Iran’s Missile Barrage: Israel’s Next Move
Voices on Peace & War
The authors of this forum, Voices on Peace and War (VPW), explore domestic and global issues broadly tied to the theme of peace and war. Sponsored by the John and Mary Frances Patton Peace & War Center of Norwich University, VPW features subject matter experts and students who present their opinions and arguments on critical issues related to peace and war in the international community. We hope that a chorus of small voices in this forum will help illuminate a world filled with a variety of complex challenges.
Co-editor: Dr. Yangmo Ku (Associate Professor of Political Science; Associate Director of the Peace and War Center): yku@norwich.edu
Co-editor: Dr. Dan. Morris (Associate Professor of Philosophy): dmorris3@norwich.edu
Disclaimer: These opinion pieces represent the authors’ personal views, and do not necessarily reflect the official policies or positions of Norwich University or PAWC.
Last Tuesday, Iran launched at least 180 missiles into Israel, the latest in a series of rapidly escalating attacks between Israel and Iran that threaten to push the Middle East closer to a regionwide war. Iran said the barrage was retaliation for a series of devastating blows Israel has landed in recent weeks against the Iran-backed militant group Hezbollah in Lebanon, which has been firing rockets into Israel since the war in Gaza began.
Lebanese Hezbollah itself got involved in the conflict with Israel after October 7 to distract Israel from destroying Hamas and incursion into Gaza. Frequently firing rockets, Hezbollah displaced more than 60,000 Israelis from the north of Israel, putting pressure on Netanyahu's government in support of Hamas.
Nasrallah’s persistent and aggressive attacks on Israel led to a decisive response from Israel. More than 80 bombs were dropped on four apartment buildings south of Beirut, killing the Hezbollah leader. Nasrallah was not just a key figure in Hezbollah, the most important proxy of the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI), but also regarded as a son to Ayatollah Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran. In mourning, Khamenei expressed deep sorrow, stating, “I am especially very sad...The loss of Mr. Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah is not a small incident, and it has made us mourn.”
Nasrallah's death, coupled with Israel's ground incursion into southern Lebanon to weaken Hezbollah and dismantle its tunnel systems, provoked a strong Iranian response. Hezbollah's tunnel system was built specifically for attacks on Israel, and Israel's incursion forced Khamenei's hand, leading to a second missile attack on Israel.
The first missile strike occurred in April 2024, when Iran launched over 120 ballistic and cruise missiles, as well as 200 drones, in retaliation for the Israeli assassination of IRGC commander General Mohammad Reza Zahedi.
This recent attack, codenamed "True Promises 2," was more effective than the previous one due to Iran’s use of more advanced technology, including the Fateh-1, a hypersonic medium-range ballistic missile. Unlike the earlier attack, this round saw more missiles bypass Israel’s Iron Dome defense system, with about 20% of them hitting the ground.
Before Iran’s missile barrage, Israel had already warned of a retaliatory response. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed that Iran would face consequences for its actions. Meanwhile, Iran warned that any Israeli retaliation would be met with “vast destruction,” raising fears of a broader conflict that could engulf the region.
The key question now is what Israel's response will be to Tuesday’s missile attack. While the United States supports Israel's right to retaliate, it is urging caution, particularly in avoiding strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. The U.S. fears that such attacks could prompt Iran to accelerate its nuclear weapons program.
Several potential Israeli responses are being discussed. These include sabotage attacks, like the one on Hezbollah's pagers, which was one of the most significant simultaneous sabotage operations in history.
Other options involve targeting missile sites, though Iran’s vast geography may limit the effectiveness of such strikes. Israel could also opt for the serial assassination of high-ranking Iranian commanders or political leaders or strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Another possible approach for Israel is targeting Iran's infrastructure—such as power plants or refineries—to inflict economic damage and fuel public dissatisfaction. This strategy mirrors Israel's actions in Yemen after Houthi forces launched missiles at Israel.
Israel has previously demonstrated its capability to reach deep within Iran, sabotaging military facilities, targeting nuclear programs, and destabilizing Iranian military and scientific operations. However, Israel must balance its need to undermine the Iranian regime’s military and security apparatus without causing widespread harm to the Iranian population.
Unlike many Muslims in the region, most Iranians do not hold negative views towards Israel.
Since the recent conflict initiated by the Hamas terrorist attack on October 7th, the Iranian diaspora has consistently shown support for Israel. Within the country, Iranians have predominantly held Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Iranian regime responsible for provoking the conflict more than Israel.
Since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, when Islamists came to power, the newly established IRI cut all ties with Israel, labeling it an illegitimate and "cancerous state." From that point onward, the objective of eliminating Israel from the map became a core pillar of Iran’s regional policy. To achieve this goal, Iran positioned itself as a leading supporter of the Palestinian liberation organization, which later evolved into significant backing for Hamas.
Additionally, in 1982, Iran was instrumental in the creation and continued support of Hezbollah in Lebanon, a key proxy force aimed at destabilizing Israel. Through military, financial, and logistical assistance, Iran has used Hezbollah to wage a long-term campaign against the Jewish state, with the destruction of Israel remaining a central objective of the Islamic Republic’s regional strategy.
Iran not only invested billions of dollars in supporting its proxy forces, such as Hezbollah, but it also pursued an ideological agenda that it believed would strengthen its influence in the region. While Iran did achieve some of these ideological objectives, the cost was steep. Iran’s involvement in regional conflicts and backing of militant groups led to severe international sanctions, isolating Iran from the global economy.
Over time, many Iranians began to realize that their quality of life and economic well-being were being sacrificed for the sake of these ideological goals. Instead of focusing on domestic development and improving conditions within Iran, the government channeled resources to support groups operating outside the country. This growing awareness has led to increasing discontent among the Iranian population, who feel that the regime's foreign policies are undermining their prosperity.
Since the expansion of the 2009 Green Movement following the disputed presidential election, Iranians have expressed dissatisfaction with the IRI's regional policies. For example, they have demanded reinvestment of money within the country. "Neither Gaza nor Lebanon, I Give My Life to Iran!" has become one of the most frequently chanted slogans by Iranians in any anti-government demonstrations they attend.
Since 2009, many people have shifted from merely criticizing Islamist groups to actively supporting Israel. This is a manifestation of the disengagement of Iranians from the Islamic Republic and their enmity toward its ideological core, including the destruction of Israel. More disillusionment of Iranians with the regime has led to a greater affinity of Iranians towards Israel, as they see it as their ally in their fight against Islamist authoritarianism in Iran.
In fact, despite the Iranian regime’s official anti-Israel stance, more and more Iranians hold positive views toward Israel or are indifferent to the political hostilities. Many Iranians, especially those critical of the regime, may see the Iranian government's anti-Israel stance as part of its broader authoritarian policies. For some, support for Israel is a way to express opposition to the regime’s ideology, particularly its focus on regional conflicts and proxy wars. These Iranians may sympathize with Israel because it is positioned as an adversary to the Iranian regime's foreign policy. Disappointed with the Islamic Republic’s government, many Iranians admire Israel's success for its technological, scientific, and agricultural achievements, especially when, as a small country, Israel has faced existential threats since its creation in 1948.
In contrast to the Iranian regime’s rhetoric, which often calls for Israel’s destruction, there is a growing segment of the Iranian population that is more open-minded or favorable toward Israel, reflecting a desire for normalcy, economic progress, and peaceful international relations.
With this reality, Israel has shown more attention to the Iranian people, separating them from the ruling elites. Using public diplomacy, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu directly addresses the Iranian people, distinguishing them from their ruling elites. Netanyahu's speech bypasses the Iranian government and targets the public, emphasizing that the regime burdens its citizens with conflicts, such as those in Lebanon and Gaza, while failing to improve their lives. He underscores Israel's military strength, citing recent actions against Iran-backed groups, including an airstrike on Hezbollah, and argues that if Iran's government truly cared for its people, it would stop wasting resources on wars and focus on their well-being. His speech was widely seen and reposted on social media by Iranians.
Any Israeli response should focus on ensuring that its actions target the regime rather than the people oppressed by it. The selection of targets should follow a key principle: undermining the Islamic Republic's security and military apparatus while weakening its ability to repress its population. These measures would ultimately pave the way for protests, creating an opportunity for the regime's democratization.
The transition of the regime to a secular, liberal, and potentially democratic government would represent the most significant geopolitical shift since the collapse of the Soviet Union. In a post-Islamic Republic era, an Iran-Israel agreement could complement the Abraham Accords, fostering peace in a region that has endured prolonged conflict.
Dr. Saeid Golkar is a UC Foundation Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, a senior advisor at United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI), and a Writing Fellow at the Middle East Forum.