Dr. Amer Al Sabaileh

The shift towards targeting Iran’s vital infrastructure cannot be read as random escalation, but as a natural outcome of a stalled negotiation track and the failure of traditional pressure tools to alter Iranian behaviour. What we are witnessing is a transition — from managing conflict to imposing a new internal reality, one built on dismantling the state from within.

This process does not unfold all at once. It advances through a calculated sequence: Beginning with strikes on military infrastructure, weapons depots and missile systems, then expanding to defence industries, while simultaneously targeting minds — through assassinations and eliminations aimed at research centres, decision-making circles, and strategic brains. The objective is not temporary disruption, but the long-term neutralisation of Iran’s capabilities.

In this context, the goal is not merely weakening Iran but dismantling its entire military production ecosystem, from infrastructure to human capital. Targeting sectors such as steel, aluminum and chemical industries becomes part of a deeper war, one designed to sever the supply chains of military production and strip the system of its ability to regenerate or adapt through unconventional means.

However, reaching the stage of targeting critical infrastructure, it signals something more profound. It reflects the failure to change behaviour and the shift towards imposing internal pressure. This explains the statement by US President Donald Trump following the strike on Kharg Island, where he noted that the attack hit military facilities but spared oil infrastructure “that may be needed later”. This reveals a deliberate methodology: Gradual stripping military, then industrial, then economicbefore applying direct pressure on the internal front.

Within this framework, targeting vital infrastructuresuch as bridges and key transit routes, particularly between Karaj and Tehran, signals the onset of a “fragmentation phase”. The objective is not just destruction, but isolation, cutting off regions, disrupting military mobility, and degrading the system’s ability to manoeuvre or conceal, thereby creating a fragmented operational landscape vulnerable to targeted incursions. This pattern reflects an attempt to redraw Iran’s internal operational map, breaking connectivity networks and transforming geography into isolated pockets that can be dealt with individually.

In parallel, another strategic objective is unfolding, stripping Iran of its most critical leverage, foremost among them the Strait of Hormuz. US statements suggesting the strait “does not serve American interests”, alongside references to surplus oil capacity, indicate a clear attempt to neutralise energy as a weapon in Tehran’s hands and to limit its influence over global markets and supply chains.

At the same time, shifts within the US military establishment, including the removal of senior leadership, should not be viewed as routine, but as a recalibration of decision-making, sidelining more cautious factions that may have slowed operational momentum. This opens the door to a more sensitive phase. With Trump speaking of “decisive weeks”, the coming period may witness the use of more assertive tools including limited ground operations, special forces deployments, decisive strikes, or even the activation of internal dynamics to reshape zones of influence.

Field indicators ranging from low-altitude aerial operations to incidents involving downed pilots, suggest that certain areas are already being prepared for isolation and operational clearing, making them more susceptible to direct military intervention.

Yet, this escalation remains bound by a clear ceiling: avoiding total chaos. Neither the United States nor Iran’s adversaries, or even its allies, seek the collapse of a state of this magnitude. Thus, pressure is applied gradually, with the aim of subduing the system rather than toppling it outright.

Still, targeting critical infrastructure, especially energy, could push the conflict towards a more dangerous edge. Disabling power systems, for instance, may not require physical destruction, but rather non-kinetic tools such as electromagnetic disruption, capable of paralysing functionality without widespread devastation.

Ultimately, Iran is not being targeted for immediate collapse, but for forced transformationthrough sustained internal pressure that dismantles capabilities, fragments geography, and weakens cohesion. At that point, the question will no longer be how the war is fought, but what kind of system will remain in Tehran to end it.