Navigating The Aftermath: What Will Israel Do After Iran's Attack?

Gordon Muller 17 Jun 2025

The Middle East teeters on a knife-edge, as the world watches with bated breath to see what will Israel do after Iran attack. This unprecedented direct assault by Tehran marks a significant escalation in a long-simmering shadow war, pushing the region closer to a full-scale conflict. The immediate aftermath is characterized by intense diplomatic activity, global concern, and a palpable tension as Israel weighs its options for a response that will undoubtedly shape the future of regional stability.

For decades, the rivalry between Israel and Iran has largely played out through proxies and covert operations. However, Iran's recent airborne attack, involving nearly 200 missiles and drones, has shattered this fragile equilibrium, forcing a direct confrontation. This shift demands a calculated and strategic response from Jerusalem, one that balances the imperative of deterrence with the profound risks of igniting a wider, potentially catastrophic, regional war. The choices Israel makes now will reverberate across the globe, impacting everything from energy markets to international alliances.

Table of Contents:

A New Chapter in Hostilities: Understanding the Iranian Attack
Israel's Immediate Calculus: Moderation or Overwhelming Force?
- The Call for Restraint: Hopes for De-escalation
- The Impulse for Retaliation: Unleashing Firepower
Strategic Imperatives Guiding Israel's Decision
The Nuclear Dimension: Iran's Breakout Potential
Economic Repercussions and Global Markets
The Role of International Actors: US, Russia, and Regional Players
- The United States' Stance: Support and Caution
- Regional Responses and Alliances
Potential Scenarios for Israel's Response
The Long Game: What Does the Future Hold for Israel-Iran Relations?
- Escalation or De-escalation: A Tenuous Balance

A New Chapter in Hostilities: Understanding the Iranian Attack

The recent Iranian aerial assault on Israel marked a dramatic and unprecedented shift in the long-standing animosity between the two nations. For years, their conflict has been characterized by proxy wars, cyberattacks, and covert operations. However, Iran's decision to launch nearly 200 ballistic missiles and drones directly at Israeli territory fundamentally altered the landscape. This was not merely a symbolic gesture; it was a clear demonstration of Iran's capability and willingness to strike its adversary directly. According to the State Department, Iran had fired nearly 200 ballistic missiles against several targets in Israel, hitting the center and the north of the country. Israel's emergency service said four people had been confirmed dead at the site of the strike in one of the impacted areas, while Israel also reported dozens of people injured in these fresh attacks by Iran.

This direct attack was framed by Iran as retaliation for an earlier Israeli strike on its consulate in Damascus, which resulted in the death of senior IRGC commanders. Iran's public relations office of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps swiftly issued a statement threatening to intensify its attacks if Israel continued its hostilities, following a renewed wave of assaults. This threat underscores the tit-for-tat nature of the conflict, where each action by one side seemingly necessitates a response from the other. The drone photo showing damage over residential homes at the impact site in Tel Aviv, Israel, following the missile attack from Iran, serves as a stark visual reminder of the direct threat to civilian populations and the precariousness of the situation. The question of what will Israel do after Iran attack now looms larger than ever, with the international community holding its breath.

Israel's Immediate Calculus: Moderation or Overwhelming Force?

In the immediate aftermath of Iran's direct assault, Israel faces a pivotal decision point: whether to respond with measured restraint or overwhelming force. This choice is not merely tactical but deeply strategic, carrying profound implications for regional stability and Israel's long-term security. The Israeli military is in the midst of planning a response to Iran’s ballistic missile attack, and has warned that it would be “serious and significant.”

The Call for Restraint: Hopes for De-escalation

Despite the direct nature of the Iranian attack, the initial reports of few or no immediate casualties have fueled hopes among many that Israel will moderate its behavior. International actors, including key allies, have been quick to urge de-escalation. The United States, while reaffirming its unwavering support for Israel's security, has also signaled caution against a disproportionate response that could ignite a wider regional conflagration. This diplomatic pressure is a significant factor in Israel's calculus. The global community understands that an unchecked escalation could have devastating consequences, and thus, there is a strong international plea for restraint, hoping to prevent the current crisis from spiraling out of control.

The Impulse for Retaliation: Unleashing Firepower

Conversely, there is a powerful impulse within Israel to unleash overwhelming firepower on Iranian targets. The direct nature of Iran's attack, particularly the use of ballistic missiles aimed at Israeli territory, is seen by many as an unacceptable breach of sovereignty and a direct challenge to Israel's deterrence capabilities. Historically, Israel has adopted a doctrine of swift and decisive retaliation against threats. The idea that Iran could directly strike Israel without facing a severe response is anathema to this strategic thinking. This sentiment is amplified by the long-standing animosity and the perception that Iran seeks Israel's destruction. Therefore, the option of a robust military response, targeting key Iranian military or strategic assets, remains very much on the table, driven by a desire to restore deterrence and send an unequivocal message to Tehran.

Strategic Imperatives Guiding Israel's Decision

When considering what will Israel do after Iran attack, several core strategic imperatives guide its decision-making process. These are not merely abstract principles but concrete factors that dictate the severity, scope, and nature of any retaliatory action. First and foremost is the principle of deterrence. For decades, Israel has relied on its formidable military and its willingness to use it to deter adversaries. Iran's direct attack challenges this deterrence, and a weak or perceived lack of response could embolden Tehran further. Restoring this deterrence, sending a clear message that direct attacks on Israeli soil will incur a heavy price, is paramount.

Secondly, national security and the protection of its citizens are non-negotiable. The Iranian missile barrage, even if largely intercepted, demonstrated a direct threat to Israeli cities and infrastructure. Any response must therefore aim to degrade Iran's capabilities to launch similar attacks in the future or to deter it from doing so. This ties into the broader objective of maintaining regional stability, albeit from Israel's perspective. While a wider war is undesirable, Israel also believes that unchecked Iranian aggression is a greater long-term threat to regional peace. Finally, international relations play a crucial role. Israel must balance its need for self-defense with the concerns of its allies, particularly the United States, which has consistently warned against escalation while pledging support for Israel's security. The delicate dance between asserting sovereignty and maintaining international goodwill will heavily influence what will Israel do after Iran attack.

The Nuclear Dimension: Iran's Breakout Potential

The long-standing concern over Iran's nuclear program casts a long shadow over the current crisis and heavily influences what will Israel do after Iran attack. For three decades or so, policymakers traded worries over the progress of Iran’s nuclear program and the potential of an Israeli military attack on it. This concern is not merely theoretical; Israel views a nuclear-armed Iran as an existential threat. In the wake of Israel's attack on Iranian targets, former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Daniel Shapiro stated at Foreign Affairs that it is likely that Iran will make a desperate run to nuclear breakout. This assessment amplifies the urgency and gravity of the situation.

Israel has historically maintained a doctrine that it will not permit Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, and it has previously launched strikes on suspected nuclear facilities in other countries. The current escalation, with direct Iranian attacks, could provide Israel with a pretext, or at least a heightened justification, to target Iran's nuclear infrastructure more aggressively. While such a move would be highly escalatory and fraught with immense risks, the perceived acceleration of Iran's nuclear ambitions in response to hostilities could push Israel towards considering this option more seriously. The death of senior IRGC commanders and nuclear scientists in previous Israeli strikes on Iran’s nuclear and military sites highlights Israel's willingness to target key figures involved in these programs. The nuclear dimension remains arguably the most dangerous aspect of the Israel-Iran conflict, and any decision by Israel on how to respond will inevitably factor in this critical threat.

Economic Repercussions and Global Markets

The geopolitical tensions between Israel and Iran have immediate and far-reaching economic repercussions, particularly for global energy markets. The moment Israel’s attack on Iran’s nuclear and military sites—resulting in the death of senior IRGC commanders—sparked immediate volatility in global energy markets. This volatility is a direct reflection of the market's fear of supply disruptions from the oil-rich Middle East. Brent crude, a key global oil benchmark, jumped up as much as 14 percent intraday, briefly peaking at $78.50 before settling around $75, marking the sharpest spike since early 2022. This dramatic surge underscores how sensitive global energy prices are to instability in the region.

If Israel chooses a significant military response to Iran's attack, the economic fallout could be even more severe. Any action that threatens oil shipping lanes, production facilities, or escalates into a wider conflict involving major oil producers could send crude prices soaring, potentially triggering a global economic downturn. The Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint for a significant portion of the world's oil supply, is particularly vulnerable to disruptions in the event of an all-out conflict. Beyond oil, increased regional instability could deter foreign investment, disrupt trade routes, and lead to broader economic uncertainty. Therefore, when considering what will Israel do after Iran attack, the potential economic consequences, both regional and global, are a significant factor that policymakers must weigh carefully, as they directly impact global stability and prosperity.

The Role of International Actors: US, Russia, and Regional Players

The current crisis between Israel and Iran is not confined to their bilateral relationship; it is a complex web involving numerous international actors whose stances and actions significantly influence the trajectory of the conflict. Understanding what will Israel do after Iran attack requires appreciating the pressures and support it receives from key global powers and regional states.

The United States' Stance: Support and Caution

The United States plays a pivotal role, being Israel's staunchest ally. Immediately following Iran's attack, President Donald Trump stated that the US was not involved in the latest conflict between Israel and Iran, saying, "Had nothing to do with the attack on Iran, tonight." However, the US swiftly warned that there would be “severe consequences” for Iran after its missile attack against Israel, pledging to work with Jerusalem to extract a price from Tehran. This dual approach highlights a delicate balancing act: providing unequivocal support for Israel's right to self-defense while simultaneously urging restraint to prevent a broader regional war. Donald Trump has also been speaking to reporters about the conflict and the prospects for ending it, indicating ongoing diplomatic efforts. The US has considerable leverage over Israel, both militarily and diplomatically, and its counsel will be a major factor in shaping Israel's response. The possibility of an imminent Israeli attack on its longtime foe Iran was great enough that Trump had previously ordered the evacuation of some American diplomats in the Middle East, underscoring the severity of the perceived threat.

Regional Responses and Alliances

Beyond the US, regional players also have a vested interest in the outcome. Some, like Pakistan, have openly sided with Iran. Pakistan on Saturday came out in support of Iran after Israel launched a series of blistering attacks on the Middle Eastern country's nuclear program and its armed forces. This demonstrates the deep divisions and existing alliances within the region. Other Arab states, while wary of Iran's regional ambitions, are also deeply concerned about the potential for a full-scale war on their doorstep. Their reactions range from cautious neutrality to quiet support for de-escalation, fearing the destabilizing effects of an expanded conflict on their own economies and societies. The complex interplay of these regional alliances and rivalries will undoubtedly factor into Israel's strategic calculations, as it seeks to navigate the immediate aftermath of Iran's attack without alienating potential partners or inadvertently strengthening its adversaries.

Potential Scenarios for Israel's Response

Given the multifaceted pressures and strategic imperatives, Israel has several potential avenues for responding to Iran's direct attack. Each scenario carries its own set of risks and benefits, and the final decision on what will Israel do after Iran attack will be a complex calculation.

One likely scenario is a **limited, targeted strike**. This would involve precise military action against specific Iranian military facilities, Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) bases, or perhaps even cyberattacks aimed at disrupting Iranian infrastructure. The goal here would be to restore deterrence without triggering a full-scale war. Such strikes might target the launch sites of the missiles used in the recent attack or facilities associated with Iran's drone program. This approach allows Israel to demonstrate its capability and resolve while signaling a desire to contain the conflict.

A more escalatory option would be **broader military action**. This could involve more widespread attacks on Iran's military infrastructure, including air defense systems, naval assets, or even components of its nuclear program, as Israel’s military says it has previously launched a wave of strikes on Iran, hitting key nuclear facilities and killing senior Iranian commanders and nuclear scientists in a major attack. This option would aim to significantly degrade Iran's military capabilities and set back its strategic programs. However, it carries a much higher risk of provoking a severe Iranian counter-response and drawing other regional and international actors into the conflict.

Alternatively, Israel could opt for **diplomatic and economic pressure**, working closely with its international partners to impose stricter sanctions on Iran or to isolate it further on the global stage. This non-military response would rely on the collective power of the international community to extract a price from Tehran, as the US has pledged to do. While less immediate in its impact, it could be a long-term strategy to weaken Iran's ability to project power.

Finally, Israel might choose **no immediate overt military response**, instead relying on covert operations or a delayed, less public retaliation. This would be a highly unconventional approach, designed to keep Iran guessing and to avoid providing a clear target for further Iranian retaliation. It would also allow for a period of de-escalation, giving diplomacy more room to work. However, this option might be difficult to sell domestically and could be perceived as a sign of weakness by adversaries.

The Israeli military has warned that its response would be “serious and significant,” suggesting that some form of military action is highly probable. The precise nature of this action, however, remains the critical question, as it will determine whether the region moves towards de-escalation or deeper into the abyss of conflict.

The Long Game: What Does the Future Hold for Israel-Iran Relations?

The recent direct attack by Iran and Israel's impending response are not isolated incidents but significant milestones in a decades-long rivalry that has profoundly shaped the Middle East. The question of what will Israel do after Iran attack extends beyond immediate retaliation; it delves into the long-term trajectory of Israel-Iran relations and the future of regional stability.

Escalation or De-escalation: A Tenuous Balance

The immediate aftermath is dominated by the precarious balance between escalation and de-escalation. Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has warned that Israel faces a ‘bitter and painful’ fate following the attack, and has promised that Iran will ensure Israel suffers this fate. Furthermore, Iran has vowed that Israel and the U.S. will pay a “heavy price,” according to a military spokesperson, after Israel launched “preemptive” strikes earlier. These statements underscore Tehran's resolve and the high likelihood of a continued cycle of retaliation. If Israel responds forcefully, Iran will likely feel compelled to answer, potentially drawing the two nations into a direct, full-scale war that neither side, nor the international community, truly desires.

Such a war would have catastrophic implications, not only for Israel and Iran but for the entire Middle East and the global economy. It could destabilize governments, trigger refugee crises, and disrupt global energy supplies on an unprecedented scale. The prospect of such a conflict keeps diplomats up all night, as Iran's airborne attack on Israel with nearly 200 missiles will surely keep the diplomats up all night. Conversely, a more restrained Israeli response, while perhaps not satisfying calls for immediate retribution, could open a window for diplomatic off-ramps, allowing international mediation to cool tensions and prevent a full-blown confrontation. However, this would require a significant shift in the deeply entrenched animosity and mistrust between the two nations.

The future of Israel-Iran relations hinges on whether both sides can find a way to step back from the brink. The current events represent a dangerous new chapter, moving the conflict from the shadows into direct military confrontation. The choices made in the coming days and weeks will determine whether this marks the beginning of a devastating regional war or a painful, yet ultimately contained, escalation in a long-standing rivalry. The international community's role in urging restraint and facilitating dialogue will be crucial in navigating this perilous period, as the world anxiously awaits what will Israel do after Iran attack.

The decision Israel faces is arguably one of the most consequential in its recent history. It must weigh the imperative of deterring future attacks against the immense risks of igniting a wider regional conflagration. The world watches, hoping that wisdom and strategic foresight will prevail, steering the Middle East away from the precipice of a devastating war.

What are your thoughts on Israel's potential next moves? Do you believe a strong retaliation is necessary for deterrence, or should de-escalation be the priority? Share your insights in the comments below, and consider exploring our other articles on regional geopolitics for more in-depth analysis.

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

HeadlineSphere