Iran’s missile and armed drone (UAV) attacks against Arab countries have clearly revealed Tehran’s strategic calculations and a new phase in regional tensions. In response to the large-scale operations launched by the U.S. and Israel on February 28, Iran targeted not only Israel but also Arab states, particularly Gulf countries, that had declared neutrality or did not directly participate in the conflict.
Psychological warfare and the search for deterrence
Tehran has long built its regional influence through proxy forces and land corridors stretching from Baghdad to Beirut, and from Damascus to Sana’a. However, Israel’s airstrikes in Syria and the weakening of influence in Damascus in the post-Assad period have narrowed Iran’s room for maneuver along this axis. This represents not only a loss of regional influence but also a questioning of its military deterrence capacity.
While the Iranian government described the attacks as “legitimate self-defense against U.S. bases and military assets,” experts point to their psychological and strategic dimensions. Iran is known to have constructed its regional influence through a network of proxy forces and logistical corridors. However, the weakening of its presence in Syria and the continuation of Israeli air operations have pushed Tehran to demonstrate its deterrence once again. In this context, some Arab territories previously considered “safe transit areas” are now seen as instruments for sending a message.
According to experts, Iran faces a strategic dilemma: either it effectively accepts the decline of its regional hegemony or it seeks to reestablish deterrence by projecting power in an alternative “arena.” In this sense, the attacks on Arab countries are viewed less as direct confrontations with those states and more as messages aimed at regional and global actors.
A message to domestic public
Another dimension of the attacks is believed to be directed at the domestic public. In recent years, Iran has faced economic difficulties and social unrest. In closed political systems, external crises and military actions are often seen as tools to redirect public attention toward external threats. The portrayal of the attacks in Iranian media as “defending sovereignty” and “countering U.S.-Israeli plans” suggests that this narrative is being used as a functional instrument in both domestic and foreign policy.
Interests and priorities
It is noted that the countries targeted by Tehran possess infrastructure, airspace, and maritime routes of high operational value. Attacks on these areas are interpreted as sending a message to the U.S. and Israel that “if the encirclement tightens, the sphere of impact will expand.” At the same time, these actions are seen as an indirect warning to Arab capitals that neutrality may not provide sufficient protection in times of crisis.
Regional balances shaken
The attacks are said to have shaken regional security balances. According to Iranian affairs expert Dr. Nabil al-Atum, speaking to Firat News Agency (ANF), these developments have put the concept of “safe neutrality” under strain. Gulf countries and some regional states have, for the first time, become actual targets rather than merely facing theoretical threats. This could lead to deeper military coordination with the West and broader use of airspace and military bases.
International relations expert and Jordanian academic Dr. al-Faris al-Helelmeh also told ANF that these developments have reopened debate on the current regional security architecture.
Stating that “the Saudi-Iran normalization mediated by China failed to show resilience in its first serious crisis test,” Dr. al-Faris emphasized that normalization agreements made without structural guarantees and concrete changes in Iran’s behavior remain diplomatic documents that can quickly erode in times of crisis.
In conclusion, Iran’s attacks on Arab countries are seen not as an exceptional stance but as an open reflection of an approach that has long operated in the background. According to this view, Tehran does not ultimately draw a sharp distinction between a silent friend and an active enemy; it considers both as elements of a larger strategic game and does not regard them as equal partners whose sovereign choices deserve genuine respect.
Leave a Reply