Iran threatens retaliation beyond the battlefield if the United States and Israel launch another military offensive, raising fears that a renewed conflict could spread across the Gulf and threaten oil supplies, undersea communications cables, data centres and artificial intelligence facilities.
Iranian security officials have warned that another confrontation would not necessarily follow the limits of previous fighting. Tehran is signalling that infrastructure supporting its adversaries’ economies could become targets if Iranian territory, military installations or senior officials come under renewed attack.
Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, has warned that oil installations and major technology facilities across as many as seven Gulf countries could face strikes if Washington and Tel Aviv resume military operations.
The warning comes amid reports that US military planners have prepared potential targets for another campaign against Iran, while diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis remain deadlocked.
Iranian officials have also threatened a wider conflict, suggesting that retaliation could extend beyond conventional military installations and affect regional trade, energy security and essential civilian services.
Tehran Warns Washington Against Starting Another War
Mehdi Mohammadi, an adviser to Iranian parliamentary speaker Mohammad Ghalibaf, has alleged that US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have agreed in principle to launch another attack against Iran.
The allegation has not been independently confirmed. Nevertheless, Mohammadi’s remarks reveal the severity of Tehran’s concerns about the possibility of a renewed military campaign.
He described another confrontation as an existential threat to Iran and warned that the country would respond without the restrictions that might have applied during earlier rounds of fighting.
“We see the next conflict as an existential threat. The third war in two years means a threat to existence. Our strategy is ‘zero red lines’.”
Mohammadi also warned that Iran intended to challenge its opponents’ expectations about the duration and geographical reach of a potential conflict.
“We break the temporal and spatial dimensions of the conflict. The war will continue longer and in a wider geographical area than the enemy anticipates.”
The remarks suggest that Iranian officials want Washington to understand that another attack could trigger a prolonged regional confrontation rather than a limited exchange of strikes.
Tehran’s warnings also raise questions about the vulnerability of countries that might not participate directly in military operations but host important economic, energy or strategic infrastructure.
Oil Installations and Digital Infrastructure in Iran’s Crosshairs
Iran’s threatened targets include facilities that support both traditional energy production and the modern digital economy.
Rezaei has warned that oil installations, undersea cables, data centres and artificial intelligence facilities could be attacked if the conflict resumes.
Iranian media reported his warning that the country had prepared a broader response should another war begin.
“In the event of a war, cables, datacentres and artificial intelligence facilities could also be targeted. If the conflict breaks out again, we will have a broader plan.”
The threat represents a potentially significant expansion of the risks associated with the confrontation. Oil installations are central to regional energy supplies, while data centres and communications cables support services used by financial institutions, businesses, governments and millions of people.
Damage to undersea cables could disrupt international communications and data transmission. Attacks on data centres could affect digital services, while damage to oil infrastructure could place additional pressure on global energy markets.
Iranian officials argue that their country should not be expected to leave the economic systems of its opponents untouched if Iran’s own economic lifelines are attacked.
Rezaei said: “There can be no arrangement in which Iran’s economic lifelines come under attack while the economic architecture enabling those attacks is considered untouched and immune.”
However, the threats do not establish that all the facilities mentioned would be attacked or that Iran could successfully strike every potential target. The country’s operational capabilities and the possible consequences of any such action remain uncertain.
US Military Preparations Raise Fears of Renewed Assault
The Iranian warnings coincide with reports that the United States is preparing options for a possible new military campaign.
According to US media reports cited by The Guardian, military advisers have developed a detailed list of potential targets for a renewed joint operation with Israel. The reported plans could be implemented after the US midterm elections scheduled for 3 November.
Possible targets reportedly include Iranian missile installations, oil facilities and nuclear sites.
The prospect of another assault has emerged after months of diplomatic deadlock, despite Trump having stepped back from striking Iran on seven occasions during the preceding four months, according to The Guardian.
The reported preparations have intensified concerns that the two sides could move towards renewed hostilities even as mediators continue to explore possible agreements.
Military activity has added to the uncertainty. The United States and Israel have conducted extended joint-training exercises, including practice runs over Iraq.
The news outlet Axios also reported that dozens of Israeli aircraft flew close to Iran’s border earlier in the week.
Meanwhile, a major fire at an aluminium factory in Arak, central Iran, has raised questions about possible sabotage inside the country. The cause of the fire has not been established in the report, and there is no confirmed evidence presented that it was connected to a covert campaign.
Taken together, the developments have increased concerns about a possible return to direct confrontation.
Netanyahu and Hegseth Discuss Possible Attack
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth in Israel on Monday to discuss the timing and purpose of a possible joint military operation against Iran.
The discussions reportedly included the potential political consequences for Netanyahu, whose re-election prospects could be affected by the course of the confrontation.
According to the report, Netanyahu would prefer Iran to strike first.
Such a scenario could influence the political argument for military action, although the report does not establish that Iran has agreed to initiate a new confrontation.
The United States is also expected to complete a substantial military buildup in the Middle East by early November.
Trump intends to have three aircraft carriers, thousands of Marines, fighter jets and special operations forces stationed in the region by that time, according to The Guardian.
The deployment would provide Washington with significant military capabilities should the administration decide to launch another operation.
However, a larger military presence could also increase the stakes of any miscalculation, particularly if Iranian retaliation affects US interests or infrastructure in neighbouring countries.
The central uncertainty is whether the military preparations will be used to increase pressure during negotiations or precede another attack.
Iran Warns Gulf Countries of Economic and Humanitarian Consequences
Iran’s warnings extend beyond oil exports and digital networks to essential services that support civilian life.
Reza Nasri, an international lawyer close to Iran’s foreign ministry, has warned that another wave of fighting could spread across the region and cause extensive damage.
“A third wave of war would not stay contained. Power grids, desalination plants, refineries and ports across the region would burn. Tens of millions would be left without water or electricity, and a massive wave of refugees would move from Arab countries towards Europe.”
Nasri’s comments describe a severe potential outcome rather than a verified forecast. Nevertheless, they highlight the humanitarian consequences that could follow if essential infrastructure becomes a target.
Several Gulf countries depend heavily on desalination to provide drinking water. Damage to desalination plants could therefore create immediate problems for households, hospitals and businesses.
Disruptions to electricity networks could affect communications, healthcare and industrial operations, while damage to ports could interfere with food imports and other essential supplies.
The threat of large-scale displacement also illustrates how a regional conflict could produce consequences well beyond the countries directly involved in the fighting.
Nasri warned that a complete closure of the Strait of Hormuz would further intensify the crisis.
“Hormuz would close completely, oil would spike, and the global economy would tip into recession. Israel’s economy, already bled by mobilisation and missile fire, would not survive a prolonged war of attrition. And Trump would be trapped in a crisis that consumes the rest of his presidency and leaves a wreck for his successors,” Nasri said.
His prediction reflects his assessment of the risks. Whether these outcomes would occur would depend on the scale, duration and geographical reach of any renewed conflict.
Iran Says Retaliation Could Extend to Political Targets
Iran has also indicated that its response might extend beyond military installations if another war involves the assassination of senior officials and the killing of civilians.
Fars news agency, which is close to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, reported that directives had been issued to military and operational units outlining the response to a possible widespread conflict.
According to the agency, the instructions stated that retaliation would not be confined to military targets if Iranian officials were assassinated and civilians killed.
The reported directives also referred to political targets.
The warning adds another layer of uncertainty because it suggests that Tehran could broaden the categories of targets it considers legitimate in a future confrontation.
However, the report does not independently identify specific political targets or establish that attacks against them have been authorised for immediate execution.
The statements instead indicate that Iranian officials are preparing the public and their adversaries for the possibility of a response that extends beyond the conventional battlefield.
Such an approach could increase the risks for governments and institutions across the region, particularly if retaliatory operations are directed at infrastructure or facilities outside Iran and Israel.
Strait of Hormuz Tensions Push Oil Prices Higher
The confrontation is already affecting concerns about maritime security and international energy supplies.
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps naval forces claimed to have struck four commercial ships attempting to pass through the Strait of Hormuz on Wednesday. The vessels were reportedly involved in transferring oil from one ship to another.
The IRGC also claimed that three additional ships had been struck after hitting mines in the waterway.
The Guardian reported that the number of ships allegedly hit had not been independently verified.
Brent crude was trading at $113.40 per barrel, a recent high, amid reports of preparations for a possible renewed US-Israeli attack on Iran.
The Strait of Hormuz is a crucial passage for international oil shipments. A prolonged closure or serious disruption could restrict supplies and force buyers to compete for available cargoes.
That could push prices higher and increase costs for countries dependent on imported crude and refined petroleum products.
Higher oil prices can feed into transport costs, electricity generation, manufacturing and food distribution. The consequences could therefore reach households and businesses far from the Gulf.
For energy-producing countries, the situation could also create uncertainty around shipping insurance, export schedules and the security of offshore infrastructure.
Iran’s threats have consequently placed the security of the waterway at the centre of concerns about the economic consequences of another war.
Diplomacy Continues as Iran Sets Conditions for a Deal
Despite the escalating rhetoric, efforts to negotiate a ceasefire and address the outstanding disputes have not completely stopped.
Mediators from Iran and Pakistan reportedly explored revised proposals during the week in an attempt to find a way out of the crisis.
One proposal would involve Iran receiving billions of dollars in frozen assets in exchange for lifting its blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.
Other elements under discussion reportedly include allowing United Nations weapons inspectors to examine Iran’s bombed nuclear facilities and transferring its stockpile of highly enriched uranium to another country.
Iran has offered to end the Hormuz blockade within seven days and begin negotiations on its nuclear programme, but only if its preconditions are met.
Those conditions include the lifting of US sanctions, a major obstacle in the negotiations.
The competing demands illustrate the difficulty of reaching an agreement. Washington and Tehran must resolve disagreements over sanctions, nuclear activities, maritime access and the security arrangements that would prevent another outbreak of fighting.
Foreign ministers from three European countries, alongside representatives from Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Egypt, are also due to meet in Istanbul to discuss the linked crises involving Iran, Yemen and the Palestinians.
The planned meeting reflects concern that a renewed confrontation could destabilise several interconnected regional disputes at once.
Why Another US-Israel Attack Could Have Global Consequences
The threat of another war has implications extending well beyond military calculations in Washington, Tehran and Tel Aviv.
Iran’s warning about oil facilities, undersea cables and artificial intelligence infrastructure points to the vulnerability of interconnected economic systems during a regional conflict.
An attack on energy infrastructure could disrupt exports. Damage to communications cables could affect international data traffic, while strikes on water and electricity facilities could create serious humanitarian emergencies.
The Strait of Hormuz remains particularly important because any sustained disruption could affect oil supplies and push energy prices higher worldwide.
Nevertheless, Iranian threats must be distinguished from confirmed operational plans and verified attacks. The available reporting does not establish that every threatened target will be struck, nor does it prove that a new US-Israeli offensive is inevitable.
The immediate danger lies in the combination of military preparations, failed negotiations and increasingly expansive warnings from both sides.
Iran threatens retaliation beyond the battlefield, but whether the confrontation develops into a wider regional war will depend on the decisions made by the governments involved and the success or failure of diplomatic efforts.
With military forces gathering, shipping tensions mounting and negotiations still unresolved, the coming weeks could prove decisive for the security of the Gulf and the stability of global energy markets.
About The Author
