WANA (Jun 30) – After the wave of missile and drone attacks exchanged between Iran and Israel in June 2025, both sides entered a period of tense, warning-oriented deterrence.

 

In recent days, Israeli officials have issued more explicit military threats, even directly targeting Iran’s Supreme Leader in their rhetoric and declaring readiness to launch attacks. In response, Iran has taken these threats seriously, announcing preparations for a “completely different” kind of retaliation. This analytical report reviews four main dimensions of the latest stage of this confrontation.

 

1. Large-scale psychological operations to intimidate Iran

In recent weeks, Israel has launched an intense media and psychological campaign against Iran. The goal is to exaggerate the likelihood of war and frighten the Iranian public with the prospect of a “new wave of attacks.” Israeli leaders, including the Prime Minister and senior military commanders, have spoken openly about the “military option.” Western security sources confirm that these threats are part of a deliberate psychological warfare strategy to pressure Tehran and curb its missile and nuclear programs.

The post of the official Persian-language account of the Israeli regime on X which threatened Seyyed Abbas Araqchi , Social Media / WANA News Agency

The post of the official Persian-language account of the Israeli regime on X which threatened Seyyed Abbas Araqchi , Social Media / WANA News Agency

2. Threats of attack and direct targeting of Iran’s Supreme Leader

In this context, Israeli officials have, in unusually explicit language, threatened Iran’s Supreme Leader directly. From Tehran’s perspective, this rhetoric and its timing are seen as part of a coordinated and purposeful campaign to intensify fear domestically and send a deterrent message to Iran’s regional allies. Iran’s official analysis holds that these threats are not just media posturing but part of a broader effort to prepare Israeli and regional public opinion to justify possible military action.

 

3. Iran’s response: treating the threats seriously and preparing a different kind of retaliation

Iranian officials emphasize that although past attacks have shown Israel often uses “deception operations” to distract and test deterrence, this time they consider the threats “absolutely serious.” According to sources close to Iranian security agencies, Iran has developed multiple scenarios for responding to any attack and has promised that the next response will be “different” and “unpredictable” in its scale and intensity. This stance reflects Iran’s ongoing strategy of active deterrence and its effort to make any Israeli military option as costly as possible.

People attend the funeral procession of Iranian military commanders, nuclear scientists and others killed in Israeli strikes, in Tehran, Iran, June 28, 2025. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency)

4. Social dynamics in Iran: a growing desire to eliminate Israel’s threat permanently

One significant shift after the recent clashes is the emergence of a new mood in Iranian public opinion. The June 2025 missile and drone exchanges and Israel’s explicit threats have pushed parts of Iranian society toward accepting—or even demanding—a “final and permanent” response against Israel. Social analysts see this trend as driven not only by official narratives but also as a reaction to feelings of insecurity, national humiliation, and direct experience of external threats. Such social dynamics could shape Iran’s future military and political decision-making and increase the risk of miscalculation on both sides.

 

Overall, the current Iran–Israel confrontation is a complex mix of explicit threats, psychological warfare, military readiness, and shifting social attitudes. Both sides are moving along a path where even a single miscalculation could escalate the situation from media threats to a broader military conflict. While international diplomatic channels are working to contain tensions, the reality on the ground suggests that both Iran and Israel are simultaneously preparing for scenarios of deterrence and the possibility of open military confrontation—a scenario whose consequences could spread far beyond their borders.