Hubris and havoc: How Iran’s overconfidence may have led to 'pre-emptive' Israeli strikes

Friday, the 13th of June 2025, proved deadly for Tehran, as the Islamic Republic of Iran suffered a catastrophic blow when Israeli strikes devastated the capital and other cities, assassinating top military commanders and nuclear scientists—including Iranian military chief Mohammad Bagheri and IRGC Chief Commander General Hossein Salami.

The scale, precision and brazenness of the attack shocked observers worldwide. However, a closer look at Iran’s trajectory leading up to the strike suggests the country may have invited its own devastation through a posture of overconfidence.

Despite persistent regional instability, mounting international pressure and stark warnings from both regional and global actors, Iran doubled down on militarisation, escalated its nuclear activities, and dismissed diplomatic overtures. In doing so, it misread the resolve of its adversaries and miscalculated its strategic depth.

More from World

Who was Hossein Salami, one of Iran’s most powerful men killed in Israel attack? After IRGC boss, Israel eliminates Iran's Army chief Mohammad Bagheri in Tehran strike: State media

Warning signs ignored: Iran’s military bravado

In the months leading up to the June 2025 strikes, Iran broadcasted an image of military invincibility. The Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC), under the command of General Salami, repeatedly showcased its growing arsenal and underground missile cities, claiming readiness for any conflict.

Reports say that Iran unveiled yet another subterranean missile base on June 8, boasting upgraded cruise and ballistic missiles designed to counter electronic warfare and engage naval targets. State media portrayed these facilities as key components of deterrence against Israel and the United States, reinforcing the belief that Iran’s missile capabilities could forestall any serious military incursion.

Still, these shows of strength may have given Tehran a false sense of safety. As seen on IRIB footage, General Salami confidently said that Iran’s missile power was “increasing every day,” even though enemies said otherwise. This kind of talk reflected a broader belief within the Iranian leadership—that their strengths in things like ballistic missiles, drones, and regional proxy groups would protect the Islamic Republic from a direct fight with Israel or the United States.

Impact Shorts

More Shorts

‘The cries of this widow will echo’: In first public remarks, Erika Kirk warns Charlie’s killers they’ve ‘unleashed a fire’

Trump urges Nato to back sanctions on Russia, calls for 50–100% tariffs on China

The fatal miscalculation: Nuclear provocation

Iran’s confidence was not confined to the military domain. On Thursday, hours before Israeli began strikes, Mohammad Eslami, head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organisation, declared the formal launch of a third uranium enrichment facility, described as “secure” and advanced in both safety and secrecy. Iranian media gave wide coverage to his statements.

Eslami’s announcement came hours after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors passed a censure resolution against Iran, initiated by the European trio—Britain, France and Germany—and supported by the United States.

Amid rising global concern and escalating tension over its nuclear ambitions, Iran intensified its defiance meant to assert its independent military and energy policy. Behrouz Kamalvandi, Eslami’s deputy, stated that Iran’s cooperation with the IAEA—already extensive by his account—was now “under review,” implying possible withdrawal from transparency commitments.

Kamalvandi said Iran accounted for 72 per cent of all IAEA inspections under Safeguards Agreements, yet this unprecedented scrutiny did not appear to temper the regime’s rhetoric. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi claimed that the resolution “added to the complexity” of nuclear talks, Iranian media reported.

While Tehran framed its nuclear programme as peaceful, pointing to the supreme leader’s decree against nuclear weapons, its simultaneous expansion of enrichment activities and reduction in cooperation with the IAEA sent a different message to the international community.

Warnings from allies and adversaries alike

Even Iran’s former adversaries tried to pull it back from the brink. In a high-stakes diplomatic manoeuvre, Saudi Arabia’s Defence Minister Prince Khalid bin Salman visited Tehran in April 2025, delivering a message from King Salman to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Reuters reported that the prince urged Iran to take US President Donald Trump’s offer for renewed nuclear talks seriously, warning that failure could lead to war—likely spearheaded by Israel.

The urgency of Saudi Arabia’s warning reflected a growing regional consensus: Iran’s posture was heightening instability. The kingdom feared that Israel , emboldened by Iran’s intransigence and provoked by Tehran’s support for Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis, might strike decisively.

These concerns were also shared by US officials, as Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in his post-attack statement on Friday, clarifying that Israel’s attack on Iran was unilateral and not backed by the US.

Despite the rare convergence of warnings—from Arab rivals, Western diplomats and even economic indicators within Iran’s own borders—Tehran persisted in its antagonistic strategy. It continued importing ballistic missile ingredients like ammonium perchlorate from China, a The Wall Street Journal report said, and funnelled military supplies to regional militias, all while dismissing diplomatic outreach.

The consequence: Israel-Iran military conflict

The results of this overconfidence were devastating. On Friday morning, Israeli strikes penetrated deep into Iranian territory, hitting targets not only in Tehran but also in Bushehr and near Natanz. Plumes of smoke over Tehran’s skyline were documented by local eyewitnesses, confirming civilian casualties, including women and children.

Among the dead was Bagheri and Salami, whose assassination was confirmed by the Iranian state media. The attacks also killed nuclear scientists Mohammad-Mehdi Tehranchi and Fereydoun Abbasi, key figures in Iran’s nuclear establishment. The targeting of such high-value individuals indicated not just a tactical operation, but a strategic dismantling of Iran’s defence and deterrence apparatus.

Explosions at the Natanz nuclear plant—previously defended in massive military exercises just weeks earlier—exposed the vulnerabilities of Iran’s much-touted “point defence” shield.  The “Eqtedar 1403” exercise emphasised resilience against electronic warfare and sabotage, but these preparations proved insufficient in the face of a sophisticated Israeli assault.

Iran’s strategic blind spots: Misreading its own position

Iran’s failure to anticipate or repel the Israeli strikes was rooted in a broader strategic misreading of its position. Domestically, the leadership appeared to believe that resilience and self-reliance—hallmarks of the Islamic Republic’s ideology—could override practical limitations.

The unveiling of new gas turbines, meant to rival those built by General Electric and Siemens, was used by Iranian media to tout domestic technological prowess. However, such symbolism did little to deter external aggression or fix internal vulnerabilities.

Regionally, Iran misjudged the loyalty and capability of its Axis of Resistance allies. After years of Israeli and US strikes, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza had been significantly weakened, while Iran’s closest state ally, Bashar al-Assad in Syria, had fallen from power.

Iran attempted to compensate by supplying ballistic missiles to Iraqi militias and the Houthis, but these efforts were both risky and insufficient. Even the shipment of thousands of tonnes of missile fuel from China could not offset the reality that Iran’s regional network was collapsing under pressure.

Internationally, Iran underestimated how rapidly the window for diplomacy could close. President Trump’s surprise offer for nuclear negotiations in early 2025 was a rare opening. Yet, Tehran’s internal factionalism, deep distrust of the West and a belief in its own strategic indispensability prevented it from seizing the moment. Reuters reported that Saudi officials made it clear that Trump was impatient and that Israeli military options were being prepared in parallel to diplomatic efforts. Iran failed to heed these warnings.

Overconfidence, a strategic folly

Iran’s posture in early 2025 illustrates a classic case of strategic overreach. Convinced of its deterrence capabilities and ideological righteousness, Tehran believed it could outlast international pressure while expanding its military and nuclear footprint. Instead, it suffered one of the most crippling military strikes on its soil in decades.

Iran assumed that the world would hesitate to escalate a conflict with a nation so deeply entrenched in regional networks and so committed to asymmetrical warfare. But as The Jerusalem Post had pointed out earlier in the year, even Iran’s new missile bases appeared underwhelming in capability, exposing gaps between Tehran’s rhetoric and its actual readiness.

Furthermore, storing massive quantities of volatile materials like ammonium perchlorate also aggravated domestic disaster. An April explosion at the Shahid Rajaee port due to mishandled missile propellant highlighted the risks of Iran’s military-industrial buildup. This overconfidence in technical capacity, without adequate safeguards, indicated how hubris might have permeated Iran’s decision-making.

Iran did not seek annihilation, but through a series of calculated escalations, misjudgments and dismissals of diplomacy, it seems to have advanced what could have possibly come later at a different stage of power equation. The country placed disproportionate faith in deterrence by missile, support from regional proxies and the symbolic power of revolutionary resistance. It ignored earnest diplomatic overtures, dismissed credible intelligence signals and underestimated the resolve of its adversaries.