As the United States escalates its strikes on Iran, Tehran is hitting back, targeting military and civilian infrastructure across the Gulf states and Jordan while avoiding attacks on US naval assets deployed near its coast and on Israel – a strategy that analysts say is intended to pressure US President Donald Trump without expanding the scope of the war.

While Washington has struck railway stations, power facilities, telecommunications networks and drinking-water infrastructure in Iran, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has responded by attacking civilian airports and water and power stations in Kuwait and Bahrain.

Military analysts said there’s a logic to this strategy.

Targeting US naval “assets would bring a devastating US response”, retired Lebanese Brigadier General and military analyst Elias Hanna told Al Jazeera. “Another issue is the targeting of naval assets is difficult militarily because it’s protected and has sophisticated air defence systems.”

But why is Tehran targeting neighbouring countries?

Atifeh Taghiani, a professor of political science at the University of Tehran, argued that the US is using Gulf countries, particularly Kuwait, to target Iranian civilian infrastructure.

During the first round of the US-Israel war on Iran in March and April, Iranian officials justified attacks on Gulf states by arguing that US operations were launched from military bases on their territory. They continue to make the same argument today, even though this narrative has deepened estrangement between Tehran and its neighbours, particularly as Gulf states have repeatedly insisted that they will not allow their territories to be used to launch attacks against Iran.

In an interview with Al Jazeera, Taghiani said international law gives Iran the right to retaliate against any country from which attacks are launched, stressing that US naval vessels are deliberately targeting Iranian civilian infrastructure because Washington “wants to deepen hostility among the countries of the region and is trying to make it harder for Iranians to respond.”

Unrealistic ‘propaganda’

Abdullah al-Shayji, a professor of political science at Kuwait University, dismissed the Iranian academic’s remarks as recycled Iranian “propaganda”, arguing that claims that US attacks are launched from Gulf states “are no longer acceptable or realistic because all the strikes originate from the two US aircraft carriers George W Bush and Abraham Lincoln, which are no more than 150km [93 miles] from the Iranian coast.”

According to al-Shayji, Gulf states agreed with the US that American forces stationed in the Gulf would remain strictly for defensive purposes and informed Tehran that their territory would not be used to launch attacks against Iran. He added that the Iranians “have produced no evidence” to support their claims.

Al-Shayji said Iran knows that cruise missiles and Tomahawk missiles are launched from US aircraft carriers but fears the consequences if it kills even a single US service member in an attack on those vessels.

Instead, he said, Tehran continues what he described as a failed strategy of targeting Gulf states in the hope they will pressure Washington to end the war. That, he argued, is unlikely because Trump “did not consult the Gulf states before launching this war and did not honour what had been agreed”.

Iran’s continued attacks on water desalination facilities during the height of summer in a country such as Kuwait, whose population depends heavily on desalinated water, not only violate international law but also reflect a deliberate attempt to make life harder for civilians, al-Shayji said. He noted that Kuwait is among the Gulf states most opposed to normalisation with Israel yet has borne the brunt of Iranian attacks.

Al-Shayji argued Iran has abandoned rational political calculation and is pursuing a course that further isolates it while eroding what remains of its credibility. At the same time, he argued that Gulf states should develop a new regional security framework after the current war has exposed the limits of relying on US protection.

Dragging the region into war

The war began in late February after Trump ordered joint attacks with Israel on Iran. Since the US and Iran agreed to a memorandum of understanding in June, aimed at extending their tenuous ceasefire and continuing their negotiations towards a peace deal, each side has accused the other of repeated violations of their pact.

Although al-Shayji acknowledged Trump’s role in the conflict, he stressed the importance of reviving negotiations through mediators, Gulf states refraining from retaliating against Iran and developing a strategy for collective coordination while reducing dependence on the US to avoid an unintended wider war.

Abdullah Bandar al-Otaibi, an assistant professor in the Department of International Affairs at Qatar University, shared al-Shayji’s assessment. He said neither the US nor Iran wants a full-scale war and both sides are being selective in their choice of targets.

Al-Otaibi also agreed that Iran had avoided attacking US naval assets for fear of “opening the gates of hell upon itself”, instead relying on a strategy of pressuring Washington through the Gulf despite its limited effectiveness.

Selective targeting

Al-Otaibi also attributed Iran’s reluctance to target US refuelling aircraft operating from Israel’s Ben Gurion Airport to Tehran’s desire to avoid widening the conflict, choosing instead to target Gulf states in an effort to placate domestic public opinion, particularly because it believes those countries are unlikely to enter the war.

Al-Otaibi told Al Jazeera that the situation could escalate if any Iranian attack caused significant civilian casualties in a Gulf state, pointing to Tehran’s determination to impose what he described as a one-sided deterrence equation.

As for Washington’s focus on the Strait of Hormuz, he argued that the objective is to turn the strait from a strategic pressure card in Iran’s hands into a political liability because Tehran would be unable to establish full control over it while its economy bears the cost of escalation.

Al-Otaibi said an Iranian attack on Oman just one day after Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi visited Muscat highlights the failure of Iranian-Omani negotiations and also reflects Tehran’s desire to establish full control over the strait rather than share influence with Oman.

He also noted that the Iran-aligned Houthis in Yemen have so far stayed out of the confrontation after previous US attacks while seeking to avoid the losses now being suffered by Hezbollah in Lebanon and Iran-aligned factions in Iraq. That, he said, has further increased the pressure on Tehran.