On the first anniversary of its unprecedented missile attack on Israel, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) issued a stern warning: any future aggression against the Islamic Republic would be met with even "deadlier" retaliation. The statement, released on October 2, 2025, marked a year since the IRGC launched a barrage of approximately 180 ballistic missiles at Israeli targets—a move that, according to Iranian officials, ended what they described as "an era of cost-free threats against Iran."
This declaration comes amid a turbulent period of heightened tensions in the Middle East, with Iran’s leadership doubling down on a posture of defiance against both Israel and the United States. The IRGC’s anniversary statement was unambiguous, boasting that the October 1, 2024, missile strike showcased Iran's missile capabilities and, in their view, exposed the vulnerabilities of Israel’s much-vaunted Iron Dome defense system. The attack, Iranian leaders claim, was direct retaliation for the assassinations of Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh, Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah, and Iranian General Abbas Nilforoshan.
According to reporting from BBC and The New York Times, the events of October 2024 were a watershed moment in the ongoing shadow war between Iran and its adversaries. The missile strike was launched after Israeli operations in Lebanon and the killing of Haniyeh in Tehran, signaling a dramatic escalation and a willingness by Iran to respond openly and forcefully to perceived provocations. The IRGC’s message a year later is clear: future attacks on Iranian interests will not go unanswered and could provoke even more severe responses.
Yet, this latest warning is only the most recent expression of a long-standing Iranian doctrine—one rooted in decades of confrontation with the United States and its allies. As Foreign Affairs notes, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has repeatedly dismissed American threats, famously declaring, “They cannot do a damn thing.” This mantra of resistance has guided Tehran’s actions since the 1979 hostage crisis, shaping its approach to nuclear negotiations, missile tests, and regional power projection.
Khamenei’s defiant rhetoric was on full display in June 2025, when his mocking of American diplomats reportedly helped trigger a new round of Israeli and U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. Despite these setbacks, Iran’s leadership has consistently projected confidence, insisting that defiance—rather than compromise—is the surest path to survival and eventual victory. “We have always been the ones to decide when, and how, aggression against our people ends,” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi asserted, echoing the regime’s conviction that it retains the initiative in its confrontation with the West.
The aftermath of the 2024 missile strike and subsequent military exchanges has left Iran in a precarious but not unfamiliar position. While the regime has suffered the loss of key IRGC commanders and sustained damage to its nuclear and military infrastructure, its current predicament pales in comparison to the devastation of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. As The Washington Post observed, Iranian officials continue to tout their resilience and highlight what they perceive as victories, both real and imagined.
In the months following the June 2025 strikes, Iran has embarked on a concerted effort to rebuild and rearm. Intelligence assessments cited by The Guardian suggest that Tehran is reconstructing its missile arsenals, hardening underground nuclear facilities, conducting undeclared missile tests, and even tripling its prewar military budget. The regime has also sought assistance from Russia and China to restock its armed forces and circumvent the impact of renewed United Nations sanctions, which were reimposed in 2025 after Iran’s continued defiance of international nuclear agreements.
One of the most significant developments in this period has been Iran’s decision to evict International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors, a move designed to obscure the true status of its nuclear program and complicate any future efforts at verification. By limiting access to its facilities and refusing to clarify the extent of its nuclear activities, Iran has increased uncertainty and heightened regional anxieties about its intentions.
Diplomatic prospects remain bleak. Supreme Leader Khamenei has categorically vetoed any negotiations with the United States under current conditions, insisting on a series of preconditions that American and European officials deem nonstarters. Among these are demands for recognition of Iran’s “right” to nuclear enrichment and a refusal to discuss the country’s missile programs. “The possibility of dialogue, of entering negotiations, does not mean we intend to surrender,” President Masoud Pezeshkian told colleagues, making clear that any talks would be on Iran’s terms alone.
This stance is not new. Historically, Iran has used the mere prospect of diplomacy as a means to buy time while it restores its military and strategic position. After the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, Iran suspended nuclear enrichment only temporarily, resuming its program once it judged American resolve had waned. A similar pattern emerged after the 2020 killing of General Qassem Suleimani, when Iran launched missile attacks on U.S. targets but quickly returned to its policy of proxy warfare and regional destabilization once it perceived a lack of sustained American response.
As of late 2025, Tehran’s strategy appears to be following this well-worn playbook. The regime is centralizing control over foreign and defense policy, plugging intelligence leaks, and intensifying internal repression to maintain its grip on power. At the same time, it continues to externalize blame for its economic and governance failures, rallying public support by portraying itself as besieged by Western aggression.
For the United States and its allies, the challenge is to prevent a return to the status quo that has allowed Iran to regroup and resume its destabilizing activities in the region. Analysts quoted in Foreign Affairs argue that only a credible, coordinated military threat—such as the joint Israeli-U.S. strikes of June 2025—can alter Tehran’s calculations and force genuine concessions. Otherwise, the cycle of provocation, retaliation, and temporary pause is likely to continue, with the risk of wider conflict ever present.
As the IRGC’s anniversary statement makes clear, Iran’s leadership remains committed to a policy of confrontation, convinced that time is on its side. Whether this strategy will succeed in the long run—or provoke a new and even more dangerous escalation—remains to be seen. But for now, the message from Tehran is unmistakable: the era of cost-free threats is, in their eyes, over.
