Iran’s October 1 missile attack on Israel, code-named Operation True Promise 2, underscores a growing crisis in Tehran’s regional strategy, argues think-tank Carnegie. Coming just six months after April’s unprecedented missile barrage, this second direct strike on Israeli targets reflects an increasingly desperate effort by Iran to maintain deterrence in the face of repeated Israeli provocations. Yet as Iran’s strategy falters, the broader implications for the region – and for Iran’s own security posture – are becoming more concerning.

"Tehran’s recent actions are a reflection of the immense pressure on its forward defence strategy," says Nicole Grajewski, a political analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, in a paper on October 3. "For years, Iran has relied on its missile arsenal and regional proxies to project power and deter Israeli aggression, but those pillars of deterrence are now severely weakened."

The context behind Iran’s latest missile strike lies in a series of assassinations carried out by Israel. Over the summer, Israeli forces targeted senior members of Hezbollah and Hamas, key Iranian allies in the region. Most notably, the killing of Hezbollah’s leader Hassan Nasrallah in late September, along with IRGC deputy commander Abbas Nilforoushan, struck a devastating blow to Iran’s regional influence. Despite the loss of these pivotal figures, Tehran hesitated to respond directly – until now.

A struggling forward defence

Grajewski notes that Tehran’s attempt to restore deterrence began with April’s Operation True Promise, a large-scale strike involving hundreds of missiles and drones. It marked Iran’s largest single military operation since the Iran-Iraq War and its first direct strike against Israel from its own territory. "The April attack was Iran’s attempt to establish new red lines," she explains. "Hossein Salami, the IRGC’s chief commander, made it clear: if Israel targeted Iranian interests, there would be retaliation. But the fact that Israel continued its targeted killings after April shows how ineffective this deterrence was."

Following Israel’s assassinations of Hezbollah’s Fouad Shukr in Beirut and Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran, Iran’s position appeared increasingly precarious. Despite the bluster of imminent retaliation, Tehran delayed any military response, preferring to pursue diplomatic efforts, particularly ceasefire talks over Gaza. "By holding back," Grajewski says, "Iran hoped to avoid a broader conflict while still keeping its options open for retaliation."

However, Hezbollah deviated from this cautious stance in late August, launching over 300 rockets at Israeli targets. Israel responded with a sustained campaign against Hezbollah, further weakening the group’s leadership. The subsequent killing of Nasrallah was a major setback for Iran’s forward defence strategy, which relies heavily on its proxy networks across the region.

The diminishing impact of missiles

In Operation True Promise 2, Iran employed fewer missiles than it did in April but utilised more advanced ballistic systems such as the Fattah-1. This time, Iran also gave less warning, notifying the United States only hours in advance. The strikes targeted military assets and sought to minimise civilian casualties, yet the overall impact on Israel was limited, with only minor infrastructure damage and minimal loss of life. Only one person died, according to reports, ironically a Palestinian refugee from Gaza who was killed by falling shrapnel. 

"The challenge for Iran," Grajewski argues, "is that missiles alone are not enough to alter Israel’s strategic calculations. While Tehran may have inflicted some damage, the Israeli response is likely to be far more devastating, as we saw after the April attacks."

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s warning that "Iran made a big mistake tonight – and it will pay for it" suggests that the stakes have been raised. Israel’s retaliation could target not just Iranian military sites but critical infrastructure, potentially crippling the country’s economy. "Iran may have fired the first shot in this round, but Israel’s response could be decisive," Grajewski says.

A shift towards nuclear leverage?

With its proxy network weakened and its missile strikes proving ineffective, Iran faces a critical juncture in its security strategy. Increasingly, some in Tehran are turning to the country’s nuclear threshold status as a potential deterrent. Though Iran has maintained that its nuclear programme is peaceful, recent debates in the Iranian Parliament have raised the spectre of nuclear weaponisation.

"Tehran’s nuclear programme has always been a point of leverage," Grajewski observes. "But now, as its conventional deterrence falters, Iran may see its nuclear capability as the only viable option to counter Israel’s military superiority."

While full weaponisation remains a distant and risky prospect for Iran, the mere possibility of developing a nuclear weapon could serve as a powerful deterrent. "Iran has all the components needed for a nuclear weapon, short of taking that final step," Grajewski says. "Even hinting at weaponisation could send a strong message to Israel and the US, forcing them to think twice about escalating the conflict."

A strategy in crisis

As Grajewski concludes, "Iran’s forward defence strategy is unravelling. The loss of Hezbollah’s leadership, the ineffectiveness of missile strikes, and Israel’s continued operations all point to a weakening of Iran’s regional influence."

With Operation True Promise 2, Tehran has attempted to demonstrate its resilience, but the response from Israel could determine the future of this confrontation. "If Iran cannot protect its allies or deter Israeli actions," Grajewski warns, "it risks losing credibility in the region and may be forced to reconsider its entire security posture. Whether that means more aggressive use of its missile forces or a shift towards nuclear leverage remains to be seen – but either way, Tehran is running out of time."

The Middle East stands at a dangerous crossroads, with Iran’s strategic options narrowing and the risks of a broader conflict increasing by the day.