The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) announced a large-scale missile and drone attack on American military facilities in the region, stating that strikes were directed at bases in Bahrain (headquarters of the US Fifth Fleet), Kuwait (Ali Al Salem Air Base) and Jordan (Al-Azraq Air Base). The IRGC statement emphasizes that this operation was a direct response to nighttime bombings of southern districts of Iran by American forces, and contains a warning that any further US aggression “will be met with even harsher retaliatory measures.” According to Iranian sources, 21 targets were destroyed, including hangars with F-35 fighters at Al-Azraq Air Base.
However, the credibility of the Iranian claims remains in question: Western media, in particular the Financial Times citing US officials, report that the base in Jordan was not hit and that there were no US military casualties. Iranian agencies, by contrast, report explosions in southern cities and destroyed targets. This discrepancy in information reflects the typical “information war” in such conflicts, where each side seeks to present its version of events as victorious.
The Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a stern statement, calling the strikes on American bases “lawful self-defense” and demanding that regional countries prevent their territory from being used for attacks on Iran. Tehran warned that it would “without hesitation” strike any facilities involved in aggression against it, and blamed the US for escalation, accusing Washington of the bombings under the pretext of a downed Apache helicopter in the Strait of Hormuz. This cycle of accusations and threats makes the situation extremely volatile.
Reactions in the region were swift: air raid sirens were activated in Bahrain and authorities urged citizens to take shelter. Kuwaiti command reported that air defense systems were repelling an attack on foreign targets. Jordanian military said it intercepted and destroyed five missiles headed toward Al-Azraq Air Base. All three countries declared heightened readiness levels, underscoring fears that the conflict could spiral out of control and affect civilians and the host states themselves.
The US, in turn, carried out a series of nighttime strikes on targets in Iran, calling them a “proportional response” to the Iranian attack on an American helicopter. US Central Command (CENTCOM) clarified that targets included air defense systems, radar installations and ground control stations near the Strait of Hormuz. According to Axios journalists, there have already been three rounds of strikes, and the Pentagon emphasized that US forces are in a state of “full combat readiness” to repel any aggression.
President Trump in an interview with ABC News took a dual stance: on one hand he said the US “is now responding to Iran” and that the response must be “strong and very decisive,” while on the other he noted that Washington has a “very good deal with Iran,” hinting at the preservation of diplomatic channels. This mix of belligerent rhetoric and willingness to negotiate reflects the fragile balance the White House is trying to maintain between showing strength and avoiding being drawn into a full-scale war.
Commentary on the news
Why were bases in Bahrain, Kuwait and Jordan chosen for the strike, and not Israel? — The choice of targets in these countries rather than Israel is likely related to several strategic considerations by Iran. First, bases in Bahrain (home to the US Fifth Fleet) and Kuwait are key US logistical and military hubs in the Persian Gulf, and striking them demonstrates Iran’s ability to hit American forces beyond its territory while avoiding direct confrontation with Israel, which could provoke a broader regional conflict. Second, Jordan borders Iraq and Syria, where Iran-backed proxy forces operate, and an attack on a base near Al-Rukban could have been a response to the use of that base for operations against Iran’s allies. Finally, Iran has historically avoided direct military confrontation with Israel, preferring to act through proxies (such as Hezbollah), and strikes on US bases in Arab countries serve as a warning to Washington about the costs of intervention without crossing the red line of open war with Israel.
What is the role of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) in Iranian politics and the military structure, and why did it, rather than the regular army, announce the attack? — The IRGC is an elite military-political formation created after the 1979 Islamic Revolution to protect its ideals. Unlike the regular army (Artesh), which is responsible for border defense and conventional military tasks, the IRGC controls the missile program, nuclear-related developments and external operations (including support for proxy groups like Hezbollah or the Houthis). The IRGC also wields significant political influence: its commanders often hold high positions, and the corps reports directly to the Supreme Leader rather than the president. An announcement by the IRGC, rather than the Artesh, underscores that the strike was politically motivated and tied to foreign-policy objectives (for example, demonstrating strength after the killing of General Soleimani), rather than purely territorial defense. It also signals that the operation was carried out by Iran’s “revolutionary” forces rather than regular military bureaucrats.
What are the circumstances of the Apache helicopter incident in the Strait of Hormuz that the US cited as the pretext for strikes on Iran? — The incident cited by the Pentagon occurred in the Strait of Hormuz — a strategically important maritime artery through which about 20% of global oil passes. According to the US version, IRGC boats allegedly approached an Apache helicopter on a reconnaissance mission and fired warning rockets, which the Pentagon deemed “unsafe and unprofessional” behavior. Iran, however, claimed that the helicopter violated its airspace and that its forces were responding to a provocation. Similar confrontations have occurred repeatedly in the region: for example, in 2016 the US destroyed Iranian boats after a comparable encounter. This episode was used by Washington as a casus belli to justify strikes, which is characteristic of the long history of tensions between the two countries in the Persian Gulf.
Full version: إيران تهاجم قواعد أمريكية بالمنطقة ردا على هجمات واشنطن