Middle East: Why Iran Targeted Political Infrastructure of Gulf States – Tehran's New Strategy of Terror
In a dramatic escalation that threatens to worsen the crisis in the Middle East, Iran on Wednesday launched the largest wave of ballistic missile and drone attacks since the start of its two-month ceasefire with the United States.
The Iranian strikes directly hit Kuwait International Airport, forcing it to suspend operations, while the attack killed one person and wounded at least 63 others.
At the same time, according to reports, Iran struck Camp Buehring and Ali Al Salem Air Base.
This development, according to Israeli network Ynet, marks a radical and dangerous shift in the war strategy of Tehran, which is now abandoning asymmetric warfare through proxies and moving to open, direct military actions against sovereign Arab states.
The Timeline of the Flare-Up
The new flare-up began the previous night, when US forces struck the empty oil tanker "Lexi" with a Hellfire missile, which, according to Washington, was attempting to break the American naval blockade and load oil on Iran's Kharg Island.
This triggered a chain of reprisals from both sides, with Iran ultimately directing its fire toward American bases in Kuwait and Bahrain.
To understand why Tehran crossed this threshold, notes Ynet, the starting point lies on Qeshm Island.
In late May, US fighter jets struck radar installations and a ground control station there, as well as at the nearby Goruk site along the Strait of Hormuz, after Iran shot down an American MQ-1 Predator drone operating over international waters.
The US Central Command (CENTCOM) described the strikes on the Qeshm control center as "self-defense strikes," ordered after US forces shot down three Iranian drones targeting ships passing through the waters of the region.
However, what neither side said aloud was the most important truth: the strikes on Qeshm brought American military power directly onto Iranian soil, next to the world's most critical maritime passage – the Strait of Hormuz.
After months of fighting through proxies and carefully balanced ceasefire agreements, Washington had invaded the only operational space that Tehran considered its last defensive perimeter, comments Ynet.
Why Iran Targeted Kuwait Airport
When Iranian drones and ballistic missiles struck Terminal 1 of Kuwait International Airport in the early hours of Wednesday, the attack confirmed what weeks of American bombings had already suggested but Tehran had not yet officially articulated: Iran abandoned asymmetric warfare as its main strategic tool.
Iran's model of fighting through proxies (e.g., Hezbollah in Lebanon), hiding behind plausible deniability, and "calibrating" its aggression to avoid immediate retaliation, is over.
What Iran launched against Kuwait was not a war maneuver, notes the Israeli network. It was a direct, overt act of war against a sovereign, non-belligerent Arab state.
Tehran did not merely "punish" Kuwait for hosting American soldiers on bases. It proved with operational clarity that any US strike on Iranian soil will provoke an immediate response against the nearest available civilian infrastructure.
Iran's Position
The Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) claimed they carried out "precise and concentrated missile strikes against American military bases in Kuwait, resulting in the destruction of targets and causing fires, in retaliation for the latest US strikes on Iran."
After the unprecedented barrage of missiles and drones launched against Kuwait and Bahrain, the Iranian Foreign Ministry rushed to justify the strikes.
Iran's Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, defended his country's attack on the two Gulf states, characterizing it as "self-defense strikes."
In a post on platform X, Araghchi claimed that Iranian forces targeted facilities that US forces "use to attack civilian ships and violate the ceasefire."
"Any hostile action will be met with an immediate and decisive response," he added.
He also sent a broader message to the West, stating: "What sanctions and war failed to achieve will not be achieved with more war."
Outrage in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)
The Gulf Cooperation Council unequivocally condemned Tehran for its "ongoing aggression" against its member states, Kuwait and Bahrain.
GCC Secretary General Jassem Mohamed Albudaiwi stated that the "cowardly attacks against civilian objects" constitute a "dangerous and unprecedented escalation."
According to the official statement, these actions "reflect the Iranian regime's persistence in pursuing reprehensible hostile policies targeting the security, stability, and sovereignty" of member states.
Meanwhile, the GCC Secretary General emphasized that "the security of the Kingdom of Bahrain and the State of Kuwait is an integral part of the security of the GCC states, and that the Cooperation Council states stand united in confronting these attacks and fully support all measures and procedures taken by the two countries to defend their security, sovereignty, and territorial integrity."
The "Zero Point" in Gulf-Iran Relations
The fragile ceasefire that followed the recent confrontation between the US and Iran may have brought a temporary operational calm to the Persian Gulf, but it did not restore regional peace.
According to the think tank and international media outlet Geopolitical Monitor, beneath the surface, a much more substantial upheaval has occurred: the complete collapse of trust between Iran and its Arab neighbors.
For decades, Gulf states maintained a difficult but pragmatic relationship with Tehran, balancing deterrence and diplomacy.
That balance has now been permanently overturned, transforming Iran from a revisionist competitor into a direct, systemic threat. The reality shows that the current Iranian regime is no longer compatible with the region's long-term security.
A War That Redefined the Battlefield
The defining characteristic of this conflict is not merely Iran's reprisals, but how and where it chose to carry them out during the war, which began on February 28 with the attacks by the US and Israel.
Instead of focusing exclusively on its main adversaries, Tehran deliberately expanded the battlefield to include the GCC countries.
According to recent analyzes by the GCC, published by Arab News, approximately 83% of Iranian missile and drone strikes were directed against Gulf states, with the United Arab Emirates (UAE) emerging as the primary target.
During the conflict, more than 660 attack incidents were recorded across the Gulf, hitting energy infrastructure, ports, desalination plants, airports, and data centers.
Most indicative is that these attacks occurred even though Gulf states were not participating in the war, but instead had called for de-escalation, while countries like Oman had hosted US-Iran negotiations months earlier.
Tehran's strategic logic was based on the doctrine of "horizontal escalation": it made clear that if attacked, it would expand the conflict geographically to its Arab neighbors, increasing the cost of war to exert international pressure on the US.
In this context, the Strait of Hormuz became the ultimate lever of pressure.
Even during the ceasefire, Iran continued to manipulate maritime flows and attack ships, causing global economic turmoil and instability in oil prices.
The consequences for Gulf states are existential. Thousands of missiles were intercepted over major cities, energy exports were disrupted, and air defense systems were tested to their limits.
The problem is structural and deeper, as Iran's strategic model is built on asymmetric warfare – which according to Ynet, has been surpassed as a model.
On a practical level, Gulf states, led by the UAE, are already adapting rapidly, notes Geopolitical Monitor.
The war accelerated the creation of a unified air defense architecture, deeper cooperation with international partners, diversification of energy export routes, and investments in critical infrastructure resilience.
The most important outcome of this war is not the ceasefire, but the emergence of a new regional reality: Iran is no longer seen as a manageable competitor, but as a persistent threat factor that must be contained.
This shift will shape alliance structures, defense spending, and geopolitical alignments for the next decade.
