The most compelling hypothesis I've heard for why Iran is bombing GC neighbors is in an attempt to pop the AI bubble. I obviously don't know if that's true, but that would be extremely clever and this article shows how effective it could be.
The truth is nobody is really fully in charge, there are competing interests everywhere, Trump is making the decisions but even he changes his mind very frequently and objectives are not clear.
It's really hard to understand intentions when decisions have to be made in a reactive manner as well.
Rubio indicated 'we had to attack, because Israel was going to go first, and we were going to lose the element of surprise'. While that is an absurd and crazy reason to 'go to war' - it's actually a very rational tactic for 'when to start' as 'first mover advantage' is enormous in conflict. You can see how 'the most powerful entity on earth' is moved by events beyond it's control.
It's almost better to describe these situations in terms of all of the factions capabilities, influence, power, motivations than it is to say 'this is why it's happening'.
Once conflicts start, they have a way of perpetuating themselves in a 'circularly reactive' way, it fuels itself as both sides have difficulty standing down.
Some discussion on reddit about him: https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/comments/1rnnq6p/though...
https://youtu.be/o2Nq--qU9Kc?si=DDs_73ZrEPs5UGK9&t=3684
No credentials whatsoever - IIRC a Bachelor's degree in English, but definitely not a professorship.
They are Iran's regional enemies, that the US is effectively defending them from.
Spooking the their leaders + population puts a huge amount of pressure on Trump.
Iran has been successful in hitting Patriot and THAAD radars, those are massively expensive, years to replace.
If those go down, then Iran can 'terrorize' the region at will including keeping Hormuz closed.
Most of the Oil goes to China + India, and China is a supporter of Iran, so funny enough, they may be the one's to lean on Iran to open up.
At the same time China does not want to see Iran fall Venezuela style - it would put the US foot on the neck of China as they import most of their fuel.
Nobody is talking about the 'China' angle, but they have been preparing for war in Taiwan, and securing energy access with Iran - even hosting peace talks between Gulf states and Iran (huge move, USA not present) is key to that.
This is absolutely part of the 'Great Game' strategy, to take Iran Oil + relationship off the table for China. Not likely to happen.
The AI bubble is probably not a primary objective.
of course things can change and I've been wrong. That is my best guess though.
Xi just faced a mutiny and had to put top generals away.
Key people in China military oppose the plans.
Even as they near readiness with some things, others remain far behind, and untested.
It's an extremely risky move and they don't take those kinds of risks.
Island landing 100 km away = Chinese D-Day means absolutely enormous casualties, and no guarantees of success.
If they lose that fight, CPP will be overthrown, that sounds dramatic, but those are the stakes at that level esp. with casualties.
The #1 objective is to infiltrate and take it without a fight, and/or cause pain and get citiznes to take the 'easy pill' and Taiwan slowly comes into China fold without ever any incident at all.
Barring that a blockade would be the thing, and then only usa could even hope to run it, it would be a sight to see, and very hard for us to do as China has long range weapons now and many things specifically designed to keep USN away from 1st island chain, means they can strangle Taiwan into submission with no invasion.
But if that happens, USN closes gulf and Malaca straigths, probably goes into S. China Sea. Very bad. China needs food and fuel to import.
It's very complex and China is not a monolith, many actors, it's authoritarian yet citizens are not dummies, they protest all the time we just don't hear about it.
Probably the chances are most acute 2029-early 2030s. This is from former Australian PM Kevin Rudd how is Western World's #1 non-Chinese China expert.
Xi is playing against bad headwinds though and the direct opportunity may not resent itself.
If they 'thought like us' and were a bit more decisive and risky, yes, 'now' would be a grand time to do it, wouldn't it? But no.
Xi will be probably burned at the stake. CPP will most likely proceed with new leader.
China has huge leverage with Iran.
The issue is one of risk - the mere existence of hostilities means nobody can get insurance.
All Iran had to do was say 'it's shut down' - and insurance prices go through the roof.
No more oil.
The business math goes nuts.
I don't understand how that makes sense
> China has huge leverage with Iran.
Which is why it could negotiate safe passage for itself
Overall I don't get your point
The only entity interested in attacking the tankers is Iran.
Yeah, as it was written, it makes no sense.
I'm responding to someone indicating that 'China' would be involved in attacking tankers.
Huh?!? ADIA, Mubadala, and the PIF are significant players but not that significant.
The Gulf States and Iran have had bad blood for generations.
There's a reason why car bombings in Al Ahvaz and Sistan-ve-Balochistan were and are respectively a constant occurrence - Khuzestani Arabs and especially Baloch from Makran are overrepresented in defense and policy roles in Gulf states like Kuwait, Qatar, UAE (especially Abu Dhabi), and Oman.
And Iran and the Gulf States (and before that the British Empire) constantly fought each other over delineating the Arabian/Persian Gulf. It was a major reason the Gulf turned to the US when facing both Iraq and Iran in the 1970s-80s.
I'm dismayed how conspiracy pilled HN has become.
I explicitly didn't say the idea of them attempting to preempt an AI bubble pop is the reason. I explicitly said I don't know if its true.
Yes, there is a long history of bad blood between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. Yes the region is a powderkeg. No, trying to understand the motivations today isn't immediately a conspiracy theory.
Ah.
Well in that case, the answer is "no, AI is not the reason".
> how would you propose one tries to understand Iran's current motivations with regards to attacking gulf neighbors
1. The Gulf States host Western (not just American) bases so from a tactical perspective it would be dumb not to strike Gulf States.
2. The Gulf States and the Islamic Republic have had decades of bad blood, from the Syrian, Libyan, Yemeni, and Sudanese Civil War to inciting a Shia insurgency in Eastern Saudi and Bahrain to the repression of Sunnis in Iran to disputes over NatGas extraction to attempts by the Iranian government to overthrow Gulf governments.
3. The Gulf States backed Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War which lasted from 1980 to 1988 and a war which all of Iran's leadership are veterans of. Iran openly fielded child soldiers towards the end of the war, many of whom ended up becoming leadership - while most HNers (who based on references I've seen seem to have been more in the late 70s/early 80s) were playing NESes or watching Hanna Barbera reruns, a large number of your age cohort in Iran were choking on Sarin Gas or sent in human waves against the Iraqi Army, and those survivors are who are the older members and leaders of the IRGC, Basij, and Iran today.
4. The KSA lobbied to strike Iran [2] along with Israel.
A Gulf-Iran War was a question of "when" not "if". Plenty of Gulf nationals fought against IRGC trained or actual personnel in Syria, Libya, and Yemen, and the animosity against Iran and Iranian proxies is deep in the Gulf. Similarly, the animosity against Arabs and Sunni Arab States is deep as well.
Heck, this is how Iran and Iranian proxies are depicted in young adult cartoons in Saudi Arabia [0][1] - as terrorists and a depressive death cult obsessed with martyrdom, Ali, and Huseyn.
[0] - https://youtu.be/ifwtsnQxmto?si=GS21LjeMXiSC-4me&t=767
[1] - https://youtu.be/_SHYKBD8w8Q?si=EOa-y8UL2FDf6yeR&t=1905
[2] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/02/28/trump-ira...