The question sounds simple, but it goes beyond “military retaliation”. Why would Iran hit Gulf countries while saying its real enemies are the United States and Israel? And does this tactic actually help Iran, or does it weaken Iran politically and leave it isolated in the region?

The most realistic answer is that Iran does not see the Gulf as neutral ground. Tehran sees Gulf states as part of a military and economic environment used against Iran. It is through US bases, logistical support, intelligence roles, and, most importantly, the energy system and global markets. But this choice is risky. Once Iran expands its target list to include neighbors, it automatically expands the list of enemies against it.

Iran is not striking the Gulf “out of hatred” – It sees it as a US pressure zone

In Tehran’s view, US power in the region is not only aircraft carriers. It is also a network of bases, facilities, and security cooperation spread across Gulf countries. So, when Iran says it is hitting “American interests”, it often means radar systems, command-and-control centers, logistical sites, or operating points that help Washington run the confrontation.

This is Iran’s core argument: “We are not targeting peoples, we are targeting the structure that allows the US to wage war around us”. But this argument is hard to sustain in practice. It collapses quickly if strikes hit civilian facilities, residential areas, or sensitive economic infrastructure.

This is Iran’s core argument: “We are not targeting peoples, we are targeting the structure that allows the US to wage war around us”. But this argument is hard to sustain in practice. It collapses quickly if strikes hit civilian facilities, residential areas, or sensitive economic infrastructure.

Iran wants to limit its opponents’ options – but it is widening its opponents

There is a basic principle in conflict management: the narrower your enemy front, the better. Striking neighbors does the opposite. It creates new hostility and pushes states that tried to stay out of the fight to take a position or at least deepen security cooperation with Washington.

That is the likely Iranian mistake here. Instead of keeping the war limited to Iran versus the US and Israel, the conflict becomes multi-sided, and Iran is seen as a wider regional threat by publics and governments.

That is the likely Iranian mistake here. Instead of keeping the war limited to Iran versus the US and Israel, the conflict becomes multi-sided, and Iran is seen as a wider regional threat by publics and governments.

A free political story for Washington and Tel Aviv

When Gulf countries are hit, Washington and Israel gain an easy political advantage. They can say, “Iran threatens regional stability” and claim the war is not only about defending Israel or US interests, but about defending Gulf states as well.

In other words, Iran hands its opponents a ready-made story to expand the coalition against it and to frame the conflict as collective regional security, not a limited confrontation with two unpopular actors (the US and Israel).

READ: Trump pauses strikes on Iran’s energy infrastructure for 5 days after ‘productive’ talks

Iran wants “guarantees” to end the war, but the Gulf pays the price

Iran says it does not want a temporary truce that leads to another round of war. It wants real guarantees that the war will not be repeated. That is why Tehran prefers to keep pressure on until endgame terms are set. This is where the Gulf becomes a “messaging arena”: Iran applies political and economic pressure until Washington feels internal strain.

But this pressure does not happen in a vacuum. Once the Gulf becomes a battleground for messages, Iran’s relationship with its neighbors becomes more fragile after the war; even if fighting stops. Trust breaks quickly, and rebuilding it can take years.

Can Iran keep this strategy going?

Iran may raise the cost for a short period, but it faces two problems:

1) The story has a short lifespan: saying “we are hitting US interests” may not hold if damage grows or strikes repeat.

2) Political blowback: every strike in the Gulf increases pressure on these states to harden their stance against Iran, and possibly give Washington more access and support.

So, at that point, Iran’s pressure tools start to work against Iran.

READ: Hebrew media: Iran sets five conditions to end war with US and Israel

The energy war: why Iran wants the cost to rise in the Gulf?

There is another major reason: the economy.

Iran knows it cannot match the US and Israel in a classic balance of military power. So, it relies on a “cost strategy” by pressuring a global weak point: energy. The Gulf is not just geography. It is the center of the world’s oil and gas market. Any disruption raises prices, increases shipping and insurance costs, and spreads inflation from Asia to Europe.

Iran knows it cannot match the US and Israel in a classic balance of military power. So, it relies on a “cost strategy” by pressuring a global weak point: energy. The Gulf is not just geography. It is the center of the world’s oil and gas market. Any disruption raises prices, increases shipping and insurance costs, and spreads inflation from Asia to Europe.

When Iran strikes in the Gulf, it sends two messages:

To the United States: the war will not stay “clean” and far from major economic interests.

To the world: pressure on Iran will make the global economy pay a price.

Therefore. Iran strikes the Gulf because it sees it as America’s backdoor, but it risks isolating itself

Iran is striking Gulf states because it believes the war is being managed through the region: bases, radar, logistics, and energy. Tehran wants to show that the cost of war will not stay inside Iran. But the strategic danger is clear: widening enemies instead of narrowing them, and giving Washington and Tel Aviv more political space to widen the war.

In the end, the bigger question is not only why Iran strikes Gulf states. It is this:

Can Iran raise the cost without losing its neighborhood?

And can it pressure Washington through the Gulf without turning itself into the main enemy in the eyes of the region?

This dilemma will shape not only the course of the war, but the region that comes after it.

OPINION: Trump fell into Iran’s trap

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

© Middle East Monitor