Iran’s two major direct strikes on Israel in 2024 set the precedent for how Tehran might respond now. Operation True Promise I, launched on April 13, 2024, came two weeks after Israel struck Iran’s embassy in Damascus . In response, Iran fired a massive barrage of around 170 drones, 30 cruise missiles, and 120 ballistic missiles toward Israel. Despite its scale, the strike was largely symbolic — with 99% of the incoming weapons intercepted by Israeli and allied defense systems.
By contrast, Operation True Promise II, executed on October 1, 2024, was far more calculated. It was a response to the assassinations of high-level Hamas, Hezbollah, and IRGC figures. Iran shifted tactics, relying more heavily on ballistic missiles and less on drones. The attack, launched in multiple waves and planned over three months, inflicted modest but visible damage on Israeli airbases and civilian areas.
Iran’s 2025 response may take two forms. A quick retaliation within weeks would likely mirror April 2024 — high-volume drone and missile attacks with little impact, meant for political messaging. A delayed strike over 1–3 months would resemble October 2024 — heavier use of ballistic missiles, better targeting, and more damage potential.
Targets would likely include Israeli airbases (Nevatim, Tel Nof, Ramon), intelligence hubs (Mossad HQ, Unit 8200), and symbolic sites like Dimona. U.S. bases could be targeted if the conflict escalates, but this remains unlikely.
Several new factors complicate Iran’s ability to respond effectively. The most critical is Mossad’s infiltration of Iranian air defence systems. Israel has released footage showing drones being launched from within Iran itself. The strikes have probably caused internal panic within Iran’s military. Mountain bunkers housing aircraft and missile stockpiles are now seen as vulnerable, and fears of insider sabotage or follow-up drone attacks are disrupting operations. Iran’s air force has also been displaced — jets were reportedly scrambled eastward, away from key strike zones, limiting rapid response capability. On top of this, psychological pressure is mounting. The regime faces both global calls to retaliate and internal distrust. Corruption, factional divides, and doubts over competence now cloud Tehran’s decision-making. A misstep could further damage its legitimacy.
Footage released by Mossad shows loitering muntions drones released from within Iran to target radar instalments and air defence systems.
Iran faces a difficult choice. A rushed retaliation risks failure — militarily, symbolically, and politically — especially if it mirrors the largely ineffective April 2024 operation. But delaying a response could be seen as weakness by both Iran’s allies and adversaries, weakening Tehran’s image as a committed resistance power.
Both paths carry the danger of regional escalation. A larger-scale strike could draw in the United States, activate proxy networks across multiple fronts, or spiral into a broader war. The more calculated Iran’s response, the more likely it can maintain credibility without triggering uncontrollable escalation. Iran has also shown that it does feel forced to react quickly.
Iran’s missile arsenal (Al Jazeera, 2025)
The use of Proxies (Possible, probably in unison with direct response)
Iran may activate proxies like Hezbollah, the Houthis, and the PMF for indirect retaliation. Hezbollah’s capacity is degraded after months of conflict and repeated Israeli strikes on its leadership. Supply lines weakened with Syria’s collapse, forcing reliance on risky, often intercepted smuggling. Reports indicate PMF drones were launched from Iraq today, likely at U.S. or Israeli targets, but such attacks have historically had little effect. The Houthis may resume strikes on Israel or Gulf infrastructure to raise pressure. While proxies offer plausible deniability, their effectiveness is limited, and overuse risks weakening Iran’s strategic posture.
Funeral of Hezbollah Offical
Strategic restraint + international leverage (unlikely)
Iran may delay retaliation, presenting itself as a rational actor. Though unlikely to deter Israel, Tehran could push diplomatic pressure via the UN, the Non-Aligned Movement, or partners like China and Russia. Restraint could also buy time to regroup, rebuild air defences, and secure key assets.
Bonus: Cyber attacks
With the reported leaks of Israeli nuclear information by Iran. We will probably see further leaks by Iran - however, the strategic effects of this are negligible at the moment.
