Why Did Iran Attack Israel? What Will Happen Next?

On the evening of June 7, multiple missiles were fired from various parts of Iran toward Israel. Following tensions that had emerged among Tehran, Washington, and Tel Aviv in the days following the April 8 ceasefire, Tehran finally struck parts of northern Israel, including Haifa, in response to the Israeli military’s actions in the Lebanese city of Beirut. The Islamic Republic had previously warned that it would give a military response if Israel attacked Beirut.

While Iran carried out these attacks, there appeared to be no consensus between the United States and Israel at the time of writing this report regarding a response to Tehran and the resumption of war. This is because the attacks took place while Pakistan’s Interior Minister was in Iran just a few hours earlier, bringing a new message from the United States to Tehran. This indicated that mediation for negotiations and reaching a deal remained intact, a matter toward which the US President has shown greater inclination in recent days. Nevertheless, a few hours after the initial attacks by the Islamic Republic, the Israeli military announced that it had struck military targets in western and central Iran.

Why Was the Attack Launched and What Did Diplomacy Achieve?

Iran’s attacks on northern Israel were carried out after the Israeli military launched multiple strikes on southern Lebanon and the southern city of Beirut, destroying several positions belonging to Hezbollah. The country’s Prime Minister’s Office announced that the Israeli military specifically targeted Beirut’s Dahiyeh neighborhood, where several senior members of Hezbollah were present. The statement noted: “This attack was carried out in response to Hezbollah’s missile and drone attacks on northern Israel.”

In response to this action, the Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) launched 23 ballistic missiles in four waves from various Iranian cities. Following this move, the IRGC described these attacks in a statement as merely a warning, writing: “Tonight’s operation was a warning, and in the event of repeated aggression, the responses will be broader and will encompass all American-Zionist targets in the region.” The statement added: “In response to the widespread atrocities of the usurping Zionist regime in southern Lebanon and the mass killing and displacement of the oppressed people of the Tyre and Nabatieh regions and other areas, including Beirut’s Dahiyeh, the Ramat David airbase and the origin of these aggressions were targeted by ballistic missiles from the IRGC Aerospace Force.”

Following the attacks, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs also issued a statement, declaring: “On the evening of Sunday, June 7, the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran, within the framework of the inherent right to self-defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, struck several military targets in the north of the occupied territories of Palestine.”

The statement emphasized that “the ceasefire in Lebanon was an inseparable part of the ceasefire understanding dated April 8, and the US government bears direct responsibility for the violations of the ceasefire by the Zionist regime and the subsequent consequences, as well as any escalation of tension in the region.”

Following this statement, Ali Safari, an advisor to the Foreign Ministry spokesperson, said in an interview with Al-Mayadeen: “Lebanon is an inseparable part of the ceasefire agreement, and Iran will not abandon Lebanon, its people, and its resistance.” The Foreign Ministry spokesperson, however, had a theological reaction to the matter, writing: “Allah will certainly aid those who aid Him, for Allah is Almighty, Invincible.”

While the government adopted the language of threat on one hand, the language of diplomacy to stop the war was also at work on the other. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi held separate telephone conversations with UK Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, and Pakistani Army Chief Asim Munir to discuss the latest regional developments following Iran’s response to the Zionist regime’s repeated violations of the ceasefire in Lebanon. He also held other phone calls with French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot and Qatari Foreign Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani to consult on the situation in the region.

On the other hand, diplomacy also appeared to be flowing between the White House and Tel Aviv to contain the war. Following Iran’s attack, US President Donald Trump entered the fray with a mild approach, stating that the attack would have no impact on the negotiations. He specified that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would have “no choice but to accept the deal with Iran,” emphasizing, “I decide. I make all the decisions. Netanyahu is not the decision-maker.” Nonetheless, a few hours later, the Israeli military announced that it had targeted military sites in western and central Iran.

Pre-War Messages

The roots of the IRGC’s attacks must be understood through the concept of the “Unity of Fronts.” This is an idea within the “Axis of Resistance” that signals unified “word” and “action” across the axis, dictating that an attack on any single force within this front is considered an attack on all remaining forces. It was within the framework of this very concept that the Islamic Republic had linked the ceasefire established on April 8 to the cessation of war across all fronts. At the time, a senior White House official had told CNN that Israel was also a party to the agreement and had agreed to temporarily halt its attacks.

However, following the announcement of the ceasefire, Israel did not remain committed to it, prompting repeated protests from Iran. From Israel’s perspective, however, the existence of Hezbollah posed a threat to its security; based on this, it continued its attacks on southern Lebanon and even captured territories inside the country. In the continuation of this trend, on June 1, the Israeli military warned residents of Beirut’s Dahiyeh to evacuate the area to save their lives.

Shortly after this warning was issued, the Islamic Republic’s state broadcaster (IRIB) published a statement by the “Khatam al-Anbiya” Headquarters addressed to the Israeli Prime Minister. The statement read: “In light of the regime’s repeated violations of the ceasefire, if the threat of bombing Dahiyeh and Beirut is operationalized, we warn the residents of the northern sectors and military settlements in the occupied territories to leave the area if they do not wish to be harmed.”

Following that, the US President entered the fray to de-escalate tensions, requesting Israel to ensure that “no military forces are dispatched to Beirut, and those forces already en route be turned back.” Following these remarks, although Israel halted its attacks, the country’s Prime Minister stated: “As long as there is no calm for the soldiers and northern settlements, Beirut and Beirut’s Dahiyeh will not be safe either.”

Tehran, however, reiterated its stance. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi emphasized in an interview with the Al-Mayadeen network: “We declared to the American side that if Beirut is attacked, we will tolerate it under no circumstances; from our perspective, the ceasefire will be completely broken, and our armed forces will respond… I have contacted various countries and stated that as a result of Israel’s action, the war will resume.”

Throughout this entire period, however, Israel did not cease its attacks on the southern regions of Lebanon, and this became one of the reasons for dissatisfaction among certain political figures in Tehran. On the streets of Tehran, it was being said that one-third of Lebanon had been occupied while Iran remained a mere spectator, while some remarked that Lebanon had entered this war for Iran’s sake and blamed the failure to attack Israel on the presence of an “infiltration current” among officials.

Reactions of Military and Security Figures

As the attacks were carried out, a message from Majid Mousavi, a commander of the IRGC Aerospace Force, was published, reading: “The promise is kept.” Following that, a video of him was also released in which he thanked the people for their hundred-day presence on the streets. He also stated that the people must maintain this path, emphasizing that “the battlefield, diplomacy, and the streets” must remain tied together.

Numerous officials sent messages both before and after this action. Among them, Ebrahim Azizi, Chairman of the National Security Committee, wrote in cyberspace: “The violation of the ceasefire by the US in the Persian Gulf and the crimes of the Zionist regime against Palestine and dear Lebanon mean that you only understand the language of power and force. Therefore, the Resistance Front will speak to you in this very language.”

Following the strike, Ali-Akbar Ahmadian, the Representative of the Supreme Leader to the Defense Council, wrote after the Islamic Republic attacked Israel: “This is the roaring voice of the Iranian nation being heard in the skies of Tel Aviv. Iran and Iranians do not submit to the imposition of will. The country’s officials, relying on the Divine and backed by the chosen people, stand until final victory. Continuing the path of pressure and threat will elicit a more decisive and crushing response.”

Furthermore, Mohsen Rezaee, the former commander of the IRGC, wrote on X: “The Islamic Republic of Iran had repeatedly declared that it would not tolerate violations of the ceasefire and aggression against Lebanon. Tonight, the aggressors received their response. This response is a warning for them to cease their mischief; any new action will face a more crushing response and higher costs.”

Despite the Islamic Republic’s attacks on northern Israel, some military analysts believe: “The IRGC’s missile attack was not powerful. An opportunity has arisen for the Israelis to once again seal sections of the base tunnel entrances that had been set up during this recent period and are prepared to launch a major missile wave into Israel, particularly at bases in the western part of the country, from Tabriz to Kermanshah. A portion of tonight’s attacks was carried out from those points.” However, rumors persist that the reason for this weakness was that, before the war, Iran had warned the Israeli side of the attack.

The Streets in the Hands of Government Supporters Celebrating the Attack

In Iran, while some were concerned about the resumption of war and the consequences of further attacks following the Islamic Republic’s strikes, the Islamic Republic’s state broadcaster (IRIB) spoke of the people’s joy in a report from Tehran’s Ferdowsi Square after the missiles were launched. The reporter asked the individuals stationed at a corner of the street, “People, are you happy?” and the attendees replied, “Yes.” In the interviews featured in this report, it was said: “We became very happy; we will hit and blast Israel and America.”

Simultaneously, as the attacks were being carried out, a group in Qom chanted “Haydar, Haydar.” On the other side, people in Tehran, rejoicing over this action, waved flags. One of their chants was: “Sayyid Majid, hit the demon, hit Tel Aviv until morning!” or “The only party is Hezbollah, Sayyid Majid, Masha’Allah!”

Shortly after the attacks were carried out against Israel, a new music video titled “Strike Hard” (Mohkam Bezan) was released. Featuring the voice of Abouzar Biukafi, it said: “This time strike their sky, strike them to the ground, strike hard and strike agilely, strike fearlessly.” The song emphasizes: “Ultimately, there are two paths: victory or martyrdom.”

The Islamic Republic made its supporters happy at a time when Ayatollah Abdollah Javadi-Amoli, one of the Shia Marjas, or clerical authorities, had emphasized in an explicit fatwa before the start of the war: “Shedding the blood of Trump and the Israelis is the desire of the Imam of the Time (the Mahdi).” This fatwa was published even as Tehran officials seem willing to accept even greater risks, with Ali Akbar Velayati, an advisor to the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic, stating: “Israel’s foolishness in Beirut activated the first link in our chain of responses.”

Yet despite all this, this attack could also provide a pathway toward an agreement, as it practically demonstrates to domestic hardliners that the military forces have carried out their words, and if the government does forge a deal, this action ensures it is accompanied by “authority and might.”