Explosions over Tel Aviv: Why Iran’s retaliation may only be the beginning

Tel Aviv and Jerusalem were once again thrust into the center of a rapidly escalating regional conflict early Saturday as the Israel Defense Forces confirmed a new wave of ballistic missiles launched from Iran. The renewed Iranian barrage came in response to a high-profile Israeli strike deep inside Iranian territory just 24 hours earlier—marking one of the most dangerous direct confrontations between the two regional powers in decades.

According to Israeli officials, the initial offensive targeted Iranian nuclear and military infrastructure, including facilities believed to be associated with Tehran’s weapons development program. In response, Iran launched dozens of ballistic missiles toward Israeli cities, triggering widespread air raid alerts and activating Israel’s Iron Dome and David’s Sling defense systems.

Why are Israel and Iran now exchanging unprecedented missile strikes across multiple cities and nuclear sites?

Israel’s airstrike campaign, carried out on June 13 under what sources described as Operation Rising Lion, reportedly targeted more than 100 sites inside Iran. According to Israeli military sources, these included the Natanz uranium enrichment plant, the Fordow facility, and government-linked fuel transport hubs near Tehran. The IDF claimed the attack killed high-ranking Iranian military officials such as IRGC commander Hossein Salami and nuclear scientists including Fereydoon Abbasi.

Iran’s response was swift and wide-ranging. Ballistic missiles and drones were launched into Israeli airspace hours later, with targets reportedly including Tel Aviv, Haifa, and northern towns like Rishon LeZion and Galilee. Although most incoming missiles were intercepted, some made impact. Emergency crews confirmed that at least 14 people were injured in Galilee, while search and rescue operations continued amid reports of a building collapse.

How are global powers and regional actors responding to the escalating Israel–Iran confrontation?

The United States has reiterated that it did not participate in Israel’s strike. However, a senior official confirmed that additional defensive assets—Patriot missile systems, THAAD batteries, and naval forces—have been repositioned in the region to defend against further Iranian attacks. President Donald Trump, speaking from Washington, endorsed Israel’s right to self-defense while calling on both nations to avoid targeting civilians and escalating further.

Diplomatic efforts to de-escalate have begun but remain fragile. Russian President Vladimir Putin reportedly reached out to Trump with an offer to mediate between the two adversaries. Russia has condemned the Israeli airstrikes, while other major governments—including the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Turkey—have urged restraint. India abstained from a Shanghai Cooperation Organisation resolution denouncing the Israeli action, maintaining a neutral posture amid its strategic partnerships with both countries.

Which historical and geopolitical factors are driving this Israel–Iran conflict into open warfare?

The latest conflict is rooted in a long history of covert confrontations, cyberattacks, and targeted assassinations. Israel has consistently opposed Iran’s nuclear ambitions and has taken direct action in Syria and elsewhere to curb Tehran’s influence. However, the June 2025 strikes represented a shift in posture—bringing Israel’s military operations directly into Iranian territory on an unprecedented scale.

The strikes came days before a diplomatic window on the Iran nuclear file was set to close. Intelligence reports allegedly suggested that Iran was approaching weapons-grade enrichment levels. Israeli analysts argue that the attack was a necessary preemptive action, aligned with its long-standing doctrine of preventing a nuclear-armed Iran.

How are civilians in both Israel and Iran experiencing the direct fallout of this conflict escalation?

Civilian casualties and property damage have been reported on both sides. In Israel, air raid sirens sent residents in Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Jerusalem into bomb shelters. Emergency services confirmed at least three deaths and multiple injuries, with ongoing efforts in Galilee to locate individuals trapped beneath debris. The Ministry of Health said hospitals in the north have been placed on high alert.

Iranian state media, while downplaying the extent of damage, confirmed fatalities and injuries in Tehran, Isfahan, and Qom. Independent reports indicated that some of the Israeli munitions struck populated districts, with several women and children among the dead. The Iranian Supreme National Security Council labeled the strikes as “state terrorism” and vowed further retaliation.

What are the strategic and economic consequences if this regional war expands into a broader Middle East conflict?

Energy markets reacted sharply to the risk of a broader war. Brent crude prices briefly touched $99 per barrel following the initial Israeli strike, as fears mounted over disruptions near the Strait of Hormuz—a critical chokepoint for global oil shipments. Multiple airlines rerouted flights, and regional airspace closures were reported across Jordan, Lebanon, and parts of Egypt.

The Suez Canal and key Gulf energy infrastructure are on heightened alert. A senior European Union official warned that any escalation involving Hezbollah or the Houthis could destabilize already fragile trade routes and create severe ripple effects across global supply chains.

What diplomatic or military pathways remain available to de-escalate the current confrontation?

Despite growing international pressure, both Israel and Iran appear committed to continuing their respective campaigns. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard warned that future missile barrages could be “20 times stronger,” while Israeli defense officials said they were prepared for prolonged multi-front engagements. There were no indications of backchannel diplomacy or ceasefire talks at the time of publication.

The United Nations Secretary-General called for an immediate cessation of hostilities and reminded both countries of their obligations under international law. Analysts warned that without direct mediation by major powers—particularly the United States and Russia—the likelihood of de-escalation remains low.

What is the institutional sentiment from military analysts and policy experts observing the conflict?

Defense analysts have characterized Israel’s campaign as a calculated risk aimed at disrupting Iran’s nuclear advancement. However, many caution that the Iranian regime could use the strikes to justify hardening its position and withdrawing from any future non-proliferation agreements. Regional experts also flagged the potential for Iranian proxies to retaliate outside Israel, particularly via Lebanon-based Hezbollah or Iraqi militias.

Institutional sentiment from financial markets remains jittery. Global investors are tracking the geopolitical situation closely, particularly in sectors linked to energy, defense, and logistics. The Israeli shekel dipped briefly against the dollar, while Iran’s rial fell sharply in informal markets.