Iran has “two main reasons” for attacking neighboring countries and there is an escalation that could change everything

Tehran has called into question the status of “oasis of stability” that most of the states on the Arabian Peninsula enjoy

For a week, almost incessantly, Iran attacked American interests in countries such as the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and collapsed the invisible barrier that turned most of the States of the Arabian Peninsula into refuges in a tormented region.

This Saturday, however, the president of Iran, Masoud Pezeshkian, no longer targets these states unless attacks against the Islamic republic begin from there. “I consider it necessary to apologize to the neighboring countries that were attacked. We have no intention of invading neighboring countries,” said the Iranian head of state.

This is a relevant change in a strategy that, according to Manuel Serrano, a CNN Portugal commentator, has two main objectives. “From the beginning, the objective was to put pressure on the USA and Israel and call into question the status of oases of stability that these countries have”, says the International Relations specialist. “These countries managed to sell the idea that there, in an area that is volatile by nature, is a place where people could be and where everything that is investment, tourism and certain types of work can happen.”

In Dubai, for example, a civilian died after debris from an interception fell on the car in which he was traveling. A passenger who was at Abu Dhabi airport had already died before, causing some concern in a highly touristic destination.

“One of Iran’s objectives was to put this in check, to show that the protection of the United States is not so relevant”, he adds. The second objective, explains Manuel Serrano, has to do with the price of certain raw materials, such as oil and natural gas, whose rise is harmful to the West, especially the USA, at a sensitive time for the Trump administration, with mid-term elections in sight.

For the expert, however, it is “unlikely” and a response from the Gulf States cannot be expected unless there is a major escalation in the conflict and “vital interests” are put at risk.

“These states do not want to escalate the situation and continue to be targets of Iran. We don’t know Iran’s missile capabilities, but we know that it still has drones. For any of these Gulf countries, having to continue intercepting missiles or drones has enormous costs. Then, they have to have interceptors available and they may not have them in sufficient quantities”, says Manuel Serrano.

“The second point is that I don’t think they want to escalate the situation, especially since the president of Iran has said that they will no longer attack the Gulf States”, he continues, mentioning that an attack on a water desalination plant, for example, would change the situation as it would have “incalculable and extremely dangerous costs for the region”, which is very dependent on this infrastructure.

It is no coincidence that Iran stated this Saturday, a week after the war began, that its desalination infrastructure on the island of Qeshm had been attacked from an air base in a country in the Persian Gulf. Tehran did not clarify where this attack came from.

“I think that in this case, in which vital interests are attacked, not only economic, but even the survival of cities and the population, obviously, this [ataques contra o Irão] it could be on the table”, he considers.

Despite Pezeshkian’s words, Manuel Serrano expresses doubts about compliance with the halt in attacks, pointing to the “decentralized leadership” of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as the reason.

explains, citing a source close to the leadership of the Iranian regime, that Iran’s strategy for this conflict was outlined by Ali Khamenei and is largely based on the decentralization of decision-making. The option was taken after the Twelve Day War, in June last year, during which several top commanders of the Revolutionary Guard were murdered in the first hours of hostilities.

“Our military units are now, in fact, independent and somewhat isolated, and they are acting based on general instructions that were given to them in advance,” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told Al Jazeera on Monday.

For Manuel Serrano, this fact hinders the ability of the Provisional Council, formed by three senior figures from Iranian society, including Pezeshkian, to act shortly after the death of Ali Khamenei.

Another factor that conditions the actions of this council is Ali Larijani, secretary of the National Security Council of Iran, who the CNN Portugal commentator describes as “pragmatic and uncompromising, with a very particular worldview in relation to the regime, which would never in life accept many of the things that the United States wants to impose”. It is Larijani who has shouldered much of the responsibility for Iran’s military response to the American and Israeli attacks, Serrano says, and Pezeshkian’s statements this Saturday put the two officials on a collision course.

“If this [interrupção dos ataques aos países do Golfo] will happen or not, it will be a good way to measure the real influence that this Provisional Council has or not”, says the expert.