E-Paper
Sign In
Sun, Nov 16, 2025 | Jumada al-Awwal 25, 1447 | Fajr 05:16 | DXB 
25.3°C
iPhone | iPad
Android
Why did Iran tell the US where it was about to attack?
Inside the calculated ambiguity of Tehran’s strike on US base in Qatar
In a region already on edge from the conflict between Israel and Iran, Tehran’s missile strike on Al-Udeid airbase — the largest American military installation in the Middle East — was not a spontaneous act of war.
It was, according to Dr Kristian Patrick Alexander, lead researcher at Rabdan Academy in Abu Dhabi: “A calculated signal, not an errant or impulsive act.”
Recommended For You
In an interview with KT LUXE, he said: “Iran’s targeting of the US base in Qatar appears to be both symbolic and strategic, rather than a miscalculation.”
Stay up to date with the latest news. Follow KT on WhatsApp Channels.
Iran launched over a dozen missiles at the headquarters of the US Central Command in Qatar on June 23, in retaliation for American airstrikes a day earlier targeting Iranian nuclear facilities in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan.
What unfolded was not just a military operation, but a form of geopolitical theatre. The real drama wasn’t just the attack, it was how Iran made sure its message landed, and how it seemingly ensured that no lives were lost. “Targeting US assets serves both as a warning and a way to raise the costs of continued US involvement in Israel’s military operations. At the same time, by confining these attacks to specific military targets, Iran is attempting to control escalation and avoid triggering a broader regional war. Tehran did not strike Qatari infrastructure or personnel, which suggests it still values its relationship with Doha. Nonetheless, Iran is seemingly reminding Qatar that neutrality or mediation roles will not shield it from the spillover effects of conflict.”
However, Alexander highlighted the more aggressive approach carries high risks. “Direct attacks on US forces or assets in countries like Qatar, Bahrain, or the UAE could severely damage Iran’s fragile bilateral ties with Gulf states, many of whom have sought to normalise or at least stabilise relations with Tehran in recent years.”
Iran’s actions are also influenced by a significant geopolitical backdrop. Facing mounting economic sanctions, internal unrest, and growing diplomatic isolation, the country is navigating increasingly tight strategic constraints.
“The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which wields significant influence over Iran’s regional policy, may now favour a more assertive posture to deter adversaries and reinforce internal unity.”
A warning shot, not a declaration of war
Dr Alexander emphasised that what makes this attack particularly noteworthy is how it was carried out. Multiple regional sources reported that the base was partially evacuated prior to the strike and that Qatari airspace was temporarily shut down — signs that Iran may have telegraphed its move through backchannels.
However, this sort of move isn’t unprecedented. Tehran employed a similar playbook in 2020, following the US assassination of Qasem Soleimani, who served as the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)’s Quds Force. Back then, missiles struck American targets in Iraq after warnings had been delivered, resulting in no fatalities.
“By confining these attacks to specific military targets,” said Dr Alexander, “Iran is attempting to control escalation and avoid triggering a broader regional war.”
The battlefield expands — and shrinks
Qatar, a Gulf state that has long walked a tightrope between Iran and the US, is not a random choice, the expert noted. Tehran’s strike, Alexander argues, was “meant to underscore that no US footprint in the region is immune to retaliation”.
The precision of the attack and the deliberate avoidance of Qatari personnel or infrastructure signalled restraint.
“Iran likely sought to avoid alienating Qatar entirely,” said Dr Alexander, “while still signalling that diplomatic cordiality will not shield US assets if red lines are crossed.”
By sparing Qatari interests and limiting the strike to a symbolic US target, Iran kept its message sharp and the damage contained “both militarily and diplomatically”.
“Iran thrives on strategic unpredictability,” added Alexander. “It unsettles adversaries, sows doubt about Tehran’s next move, and introduces complexity into the US and Israeli strategic planning.”
He stressed that this unpredictability isn’t chaos — it’s policy. Iran’s actions, though bold, are often choreographed to exact political impact while avoiding full-blown war. Even in messaging, Tehran appears acutely aware of the optics. Hints that the US may have received some form of advance notice and allowed Iran to cast itself not as a reckless actor, but as one guided by logic and self-restraint.
The Trump tweet and the optics of peace
Just as the region was still assessing the fallout, the US president publicly congratulated both Iran and Israel on reaching a ceasefire — one that probably hadn’t actually materialised. The post to many seemed confusing, premature, and deeply telling.
Many were left wondering if it was political posturing, wishful thinking, or based on private assurances from backchannels. Dr Alexander suggested it may have been all three. “Trump’s comment may have been based on genuine, albeit premature, indications of de-escalation,” he said.
Either way, it reinforced a growing reality in modern warfare where narratives can be like weapons.
He underscored the announcement of peace, real or not, can shape markets, disarm military reactions, and sway public opinion faster than facts on the ground.
“In modern conflicts, misinformation and pre-emptive political storytelling are not side-effects. They are tools of strategy. From battlefield messaging to high-level diplomacy, the manipulation of perception plays a central role in shaping both the pace and the outcome of confrontation. Narratives shape reality in geopolitics. By declaring a ceasefire that hadn’t yet been formalised, Trump may have been attempting to set the tone for post-conflict diplomacy and cast himself (and by extension, the US) as a stabilising actor or peace broker,” said Dr Alexander.
The real goal: pressure without provocation
The expert spotlighted that narrative is also central to Iran’s regional strategy.
“By appearing to ‘warn’ the US in advance, Iran casts itself not as a reckless aggressor, but as a rational actor responding to provocation (such as Israeli strikes on Iranian soil or diplomats).”
It seeks to frame its actions as proportional and calculated, drawing a contrast with what it portrays as Israeli and Western overreach.
“This tactic also helps Tehran pre-empt global backlash, particularly from Europe or neutral states in the Global South, many of whom are concerned about further regional destabilisation. If Iranian strikes are seen as carefully calibrated and civilian-safe, Iran can protect its diplomatic relations and public image even amid conflict.”
In that context, Trump’s tweet becomes part of the performance, possibly encouraged by Tehran’s subtle cues to create an illusion of control and de-escalation.
“President Trump’s public congratulation of Israel and Iran for reaching a ceasefire — before one had clearly materialised, may reflect political posturing. Alternatively, it could stem from backchannel communications indicating that Iran had no interest in further escalation after its retaliatory strike. This opens the door to another possibility: Iran may have signalled an end to its retaliatory campaign in private, hoping to prevent a regional conflagration while saving face,” he added.
Nandini Sircar
Nandini Sircar has a penchant for education, space, and women's narratives. She views the world through a prism of learning: whether it's the earthly pursuit of wisdom or the unearthly mysteries of space. In her written universe, women and children take centre stage.
Don’t just scroll. Know it all. Sign up for your daily UAE news fix.
Get the top stories of the day right in your inbox.
