The sudden ceasefire between Iran and Israel raised global curiosity, especially after a report revealed that Iran used mostly older-generation missiles during the 12-day conflict. Despite their age, these missiles caused significant damage, penetrating Israeli air defenses. This article explores why Iran may have held back its more advanced missile arsenal and what this decision reveals about its long-term military strategy.
Why Iran Held Back Its Most Advanced Missiles in the Recent War with Israel
The Israel-Iran war that shocked the world with its sudden eruption came to an equally abrupt halt. A ceasefire agreement between the two arch-rivals was brokered by the Qatari government and announced by U.S. President Donald Trump. While the world breathed a sigh of relief, a newly emerged report has shed light on what may have prompted this sudden halt in hostilities—specifically, Iran’s calculated restraint in missile deployment.
According to the report, over 70% of the missiles used by Iran during the intense 12-day conflict were older-generation weapons. These included the Qadr and Imad ballistic missiles, both of which have been in service for several years. Despite being considered older technology, these missiles proved to be alarmingly effective in penetrating Israel’s sophisticated air defense systems.
To understand the implications, it’s important to briefly examine the capabilities of the missiles used. The Qadr is an improved version of the Shahab-3 medium-range ballistic missile, in service since 2003. It has a range between 1,350 and 1,950 kilometers and can carry a payload of around 650 kilograms.
On the other hand, the Imad missile is a more recent and advanced iteration of the Qadr, featuring improved guidance systems and greater accuracy. With a range of about 1,700 kilometers and a 750-kilogram payload, it was inducted into service in late 2015.
Despite their age, these missiles inflicted considerable damage across several Israeli cities. From Tel Aviv to Haifa, Ramla, and Beersheba, the strikes left buildings in ruins, twisted steel, and shattered concrete dominating the urban landscape. U.S. President Donald Trump, while addressing the NATO summit earlier this week, acknowledged the scale of destruction and the intensity of the conflict. In his own words, “They fought like hell… like two kids in a schoolyard.”
What remains unclear, however, is why Iran refrained from using its newer and deadlier missiles. Its missile inventory includes next-generation ballistic missiles like the Sejjil-2, Fateh-110, and the Kheibar Shekan. These have longer ranges—up to 2,000 kilometers—and can carry payloads of up to 700 kilograms. Yet these weapons remained in the shadows during the recent war.
Speculation is rife that Iran is strategically conserving its advanced missile arsenal for a longer, more protracted conflict. Analysts suggest Tehran may have opted to first test the waters using older systems, both to measure Israel’s response and to preserve its cutting-edge weaponry for a future escalation. If this conflict were to extend into a longer campaign, Iran may have planned to gradually introduce more advanced technologies into the battlefield.
One key takeaway from this confrontation is the surprising vulnerability of Israel’s air defenses, even to what are considered “first-generation” missiles. Iran’s ability to breach those defenses has raised eyebrows across global security circles. It not only demonstrates Iran’s missile capabilities but also sends a clear signal: if this is what their older missiles can do, the potential impact of their next-generation systems could be even more devastating.
While the ceasefire has brought temporary relief, the strategic decisions made during this short but intense war reveal deeper preparations and longer-term military calculations on both sides. As the dust settles, the world is left wondering whether this was a brief flare-up—or just the opening chapter in a broader conflict.
Disclaimer: This article is based on publicly available reports and news sources. The information presented is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an endorsement of any party involved in the conflict.