Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran’s ruling Shiite clerics have built a powerful network of armed militias across the Middle East, forming a coalition known as the Axis of Resistance. This alliance, united in its opposition to Israel and U.S. influence in the region, has been a cornerstone of Tehran’s foreign policy and security strategy. For decades, Iran’s support for groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and the Houthis in Yemen has enabled it to exert influence and wage proxy warfare without direct military engagement. However, the events following the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel have significantly threatened the stability of this coalition.
In response to the Hamas incursion, Israel has launched a broad retaliatory campaign, not only against Gaza but also targeting Hezbollah in Lebanon, a central pillar of the Axis of Resistance. As Hezbollah fired missiles into Israel starting on October 8, 2023, the conflict escalated rapidly. What began as a localized war with Hamas has now drawn in Israel’s northern front, with Israeli bombardments hitting southern Lebanon and even reaching the outskirts of Beirut.
More recently, the conflict has expanded further, pulling in other members of the Axis, including Houthi rebels in Yemen. As the violence intensifies, Iran, which had initially stayed on the sidelines, has been drawn into the fray, culminating in a significant escalation in October 2024.
The attack launched by Hamas on October 7, 2023, was one of the most significant escalations between Israel and Palestinian militants in years. The Israeli government, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, responded with a massive military operation in Gaza. However, this soon expanded as Hezbollah, Iran’s most powerful proxy, began launching missiles into Israel from Lebanon in solidarity with Hamas.
The Israeli response was swift. After months of tit-for-tat aerial strikes, Israeli forces intensified their bombing campaigns across southern Lebanon and Beirut in preparation for a potential ground offensive. The three divisions of Israeli soldiers stationed on the border represent the most significant military presence in Lebanon since the 2006 Lebanon War.
This expansion of the conflict directly threatens Iran’s regional security architecture, which relies heavily on its proxy militias for “forward defense” against Israel. By equipping and supporting Hezbollah, Iran has been able to apply pressure on Israel without directly involving its forces, maintaining a semblance of plausible deniability while still projecting power. Hezbollah’s extensive missile arsenal, much of which has been supplied by Iran, has served as a critical deterrent, posing a constant threat to Israeli cities and infrastructure.
As the conflict deepens, Israel’s growing military presence on the Lebanese border raises the prospect of a broader war that could strain Hezbollah’s capabilities and challenge Iran’s long-standing strategy of using proxies to shield itself from direct confrontation.
Although a more recent addition to Iran’s Axis of Resistance, the Houthis in Yemen have played a critical role in the regional power struggle, particularly in the Red Sea. In the wake of the 2023 Hamas attack, Houthi forces began harassing commercial ships in the Red Sea, a vital shipping lane for global trade. This show of support for Hamas underscored the Houthis’ commitment to Iran’s anti-Israel cause and their growing integration into the broader Axis.
However, the Houthis’ actions did not go unanswered. Israel, with support from the United States and the United Kingdom, launched drone and rocket strikes against Houthi military targets, aiming to curtail their activities in the Red Sea and prevent further disruptions to global shipping. This marked the first significant military engagement between Israel and the Houthis, demonstrating the conflict’s expanding geographic scope.
Despite the escalating violence, Iran initially refrained from direct military involvement, seeking to avoid a full-scale war. However, this cautious approach came under intense pressure following a series of high-profile assassinations by Israel, which targeted key figures in both Hamas and Hezbollah. In April 2024, Israel killed an Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commander visiting Damascus in a missile strike. While Iran initially tried to avoid direct retaliation, the assassination of senior Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in September 2024 and Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh while he was visiting Tehran in July 2024 forced Iran’s hand.
Iran’s response came on October 1, 2024, when it launched 180 rockets into Israel, marking its most direct intervention in the conflict thus far. According to analysts, Iran’s decision to escalate was driven by a need to maintain credibility within its Axis of Resistance. Failure to retaliate for the deaths of Nasrallah and Haniyeh could have weakened Tehran’s standing among its allies, potentially eroding the coalition that Iran has spent decades building.
“Simply put, Iran may have calculated that failing to respond would eventually lead its allied militias to question their loyalty and commitment, especially if they perceived that Tehran was unwilling to take the same risks they were,” wrote Arman Mahmoudian, a global security researcher at the University of South Florida.
Iran’s decision to strike back also reflects deeper concerns about the cohesion of its Axis of Resistance. While Hezbollah and Hamas have long been reliable partners in Tehran’s strategy, there are growing fears that prolonged conflict with Israel could strain these alliances, particularly as Israeli military actions take a heavy toll on both militias.
Nicole Grajewski, a researcher at the Carnegie Endowment’s Nuclear Policy Program, noted that Iran’s delayed response to the assassinations of Nasrallah and Haniyeh risked undermining its regional influence. “Restraint threatened to erode Iran’s credibility among its allies,” she said.
To mitigate this risk, Iran may be considering a further escalation, including the potential completion of its nuclear arms program. Grajewski emphasized that Iran increasingly views its nuclear capabilities as a vital deterrent, particularly as Israeli attacks continue. “Iran may increasingly view its nuclear potential as a critical component of its broader security strategy,” she added.
For now, however, Iran’s security strategy has primarily relied on two key tools: the projection of military power through its proxies and the use of its extensive missile and drone arsenal to threaten Israel from afar. While these tactics have served Iran well in the past, the current conflict presents new challenges that could force Tehran to reconsider its approach.
Inside Iran, the government faces significant pressure over its handling of the escalating conflict. Conservative politicians, in particular, have criticized the government for failing to respond more forcefully to the assassinations of Nasrallah and Haniyeh. Ali Motahari, a prominent conservative figure, lambasted President Masoud Pezeshkian on social media, accusing him of prioritizing nuclear negotiations with the West over the protection of Iran’s regional allies.
“Iran’s delay in responding to the assassination of martyr Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran, while the world was waiting for Iran’s response, made the Zionist regime dare to assassinate Sayed Hassan Nasrallah as well,” Motahari wrote on X (formerly Twitter).
Iran’s diplomatic efforts to present itself as an innocent bystander in the conflict have also faced skepticism. In a letter to the United Nations, Iranian officials described their October 1 rocket attacks as a “legal, rational, and legitimate response” to Israel’s “terrorist acts,” while warning that further Israeli strikes would provoke a “crushing response.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has shown no signs of backing down. Following Iran’s October 1 rocket attack, Netanyahu vowed that Iran would “pay” for its actions. “Iran made a big mistake tonight and it will pay for it,” he said in a video message. “The regime in Iran does not understand our determination to defend ourselves and our determination to retaliate against our enemies.”
While Israel has thus far focused its military efforts on Hezbollah and Hamas, future strikes could target key Iranian infrastructure, including oil facilities and nuclear sites. This prospect presents a dilemma for U.S. President Joe Biden, who has sought to manage the conflict through diplomacy but faces mounting pressure to support Israel’s efforts to neutralize Iran’s nuclear threat.
Although Biden has urged caution, reports indicate that U.S. and Israeli officials have discussed potential military strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Former President Donald Trump, a candidate in the 2024 U.S. election, has criticized Biden for his hesitation, arguing that Iran’s nuclear sites should be Israel’s primary target. “Isn’t that what you’re supposed to hit?” Trump said during a campaign rally. “Hit the nuclear first and worry about the rest later.”
Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic candidate to replace Biden in the upcoming election, has echoed similar sentiments, emphasizing that preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power is a top priority. However, she has stopped short of specifying how the U.S. would achieve this goal.
