2024 Iran–Israel Conflict

Before April 2024, the confrontation between Israel and Iran had largely taken the form of a shadow war, conducted outside the two countries’ territories through clashes involving Iran-supported organizations such as Hezbollah, covert operations, and non-kinetic activities including cyberwarfare.[3] The direct exchanges of April represented a significant escalation from that pattern, bringing attacks launched from Iranian territory and a reported Israeli response inside Iran into the confrontation.[3]

The immediate antecedent to Iran’s April attack was an April 1 strike in Damascus attributed to Israel, which killed senior members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC.[3] The dead included Quds Force commander Mohammad Reza Zahedi, also known as Hassan Mahdavi, whose responsibilities covered Syria and Lebanon.[5] Iranian announcements described the fatalities as two commanders and five officers.[5] Another account identified Zahedi, two other generals, and four officers among those killed.[6]

The building struck was associated with Iran’s diplomatic compound in Damascus, although descriptions of its precise status varied between an embassy-compound building, a consular section, and a building adjacent to the embassy.[3][6] Syria’s defense ministry identified it as part of the Iranian consulate.[5] Israel was widely believed to have conducted the strike but did not publicly acknowledge responsibility in the cited accounts.[6]

Iran and Hezbollah vowed revenge after the Damascus strike, and Iran’s supreme leader declared that Israel “must be punished and shall be.”[6] Iranian officials subsequently presented the April missile and drone attack as retaliation for the deaths of their commanders.[3] These warnings formed the immediate context for Israeli preparations and the international defensive effort that accompanied the attack.[6]

The direct exchanges occurred in two principal rounds: an Iranian attack on April 13–14 followed by a reported Israeli strike on April 19, and an Iranian ballistic-missile attack on October 1 followed by Israeli strikes on October 26.[1] Israel did not officially claim responsibility for the April 19 operation, whereas its military publicly announced and named the October operation.[1]

On the evening of April 13 and into April 14, Iran launched drones, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles toward Israel in its first direct military attack on Israel launched from Iranian territory.[3] Iranian authorities subsequently referred to the operation as “True Promise 1.”[7] Iran presented the attack as a response to the strike on the Iranian diplomatic compound in Damascus.[8]

The Israeli military’s widely reported breakdown was 170 drones, 30 cruise missiles, and 120 ballistic missiles.[2] Other contemporary estimates placed the Iranian launch total at approximately 330 projectiles, with around 185 drones, 35 or 36 cruise missiles, and 110 ballistic or surface-to-surface missiles.[9][8] A broader estimate covering Iran and allied groups described approximately 350 drones and missiles launched from Iran, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen.[3] The differing figures therefore included both variations in reported counts and differences in the geographic scope of the attacks being counted.[2][3]

Israel mobilized air-defense reserves, canceled schools, and closed its airspace before the attack reached its territory.[3] The drones’ relatively long flight time gave defenders several hours to prepare, whereas the ballistic missiles launched later provided less warning.[6] Israeli authorities instructed much of the population to enter shelters, and neighboring countries also closed their airspace.[6] Air-raid sirens sounded in the Dimona area as the attack unfolded.[8]

Israel’s defensive effort combined aircraft with ground-based interception systems, including Arrow and David’s Sling; accounts of the defense also listed Iron Dome.[6][10] The United States, United Kingdom, France, and Jordan participated in the effort to intercept the incoming weapons.[3] Interceptions were reported over Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and Israel, and Iran’s attack coincided with attacks by Hezbollah from Lebanon and Houthi forces from Yemen.[10]

Israel and its partners reported intercepting approximately 99 percent of the aerial attack.[2] The Israeli account said all drones and cruise missiles were brought down before entering Israeli airspace, while some ballistic missiles penetrated the defenses.[2] Most projectiles were destroyed outside Israeli airspace by Israel and its partners, with additional interceptions carried out by Israel’s Arrow system.[3]

U.S. forces contributed aircraft, destroyers, and a Patriot missile battery to the defense.[11] U.S. officials reported that American aircraft shot down more than 70 one-way attack drones, destroyers destroyed four to six Iranian ballistic missiles, and a Patriot battery intercepted a ballistic missile near Erbil in Iraq that was assessed to be heading toward Israel.[11] A separate account of U.S. Central Command’s figures credited American forces with destroying more than 80 attack drones and at least six ballistic missiles aimed at Israel from Iran and Yemen.[2]

Jordanian forces intercepted drones entering Jordanian airspace.[6] British Typhoon fighters operating from Cyprus reportedly shot down between 10 and 20 drones, while France said it acted to defend airspace near its regional bases.[6] Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates were reported to have supplied intelligence to the United States.[6] The defense thus included both Western military intervention and regional participation in detecting or intercepting the attack.[6]

A small number of ballistic missiles reached Nevatim Air Base, causing slight infrastructure damage without disrupting operations.[6][2] One account reported nine ballistic missiles penetrating the overall defense, while another recorded four impacts at Nevatim itself.[2][6] Aircraft continued operating from the southern air base despite the impacts.[12]

A seven-year-old girl from a Bedouin community near Arad was seriously wounded by shrapnel after an Iranian ballistic missile was intercepted over southern Israel.[2] Her injury was also described as resulting from missile shrapnel striking her home.[9] Contemporary accounts identified her as the only person seriously injured in the attack, and the broader damage within Israel was described as minor.[2][11]

After the attack, IDF spokesperson Daniel Hagari declared, “Iran’s plan failed,” pointing to the small number of missiles that entered Israeli territory and the minor damage at Nevatim.[2] Iran’s mission to the United Nations said the matter could be deemed concluded and warned that an Israeli retaliation would bring a wider response.[6] Iran’s Foreign Ministry characterized the attack as self-defense under the United Nations Charter.[8]

After the April barrage, U.S. President Joe Biden urged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to “take the win,” and the United States indicated that it would not participate in offensive action against Iran.[6] Israel postponed an immediate response despite reportedly having a pre-approved plan, while the G7 and other governments called for avoidance of further escalation.[6] Biden also reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to Israel’s security amid concern in Washington about the possibility of a wider war.[8]

On April 19, an apparent Israeli strike took place near Isfahan, five days after the Iranian attack.[3] Reports described the target as an air-defense radar site associated with protection of the Natanz nuclear facility; a Congressional Research Service account said radar belonging to a Russian-origin S-300 system appeared to have been damaged.[3]

The attack was limited in scope and may have demonstrated an Israeli ability to evade and strike Iranian air defenses in a province containing nuclear facilities.[3] Israel did not publicly claim responsibility at the time.[6]

Iran presented a different account, describing drones intercepted by its air defenses and denying damage or casualties.[6] International nuclear monitoring statements indicated that Iranian nuclear facilities had not been damaged.[2] The limited strike and Iran’s muted response led many observers to regard the immediate escalation as having subsided, at least temporarily.[3]

The next major round followed the killings of Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, and IRGC commander Abbas Nilforoushan, whose deaths the IRGC later cited as the rationale for its October attack.[1][13]

On October 1, Iran launched its second major direct attack of the year, firing approximately 180 ballistic missiles toward Israel.[1][14] The attack came hours after Israeli ground operations began in southern Lebanon.[1] The IRGC said it was retaliating for the deaths of Haniyeh, Nasrallah, and Nilforoushan.[1] Iranian authorities called the operation “True Promise 2.”[7]

Public accounts described approximately or more than 180 ballistic missiles.[1][14] Unlike the mixed drone, cruise-missile, and ballistic-missile attack in April, the October barrage consisted of ballistic missiles. Iran said it targeted three military bases, while other reporting identified the suspected targets as three Israeli Air Force bases and an intelligence headquarters north of Tel Aviv.[14][15]

The U.S. administration said many missiles targeted Tel Aviv and emphasized the attack’s potential to kill civilians.[16] The intended-target descriptions did not provide a complete accounting of where the missiles ultimately landed.

The attack forced Israel’s civilian population into bomb shelters.[15] Israeli defenses intercepted a large number of the missiles, with Arrow 2 and Arrow 3 among the systems activated.[14] U.S. Navy warships also helped intercept incoming projectiles.[14]

Although many missiles were intercepted, some shrapnel reached the ground, and at least one fatality and several injuries were reported.[13] A man was killed by falling debris near Jericho in the West Bank — known by its original, indigenous Jewish name of Judea and Samaria.[14] His death was distinct from the Israeli military’s initial statement that it was unaware of injuries inside Israel.[14]

A later estimate put the number of missiles that impacted in Israel at around 30 and characterized the damage as limited.[17] Other reporting suggested that areas in and around Israeli bases sustained more damage than in April, while the military continued to emphasize that its operational capabilities remained intact.[17]

Iranian officials described the attack as an exercise of Iran’s legal rights and said they did not seek further escalation.[18] President Masoud Pezeshkian said Iran had attacked military targets and did not seek war; Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei called the barrage a legal act and a minimal punishment for Israel’s actions.[18] Those statements were accompanied by warnings that an Israeli response would prompt a stronger Iranian attack.[18][14]

In mid-October, the United States deployed a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense battery to Israel to strengthen its defenses against ballistic missiles.[16]

In the early hours of October 26, Israel struck Iranian military facilities in Operation Days of Repentance.[15] The IDF said the operation responded to Iran’s attacks in April and early October and targeted facilities connected to those attacks.[15] Dozens of aircraft participated, including fighter jets, refueling aircraft, and intelligence or reconnaissance aircraft.[15][4]

The operation lasted several hours and involved multiple waves of attacks at distances exceeding 1,600 kilometers from Israel.[15][4] One account described three waves, beginning with radar and air-defense targets and proceeding to missile and drone bases and weapons-production facilities.[1] Simultaneous Israeli strikes against military targets in Syria were also reported.[15]

The Israeli military identified missile-manufacturing facilities, air-defense systems, and missile launch sites among the targets.[15][4] Israeli officials reported approximately 20 sites struck.[4] The operation did not target Iranian nuclear or oil facilities.[4]

A more expansive account described over 100 Israeli aircraft, including fighters and drones, attacking around 20 sites in Tehran, Ilam, and Khuzestan over roughly four hours.[13] Reported targets included IRGC-associated bases and the Parchin and Khojir sites near Tehran, described as connected to missile production.[13] Parchin’s identification appeared in reporting about individual targets rather than in the general IDF target description.[15]

Iran acknowledged attacks on military sites in Tehran, Khuzestan, and Ilam but said its defenses had countered the operation and that damage was limited.[15] Iranian statements also asserted that air defenses had tracked and confronted the incoming attack.[4] Four Iranian soldiers were reported killed.[7]

Israeli reporting stated that nuclear and oil facilities were not targeted.[4] Israeli statements characterized the operation as targeted and precise and said its objectives had been achieved.[15]

The United States had advance notice of the operation but said it did not directly participate.[15] U.S. officials had urged Israel to keep its response targeted and proportional, with a low risk of civilian harm.[16] Political sources described close coordination between Israel and the United States, while the White House maintained that American forces were not participants in the strikes.[16][19]

After the October 26 strikes, the IDF warned that Israel could attack additional targets, while a senior U.S. official said the operation “should be the end” of the direct exchange.[15] Iran threatened a proportional reaction, and contemporary reporting stated that it had not yet responded militarily at the time of publication.[15] These statements expressed differing expectations about whether the operation would close the round of direct attacks.

Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates condemned the military targeting of Iran and called for de-escalation.[20] The U.S. administration framed its policy as seeking to deter further attacks while limiting the risk of a wider conflict.[16] Its combination of defensive assistance to Israel and nonparticipation in Israel’s offensive operation distinguished the two roles publicly.[16]

Assessments of the damage to Iranian military capabilities focused on air defenses and ballistic-missile production.[7] Later analysis described considerable degradation of both, although these were assessments of the strikes’ consequences rather than a definitive quantified accounting.[7] The reduced air defenses were also assessed as potentially easing future Israeli attacks on Iranian nuclear infrastructure, not as evidence that such attacks had already occurred.[19]

The Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs assessed that the strikes damaged strategic air defenses, including long-range surface-to-air missile batteries and detection radars, and reduced Iran’s capacity to manufacture new ballistic missiles.[19] Its account attributed these judgments to Israeli security officials and the IDF.[19] It also argued that the operation left Iran’s estimated stockpile of 2,000 to 3,000 long-range ballistic missiles and its extensive unmanned-aircraft capabilities untargeted.[19]

That commentary reported Pezeshkian’s October 27 warning, “We will respond appropriately to the Israeli attack on our land,” together with a warning of escalation if Israeli attacks continued.[19] It interpreted the Israeli operation as part of a gradual effort to weaken Iran’s ability to threaten Israel, rather than a single strike eliminating the entire threat.[19]

The April attack established a new precedent: Iran openly launched a large-scale military operation against Israel from Iranian territory rather than relying solely on indirect confrontation.[3] Afterward, an IRGC commander declared, “From now on, if Israel attacks Iranian interests, figures and citizens anywhere, we will retaliate from Iran,” presenting the attack as the basis of a “new equation.”[3]

Strategic analysis of the exchanges identified them as a challenge to Iran’s reliance on proxies to keep conflict away from its own territory.[7] The April and October attacks, followed by strikes inside Iran, brought the vulnerability of Iranian military infrastructure into the confrontation.[7] An assessment of the October operation concluded that it heightened doubts about the effectiveness of Iranian air defenses and deterrence.[7]

The defensive side of the conflict demonstrated Israel’s ability to combine its own aircraft and missile-defense systems with substantial international assistance.[3][10] In April, that cooperation extended from American and European forces to Jordanian interceptions and reported intelligence contributions from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.[6] October again brought U.S. assistance, followed by the deployment of an additional American missile-defense battery.[16][14]

The Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs interpreted Iran’s April operation as an effort to send a message and deter future Israeli attacks on Iranian personnel and assets.[21] Its contemporary commentary also recorded disagreement within Israel over whether and how to respond.[21] These interpretations placed the exchanges within a continuing contest over deterrence, alongside the immediate military questions of interceptions, impacts, and damage.[21]

The principal disputes concerned the attacks’ legal justification, the effectiveness of Iranian strikes, and the consequences of Israel’s responses.[7][18] Iran portrayed its April and October operations as lawful retaliation, while Israeli statements emphasized successful defense and the need to respond to attacks on its territory.[8][15] Iran’s stated legal rationale was a position advanced by its government, not an agreed legal determination.[8][18]

Damage assessments after October 26 also diverged: Iranian accounts emphasized limited damage, while other assessments described considerable losses to air defenses and missile-production capabilities.[7][15] Public descriptions of U.S. involvement distinguished close coordination from direct participation, without establishing that American forces joined the Israeli strikes.[16][19] These differences leave the strategic outcome dependent in part on assessments and interpretation rather than a single agreed accounting.[7]