Israel's Next Move On Iran: Unpacking The Escalation

Gunnar Borer Jr. 22 Jun 2025

The Middle East finds itself on a razor's edge, caught in a perilous dance between two formidable adversaries: Israel and Iran. Following an unprecedented direct missile and drone attack from Iran, the world watches with bated breath, grappling with the pivotal question: what will Israel do to Iran next? This is not merely a regional skirmish but a geopolitical tightrope walk with global implications, demanding a deep understanding of the historical animosity, recent escalations, and the complex web of strategic considerations at play. The stakes have never been higher, as both nations, along with their allies and proxies, weigh their options in a conflict that could easily spiral into a full-blown regional war, reshaping the landscape of international relations for decades to come.

The recent exchange of blows, though largely intercepted and contained in terms of immediate casualties, has fundamentally altered the dynamics of their long-standing shadow war. Iran's direct assault, a significant departure from its usual proxy warfare, has drawn a clear line in the sand, compelling Israel to consider a response that is both punitive and strategically sound, without inadvertently triggering an uncontrollable conflagration. Understanding Israel's potential actions requires delving into its strategic objectives, military capabilities, diplomatic considerations, and the intricate balance of power in a volatile region.

A History of Tensions: The Roots of Conflict
The Recent Escalation: Iran's Unprecedented Barrage
Israel's Retaliation: The Initial Response
- The Limited Strike and its Message
- Strategic Goals of the Initial Response
Deeper Dive: What Will Israel Do to Iran Next? Potential Scenarios
- Targeting Iran's Nuclear Program
- Economic and Diplomatic Pressure
The Regime Change Question: A Potential Outcome?
The Role of Allies: US Support and Restraint
The Risk of Regional War: A Precarious Balance
Conclusion: Navigating a Volatile Future

A History of Tensions: The Roots of Conflict

The animosity between Israel and Iran is not a recent phenomenon but a deep-seated rivalry rooted in ideological differences, regional power struggles, and existential threats. For decades, the two nations have been locked in a "shadow war," characterized by covert operations, cyberattacks, and proxy conflicts across the Middle East. Israel views Iran's revolutionary ideology, its support for militant groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, and its pursuit of nuclear capabilities as direct threats to its existence.

A pivotal moment in this long-standing antagonism was in October 2005, when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, then Iran’s new conservative president, was quoted as saying that Israel should be “wiped off the map.” Such rhetoric cemented Israel's perception of Iran as an existential threat, fueling its determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Israel consistently accuses Iran of developing nuclear weapons – a charge Iran denies, insisting its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. This fundamental disagreement over Iran's nuclear ambitions remains a core driver of tension, influencing every strategic calculation on both sides. The verbal attacks against Israel have not abated since, maintaining a constant state of alert and readiness.

The Recent Escalation: Iran's Unprecedented Barrage

The latest chapter in this volatile saga began with Iran's direct aerial assault on Israel. This was a significant departure from Iran's usual strategy of using proxies, marking a new, dangerous phase. Rear Admiral Daniel Hagari, a spokesman for the Israeli military, confirmed that Iran fired around 300 explosive projectiles, including missiles and drones. This large-scale attack followed a dizzying 24 hours in which the international community rebuked Iran for its nuclear malfeasance, according to Iranian officials.

The sheer volume of the attack was notable: Iran's airborne attack on Israel with nearly 200 missiles was surely enough to keep diplomats up all night. This was not the first time Iran had directly targeted Israel with missiles; an official said that since the previous Iranian missile strike on Israel in October 2024, Iran has significantly increased production of ballistic missiles to around 50 per month. That earlier attack, involving 200 ballistic missiles, sent the entire Israeli population into bomb shelters, highlighting the immediate threat.

Despite the scale, the salvo of 180 projectiles caused no casualties as most missiles were intercepted, according to the Israeli army. Israel's advanced air defense systems, combined with support from allies, proved highly effective. Overall, Iran’s missile attack on Israel was an effective measure to satisfy a segment of the Iranian population, demonstrating a direct response to perceived Israeli provocations. However, the risk of Israel’s response has put the country on the verge of a full-scale regional conflict, escalating the stakes dramatically.

Israel's Retaliation: The Initial Response

Following Iran's direct attack, Israel swore it would retaliate. The question of **what will Israel do to Iran** became the most pressing geopolitical query. The response was swift but seemingly calibrated, aiming to send a clear message without immediately triggering an all-out war.

The Limited Strike and its Message

Israel responded a week later with a limited strike on Iran. US officials confirmed that Israel hit Iran with a missile in the early hours of Friday, in what appeared to have been a retaliatory strike after weeks of escalating tensions between the two countries. Iran blamed Israel for the attack, saying it was equivalent to a strike on its own soil. This initial response was highly anticipated, with Israel learning about the imminent threat just hours before Tehran launched its strikes, with targets including specific facilities.

Early Friday, Israel indeed 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. This suggests that while the strike might have been "limited" in scope compared to a full-scale invasion, its targets were highly significant and symbolic. The precision and focus on key Iranian assets demonstrated Israel's capability to penetrate Iranian airspace and strike strategic targets, even those deep within the country.

Strategic Goals of the Initial Response

The primary goal of Israel's initial response was likely multi-faceted: deterrence, demonstration of capability, and restoration of deterrence. By striking key facilities and commanders, Israel aimed to show Iran that its direct attacks would not go unpunished and that Israel possesses the means to inflict significant damage. This option would arguably be the least likely to provoke yet another massive missile salvo from Iran, as it allowed both sides to claim a measure of success while avoiding a catastrophic escalation.

However, the message was also clear: Israel's patience has limits. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated that Iran "will pay a heavy price." This initial strike served as a warning shot, a calibrated response designed to remind Iran of the consequences of its actions without necessarily committing to a full-scale war. It was a delicate balance between asserting sovereignty and avoiding a wider conflict that no one truly desires.

Deeper Dive: What Will Israel Do to Iran Next? Potential Scenarios

The limited initial strike does not necessarily mean the end of Israel's actions. The fundamental question of **what will Israel do to Iran** in the long term remains open, with several potential scenarios ranging from continued covert operations to more overt military actions and intensified diplomatic pressure.

Targeting Iran's Nuclear Program

One of Israel's long-standing strategic imperatives is to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The "Data Kalimat" explicitly states: "Israel, at a minimum, wants to do enough damage to Iran’s nuclear program that Tehran cannot reconstitute it for the foreseeable future or race to get." This objective is paramount for Israel's security doctrine. While the initial strike reportedly hit some nuclear facilities, a more comprehensive campaign against Iran's nuclear infrastructure remains a possibility.

However, striking anywhere in Iran is a logistical challenge for Israel. Iran is a large country with dispersed and often deeply buried nuclear sites. Furthermore, Iran has much stronger air defenses than Lebanon and Yemen do, making any large-scale aerial campaign fraught with risks. Such an operation would require extensive intelligence, precise targeting, and potentially multiple waves of attacks, carrying a high risk of triggering a full-scale war and drawing in other regional and global powers.

Economic and Diplomatic Pressure

Beyond military action, Israel is also employing non-military strategies. In addition to military and intelligence strikes against Iran, Israel is stepping up diplomatic efforts to isolate Tehran, including by extending sanctions. Foreign Minister Israel Katz has also been vocal in rallying international support against Iran. The goal here is to weaken Iran's economy, limit its ability to fund proxy groups, and constrain its nuclear program through international pressure rather than solely through military means.

This approach seeks to leverage global alliances and economic leverage to achieve strategic objectives. By tightening sanctions and building a broader international coalition, Israel hopes to increase the cost of Iran's nuclear ambitions and destabilizing activities, potentially forcing a change in behavior without direct military confrontation. This strategy is often slower but can be effective in the long run, especially with the backing of major powers.

The Regime Change Question: A Potential Outcome?

While Israel's stated goal is not necessarily regime change, it is a topic that surfaces in discussions about the long-term future of Iran. When asked by an interviewer if Israel is seeking regime change in Iran, Netanyahu said that regime change could be the result of Israel’s actions because “the Iran regime is very weak.” This statement suggests that while not a direct objective, a weakening of the Iranian regime to the point of collapse could be an indirect consequence of sustained pressure.

The idea of regime change is highly controversial and carries immense risks. It could lead to widespread instability, civil war, and a power vacuum that could be exploited by extremist groups. However, there are elements within the international community and among Iranian exiles who support such an outcome. Notably, Pahlavi has voiced support for Israel’s actions, drawing praise from certain circles. This highlights the complex internal dynamics within Iran and the diverse opinions on its future, which could be influenced by external pressures.

The Role of Allies: US Support and Restraint

The United States, Israel's closest ally, plays a crucial role in shaping Israel's response and the broader regional dynamic. Both Israel and its closest ally, the US, have vowed to punish Iran for launching 180 missiles at Israel. This unwavering support is a cornerstone of Israel's security. However, the US also seeks to prevent a wider regional war that could destabilize global energy markets and draw American forces into another Middle Eastern conflict.

This dual objective creates a delicate balance. While providing military aid and diplomatic backing, the US often exerts pressure on Israel to act with restraint. Donald Trump, for instance, has been speaking to reporters about the conflict and the prospects for ending it, reflecting the global concern and the desire for de-escalation from various international actors. The US role is thus one of both enabling Israel's defense and attempting to manage the escalation, acting as a crucial brake on potentially unbridled retaliation.

The Risk of Regional War: A Precarious Balance

Perhaps the most terrifying aspect of the current situation is the palpable risk of a full-scale regional war. "Israel and Iran have never been closer to sparking a regional war in the Middle East." This statement underscores the extreme peril. Iran's retaliatory plan, as reported by The Times, is an immediate counterattack similar to its October 2024 firing of 200 ballistic missiles at Israel, which sent the entire population into bomb shelters. This indicates a willingness to escalate rapidly if provoked further.

The continuous verbal attacks against Israel, coupled with Iran's increased missile production—around 50 ballistic missiles per month since October 2024—demonstrate Iran's readiness and capability for sustained conflict. Israel is within range for many of these missiles, making any large-scale conflict a direct threat to its population centers. The danger lies in miscalculation, where a seemingly limited strike or counter-strike could trigger an uncontrollable chain reaction, drawing in other regional actors and potentially global powers. The consequences of such a war would be catastrophic, not only for the Middle East but for the entire world.

Conclusion: Navigating a Volatile Future

The question of **what will Israel do to Iran** is not a simple one, nor does it have a single, definitive answer. Israel's options range from continued calibrated military strikes aimed at specific targets, particularly Iran's nuclear program, to intensified diplomatic and economic pressure, and the potential for a more aggressive posture that could inadvertently lead to regime instability. Each path is fraught with its own risks and rewards, balanced against the overarching goal of national security and the desire to avoid a devastating regional war.

The recent direct exchange has irrevocably altered the dynamics, pushing the long-standing shadow war into the open. As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asserts, Iran "will pay a heavy price," yet the exact nature and timing of that price remain subject to intense strategic deliberation. The international community, particularly the United States, plays a critical role in managing this volatile situation, attempting to de-escalate while supporting Israel's right to self-defense.

Ultimately, the future trajectory of this conflict will depend on a complex interplay of strategic calculations, domestic pressures, and external influences. The world holds its breath, hoping that diplomacy and restraint will prevail over the destructive potential of full-scale confrontation. What are your thoughts on the potential next steps for Israel and Iran? Share your perspectives in the comments below, and consider exploring our other articles on Middle East geopolitics to stay informed on this critical issue.

Hanan isachar jerusalem hi-res stock photography and images - Alamy

Israel claims aerial superiority over Tehran as Iran launches more missiles

Photos of a tense week as Iranian missiles bypass air defenses in

Redefining Progress With Purpose