Iran launched an unprecedented missile against Israel in the evening of October 1 that many fear is the opening of a major wider regional war that everyone has been working to avoid.

After an hour, the missile attack faded away and the Israel authorities announced citizens could emerge from their bunkers. No deaths have been reported from the attack and US National Security Advisor of Jake Sullivan said in a short briefing a few hours later that the missile attack had been “thoroughly defeated” by Israel’s defences. Now, observers are waiting with baited breath to see what sort of retaliation Tel Aviv will mount in answer.

The Iranian government has made it clear that it does not seek a further escalation into a broader conflict. This strike, though significant, was positioned as a direct retaliation to specific Israeli actions, particularly the assassination of key Hezbollah leaders, which Iran viewed as a grave provocation. Iranian officials, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), emphasized that this response was both "legal" and "rational," aimed at addressing Israel’s targeting of Iranian interests.

Iran's decision to retaliate follows a pattern of measured mirrored responses in recent years, as Tehran, facing the combined might of Israel and its close ally, the US, which would wreck large scale destruction on the country.

When provoked by Israeli actions, particularly those involving attacks on Iranian military installations or interests in Syria, Iran has often resorted to targeted strikes that send a message than more blatant or blunt military attacks.

Tehran has usually framed these actions as “defensive,” necessary to uphold Iranian sovereignty and security. However, Iranian leaders have repeatedly made it clear that these are not precursors to a broader conflict, similar to how Hezbollah framed its response to Israel’s attacks on Gaza. But the outcome for that leadership was cut short from a direct attack on Beirut killing Nasrallah.

The leadership in Tehran, including figures like the new president Masoud Pezeshkian, echoed previous statements, stressing that further retaliation will only occur if Israel chooses to escalate the situation. This reflects a broader strategy, which revolves around avoiding full-scale regional conflict while preserving Iran’s deterrence capabilities.

However, there are others speculating that Israel’s recent escalation were designed to provoke Tehran into exactly the response of October 1, a missile attack, that can used to justify a direct military strike on Iranian sovereign territory in response and target the six nuclear facilities where Tehran has been refining uranium that could be used to build a nuclear weapon. Iran has vowed to “wipe Israel off the face of the earth.”

Despite this long-standing animosity, Tehran’s hand is stayed by a number of practical and strategic considerations, including domestic pressures and the broader regional landscape.

The country is grappling with significant economic challenges, exacerbated by years of sanctions and internal discontent. While Tehran needs to project strength externally, particularly to its regional allies and rivals, it also cannot afford a prolonged military confrontation that would strain its resources and further isolate it on the international stage—it definitely hopes that the October 1 strike on Tel Aviv, and a terrorist attack in Jaffa that killed eight on the same day, was the final “escalation for de-escalation”. 

Moreover, Iran is closely watching the responses of key regional and international actors including the Jordanians and Syrians. The IRGC's messaging highlights that while the missile strike involved significant firepower, it was intended more as a deterrent than an invitation to prolonged hostilities. The group’s threats of “crushing attacks” are conditional, aimed at signalling strength while leaving the door open for de-escalation if Israel refrains from additional military action. It’s a careful balancing act. 

Iran's restrained approach also reflects its desire to avoid drawing the broader Middle East into a prolonged war – which in reality may have already started after Israel attacked three countries in one day on September 30. 

The region is already deeply fractured. There are already active conflicts in Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon, which are already tied to Tehran. A full-scale war between Iran and Israel would rapidly spill over into these other conflicts. Destabilisation of the region  would come at a time when it is trying to consolidate its influence in the face of challenges from Gulf states aligned with Israel on the back of the Trump-era so-called “Abraham Accords”.

The international community, particularly the United States and Europe, is closely monitoring the situation. While the US has reaffirmed its support for Israel, there has been little appetite for another Middle Eastern war with the Biden administration in its final months. European powers have also called for restraint.

For Iran, maintaining the support of its regional allies, such as Hezbollah and certain Iraqi militias, is crucial after deep criticisms from the group in recent days. Tehran views these groups as integral to its strategy of asymmetrical warfare, providing it with the ability to project power without directly engaging in conventional military battles. By positioning itself as a defender of Palestinian and Lebanese interests against Israeli aggression, Iran strengthens its ideological and political ties to these groups, which has been massively damaged in recent weeks since Haniyeh’s and Nasrallah’s killings by Israel.

Both sides appear to be weighing their next steps carefully. Iran is signalling that it is prepared for further action if provoked. The US is also in close contact with Tel Aviv at both the government and military levels, according to Sullivan, and publicly is calling for restraint. 

Iran’s UN Mission statement on October 1 indicates the country’s hopes the situation is over: “Iran’s legal, rational, and legitimate response to the terrorist acts of the Zionist regime—which involved targeting Iranian nationals and interests and infringing upon the national sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran—has been duly carried out.”