Why Iran Attacked The US Bases Hosted By Persian Gulf Countries

When Iranian missiles and drones streaked across the skies of the Gulf, targeting American military installations hosted by Arab states, the message from Tehran was clear: this was retaliation, deterrence and political signalling rolled into one.

According to Iran’s Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi, the strikes were an exercise of “self-defence under the UN Charter”. He insisted that Iran “will not sit idly by as the U.S. attacks our people”, while expressing regret that “targets are located in friendly states”. His remarks came after Washington and Israel launched what US President Donald Trump has described as a sweeping campaign against the Islamic Republic, including what he has termed “Operation Epic Fury”.

Yet Iran’s decision to hit American bases in Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Iraq — rather than focusing exclusively on Israel — reflects a deeper strategic calculus.

Pressuring Washington Through Its Partners

Tehran’s immediate objective appears to be raising the costs of continued US military operations. The United States maintains approximately 30,000 to 40,000 troops across around 13 bases in the Middle East. Key facilities include Naval Support Activity Bahrain, home to the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet in Manama; Al Udeid Air Base near Doha, the largest American base in the region; and installations in Kuwait and the UAE.

By targeting these sites — even if many projectiles were intercepted — Iran signalled that American forces and assets across the Gulf are vulnerable. Explosions were reported near the Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain, while Qatar said it intercepted missiles aimed at Al Udeid. In Kuwait, a drone strike near the international airport caused minor injuries and limited damage. The UAE said it shot down drones and ballistic missiles, though a fire broke out at the Fairmont The Palm hotel in Dubai.

The strikes compel Gulf governments to confront the risks of hosting US forces. Iran’s calculation is that Arab states, alarmed by attacks near major cities such as Manama, Doha and Abu Dhabi, will privately press Washington to de-escalate and seek a ceasefire. In effect, Tehran is attempting to internationalise the costs of the conflict.

A Two-Pronged Strategy

Iran views the current confrontation as a coordinated US-Israeli campaign. From Tehran’s perspective, responding solely against Israel would be strategically incomplete. A two-pronged approach — striking Israel directly while also targeting US bases — distributes pressure across both adversaries.

There are also operational considerations. Israel is more than 1,000 kilometres from much of Iran’s territory, and its layered missile defence systems — including Iron Dome, David’s Sling and Arrow — are among the most advanced in the world (however, latest reports suggests that Iran was able to hit Tel Aviv evading these interceptors and caused fatalities). While Iran has demonstrated the ability to strike Israeli territory, sustained long-range operations are complex and risk limited military impact relative to the political cost.

By contrast, US bases in the Gulf lie far closer to Iranian territory, many within a few hundred kilometres across the Persian Gulf. These installations are geographically exposed and, in some cases, located near dense urban areas. Striking them ensures dramatic media coverage and underscores the regional ramifications of US policy.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said the attacks formed part of “Operation Truthful Promise 4”, explicitly targeting “US bases and assets” in retaliation for the joint US-Israeli assault.

Questioning Legitimacy and Sovereignty

There is also a political narrative at play. By attacking US facilities hosted by sovereign Arab states, Tehran seeks to frame the conflict as one rooted in foreign military presence rather than Iranian aggression.

Araghchi has questioned why Washington “insists on beginning a negotiation with Iran and then attacking Iran in the middle of talks”, referencing previous breakdowns in diplomacy. By highlighting what it portrays as duplicity, Tehran aims to erode the moral authority of the US campaign and ask, in effect, what mandate Washington has to shape Iran’s internal political order.

President Trump has openly called on the “people of Iran” to “take over their government”, fuelling Tehran’s argument that the conflict is about regime change. Analysts such as Steven A. Cook of the Council on Foreign Relations note that efforts to engineer political transformation from afar are fraught with risk and uncertainty. For Gulf leaders, the prospect of a weakened but vengeful Iranian regime — or chaotic instability — is deeply unsettling.

By striking US bases, Iran hopes to force a regional debate about the long-term sustainability and legitimacy of America’s military footprint in the Gulf.

Gulf States Caught in the Middle

The reaction of Arab governments has been swift but cautious. Qatar condemned the “flagrant violation” of its sovereignty. Bahrain confirmed an attack on the US naval base. The UAE called the strikes a “blatant violation of national sovereignty and international law”. Saudi Arabia offered support to fellow Arab states.

Yet these governments walk a fine line. While none are sympathetic to Iranian regional ambitions, they are wary of being dragged into a full-scale war. Their trillion-dollar economic transformation projects — from Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 to the UAE’s diversification drive — depend on stability.

One notable exception to the barrage was Oman. Long described as the “Switzerland of the Middle East”, Oman has maintained a uniquely balanced relationship with Iran dating back to the 1970s, when the Shah assisted Sultan Qaboos in quelling the Dhofar rebellion. Even after the 1979 revolution, Muscat preserved ties with Tehran.

Oman has repeatedly acted as a discreet intermediary between Iran and the United States, including facilitating back-channel talks that led to the 2015 nuclear deal. It also shares strategic oversight of the Strait of Hormuz with Iran, a critical chokepoint for global oil supplies. For Tehran, attacking Oman would jeopardise one of its few reliable diplomatic bridges and risk destabilising maritime security vital to its own economic interests.

Optics and Escalation

From an optics standpoint, attacking Israel alone might have been portrayed as a continuation of the longstanding shadow war between the two states. By widening the battlefield to US bases in Arab countries, Iran transforms the confrontation into a regional crisis with global economic implications.

Missiles intercepted over Doha or Manama reverberate far beyond the immediate military sphere. They rattle financial markets, energy traders and foreign investors. They also generate intense media scrutiny, particularly when incidents occur near high-profile urban landmarks, as in Dubai.

Tehran’s leadership is aware that optics matter. A strike on a well-defended Israeli military site may yield limited visible damage. A missile intercepted over a Gulf capital, however, produces dramatic images and underscores vulnerability.

Calculated Risk

Iran’s strategy is not without peril. Alienating Gulf neighbours could deepen their security cooperation with Washington. Miscalculation could trigger broader retaliation. And while Tehran insists its “enmity is not with the American people”, the targeting of US personnel risks hardening domestic support in the United States for further military action.

Nevertheless, from Iran’s perspective, the attacks serve multiple functions: retaliation for US-Israeli strikes, pressure on Washington through its regional partners, reinforcement of a narrative about sovereignty and foreign intervention, and demonstration of operational reach.