Why Is Israel Poised to Attack Iran?

Israel was widely expected to strike Iran in October 2024 after Tehran launched at least 180 ballistic missiles at Israel on October 1. The anticipated response formed part of an escalating cycle of direct and proxy attacks that threatened military sites, civilians and the wider region.

The immediate trigger

Iran said its missile barrage answered the killings of Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and Iranian Revolutionary Guard commander Abbas Nilforoushan. Israel said many missiles were intercepted, with United States forces assisting its defence, while some projectiles reached Israeli territory.

Explaining Iran’s stated rationale is not endorsing the attack. Ballistic missiles can create grave risk even when air defences intercept many of them or reported casualties are limited.

A broader regional conflict

The confrontation did not begin on October 1. Israel and Iran had fought for years through covert operations, cyberattacks and armed groups. The war in Gaza and expanding conflict with Hezbollah in Lebanon made a direct exchange between the two states more dangerous.

Iran supports organizations including Hezbollah and Hamas, while Israel argues that degrading those groups is necessary for security. Critics point to the immense civilian toll of Israeli operations and warn that military escalation cannot produce durable regional safety.

Why the target choice mattered

Analysts considered whether Israel would strike missile facilities, air defences, oil infrastructure or nuclear sites. Each option carried different consequences. Military targets could signal a bounded retaliation, while oil or nuclear attacks risked economic shock, environmental harm and a much larger Iranian response.

Speculation about a target was not confirmation of an operational plan. Governments also use public and private messages to deter opponents, reassure allies or shape the eventual interpretation of an attack.

The role of the United States

Washington helped defend Israel during the Iranian barrage while pressing both parties to avoid a regional war. American military presence and arms support gave the United States influence, but also exposed its forces and partners to retaliation if the conflict widened.

Diplomatic restraint could not be measured only by whether an attack happened. Scale, targets, warning, civilian protection and the response that followed all affected escalation risk.

What happened on October 26

Three days after this article’s original publication, Israel openly struck military targets in Iran. Israel said it hit missile-manufacturing facilities and surface-to-air missile systems. Available reporting indicated that oil and nuclear sites were not targeted.

Iran reported limited damage and the deaths of military personnel. The selection of targets appeared intended to impose a cost while leaving room to avoid immediate all-out war, although any direct attack retained the risk of miscalculation.

International-law questions

Both states invoked self-defence for their actions. Under international law, claims of self-defence are assessed through necessity, proportionality and the underlying facts; a government’s label does not settle legality.

Civilians remain protected regardless of which state claims retaliation. Parties must distinguish military objectives, take feasible precautions and avoid attacks expected to cause excessive civilian harm relative to the concrete military advantage anticipated.

How to read claims during conflict

Early casualty and damage reports can be incomplete, and videos may be old, miscaptioned or generated. Readers should look for geolocation, official statements from more than one side and independent satellite or journalistic verification.

Israel was poised to respond because Iran had mounted a large direct missile attack and Israeli leaders had publicly promised consequences. That explained the expectation; it did not make escalation inevitable or harmless. The central policy question was whether any response reduced future danger or merely prepared the next round.