Iran threatens to strike oil and AI facilities across Gulf if US and Israel renew attacks

Iran is threatening to attack infrastructure that supports energy, communications and computing. Mohsen Rezaei said the trigger would be a fresh US-Israeli attack on Iran. Fars also reported that Iran could target political sites if a new war involved assassinations or civilian deaths.

The threatened sites include oil facilities, ports, refineries, power grids, desalination plants, undersea cables, data centres and artificial-intelligence facilities. Iranian officials frame these systems as part of the economic structure supporting attacks. Mehdi Mohammadi said Iran’s strategy had “zero red lines” and that the conflict could become longer and geographically wider than expected.

The threat remains part of escalating warnings, not a confirmed campaign. US military advisers reportedly prepared target lists, while American and Israeli forces conducted joint exercises. The article says any renewed fighting could spread across the Gulf, disrupt essential services and make diplomatic efforts harder.

The Strait of Hormuz is the maritime gateway between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman, leading toward the Arabian Sea. It is important because major oil shipments from Gulf producers must pass through or near this narrow route. Any danger or closure can delay tankers and unsettle energy markets.

The article describes ships navigating the strait while transferring oil from ship to ship. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps claimed four commercial ships were struck and three more hit mines, although there was no independent verification. Brent crude reached $113.4 a barrel as reports of renewed conflict circulated.

The strait’s importance comes from concentration. A single disruption can affect many cargoes at once. The article says Iran’s Reza Nasri predicted that Hormuz would close completely in a wider war. That would raise pressure on buyers, shippers and governments far beyond the Gulf.

The article identifies up to seven Gulf countries as potentially affected by Iranian operations after a fresh US-Israeli attack. The threat is not limited to military bases. It includes systems that keep economies, cities and regional trade functioning.

Possible targets include oil facilities, refineries, ports, power grids, desalination plants, undersea cables, data centres and artificial-intelligence facilities. Reza Nasri also warned that power grids, desalination plants, refineries and ports across the region could burn. Rezaei separately mentioned cables, data centres and AI facilities.

The scale remains a threat, not a verified list of attacks. The article reports disputed claims that ships were struck in Hormuz and describes a fire at an aluminium factory as possible sabotage. If the wider plan were carried out, damage could cross borders quickly, affecting energy supplies, water production, electricity and digital services.

The article presents a chain reaction: fighting damages energy infrastructure, Hormuz closes, oil shipments are disrupted, and prices surge. Reza Nasri warned that oil would spike and the global economy could tip into recession. Brent crude was already trading at $113.4 a barrel amid renewed-war reports.

The effects would extend beyond fuel. Nasri said power grids and desalination plants could burn, leaving tens of millions without electricity or water. Ports and refineries could also be damaged. A closed strait would interrupt shipping and make it harder to move oil and other goods through the region.

These are warnings about a possible wider conflict, not confirmed outcomes. The article also predicts refugees moving from Arab countries toward Europe and says Israel’s economy could struggle in a prolonged war. Higher energy costs, shortages and disrupted trade would transmit the shock worldwide.

Iran’s argument is that economic infrastructure is not separate from warfare. Oil facilities finance and sustain regional activity, while cables, data centres and AI facilities support communications, planning and modern military systems. Rezaei said Iran would not accept its economic lifelines being attacked while the architecture enabling those attacks remained immune.

This explains the breadth of the threat. Iranian officials mentioned oil installations alongside undersea cables, data centres and artificial-intelligence facilities. Fars reported that a future response could include political targets, not only military ones, if Iranian officials were assassinated or civilians killed.

The article presents this as Iran’s stated strategy, not an independently verified legal or operational assessment. Mohammadi called it “zero red lines” and said the war could continue across a wider area. Such thinking would make civilian economic systems part of the conflict and increase the risks to regional stability.

The supplied article does not identify specific alternative routes, reserves or technologies. In general, countries and companies can reduce exposure through pipelines that bypass a chokepoint, oil stored in emergency reserves, alternative export terminals, fuel switching and lower demand. These measures can buy time during a disruption.

Their effectiveness depends on spare capacity and the type of shipment. Pipelines cannot carry every crude grade or reach every customer. Reserves release physical oil but do not automatically solve tanker, insurance or port problems. Renewable power, efficiency and electric transport can reduce oil demand over time, but they cannot quickly replace all disrupted shipments.

The article’s immediate picture is severe: Nasri predicts a complete Hormuz closure and an oil spike. Therefore, alternatives might reduce the shock rather than eliminate it. The actual impact would depend on how long the closure lasted, the damage elsewhere and whether governments coordinated responses.

A regional conflict can become a global economic shock when it threatens systems used by many countries. Oil is traded internationally, ships connect distant markets, and digital communications rely on undersea cables. A threat to one concentrated route can therefore affect prices and business decisions far away.

Hormuz shows the mechanism. If fighting closed the strait, tankers would face delays or rerouting, while insurers could raise premiums because vessels became riskier to cover. Fewer available shipments could lift oil prices. Damage to cables or data centres could disrupt financial transactions, logistics and communications at the same time.

The article links these risks directly to a possible wider war. It says Hormuz could close, oil could spike, refugees could move toward Europe and the global economy could enter recession. Those outcomes are warnings, not certainties, but they show how regional infrastructure can transmit worldwide damage.