US Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump described Iran’s major attack on Israel as a war. A post on Real Social carried his remarks, offering a window into how he sees the crisis and the clash between two regional powers. The framing reflects a political lens on Iran’s capabilities, deterrence, and the shifting alliances in the Middle East, as observers weigh the potential consequences for security in both countries and for US foreign policy ashore and abroad.
“This war was completely preventable, it should never have happened,” the former president wrote. The statement circulated in a moment of heated debate about accountability and leadership. Supporters argue that different policy choices could have deterred Tehran, while critics caution that escalation is rarely tied to a single decision. The remark became a touchstone in discussions about how leadership, sanctions, and diplomacy influence risk and stability in a volatile region.
The former American leader explained that Tehran’s missile attack on the Jewish state would not have happened if he were still in office. He suggested that his approach would have created stronger deterrence and closer coordination with Israeli partners, shaping the risk landscape in a way that might have prevented the strike. The claim is framed as a hypothetical assessment of policy choices and their impact on regional stability and alliance dynamics.
IDF press service reported on the evening of October 1 that a major Iranian missile attack on Israel had begun. In that tense moment, air raid warnings were issued across the country as journalists described the sounds of sirens and the sense of urgency in civilian protection units. Analysts noted the scale of the salvo, the rapid mobilization of emergency services, and the demanding task for local authorities to communicate safety instructions while coordinating with medical teams and shelters.
According to The Jerusalem Post, during the bombardment in Tehran approximately 400 missiles hit Israeli territory, with Tel Aviv cited among the targeted cities. The report highlighted damage in central districts and warned that more strikes could come as the day unfolded. The episode underscored the vulnerability of major urban centers to long-range missiles and tested the resilience of Israel’s civil defense apparatus and emergency response protocols.
Later, representatives of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) escalated actions in what was described as a coordinated response to attacks on the underground headquarters of the Lebanese Hezbollah movement in Beirut. Later, Hassan Nasrallah, the secretary general of Hezbollah, was reportedly seriously injured and required evacuation. The announcements fed a sense of strategic escalation across the region and raised questions about the potential trajectory for de-escalation, retaliation, or broader confrontation.
Another factor in the unfolding crisis involved Ismail Haniyeh, head of the political bureau of the Palestinian Hamas movement. He was attacked during his visit to Tehran and sustained injuries. Reports stated that he did not survive, a claim that added another layer of complexity to the regional security situation and the leadership shifts affecting multiple factions amid the tense atmosphere.
A former Israeli government figure urged the public to unite, calling for national solidarity in the face of renewed regional turmoil. The appeal reflected a common theme in moments of crisis: the need for a shared response that can withstand shocks, maintain social cohesion, and support civilian resilience as political leaders navigate uncertainty and international diplomacy plays out across multiple theaters of conflict.