests that some missiles may have penetrated Israel’s defenses, but the true extent of the damage is still unknown.
Following the October 1 strike, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu promised swift retaliation. He vowed that Iran would pay a heavy price for its aggression. Israel’s military leaders are now weighing their options, which could range from further airstrikes on Iranian positions in Syria and Iraq to more direct attacks on Iranian territory.
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the military branch responsible for external operations, issued a stern warning in response. They threatened “crushing and destructive attacks” if Israel retaliates militarily. With both sides escalating their rhetoric, the prospect of a wider conflict looms large.
The open question is whether either side is willing to back down. For Israel, the stakes are clear: eliminating threats from Hamas and Hezbollah, securing its borders, and maintaining its military superiority in the region. For Iran, the challenge is to restore its deterrence, protect its proxies, and prevent Israel from undermining its regional influence.
As the war continues to unfold, one thing is clear: the Israel-Iran conflict has entered a dangerous new phase. What was once a shadow war fought through proxies and covert operations has now become a direct military confrontation. The conflict is unlikely to de-escalate anytime soon, and both Israel and Iran seem determined to continue the fight, regardless of the human and political costs.
The Israel-Iran conflict, once fought in the shadows, has become an open war. Iran’s missile attacks on October 1, 2024, in retaliation for Israel’s assassinations of Hamas and Hezbollah leaders, have escalated the hostilities to new heights. Israel’s swift and precise military operations have exposed vulnerabilities in Iran’s network of proxies, but Tehran is determined to restore its deterrence. With both sides unwilling to back down, the war is likely to intensify, drawing in regional and global powers and making de-escalation a distant prospect.
