The new Iranian operation against an American early warning radar in Bahrain comes to remind Washington of a reality it struggles to admit: the military power of the United States in the Persian Gulf is not invulnerable, and Iran still possesses capabilities to threaten critical infrastructure of the American defense apparatus.
On November 13, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) announced that its Aerospace Force struck and destroyed an American radar installation in Bahrain, in retaliation for the airstrike against a telecommunications tower in the city of Sirik, in southern Iran's Hormozgan province, on November 12.
The Iranian side presented the operation as a clear warning to the United States that any new attack against Iranian territory could trigger a response without geographic limitations.
US Central Command (CENTCOM), however, disputed the destruction of the radar, claiming it intercepted two Iranian attack drones without any damage occurring.
Regardless of the final damage assessment, the choice of target reveals Tehran's strategic logic.
Iran is not merely seeking to respond to an isolated strike.
It is attempting to hit the exact systems upon which US ability to monitor airspace and protect its military installations depends.
War against the "eyes" of American air defense
The attack in Bahrain is a continuation of a broader Iranian strategy developed following the launch of the US-Israeli strikes on February 28, 2026.
Rather than limiting itself to symbolic retaliation, Tehran chose to target the technological heart of the American military presence in the Middle East: early warning radars, communications facilities, air bases, and infrastructure supporting missile defense.
Of particular significance were the attacks against AN/FPS-132 systems in Qatar and AN/TPY-2 systems in Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia.
According to investigations by Anadolu and ABC News, satellite imagery recorded strikes on multiple radar facilities, with the estimated value of affected systems and communications terminals running into billions of dollars.
However, the operational significance of the attacks transcends the financial value of the equipment.
An advanced missile defense system does not rely solely on its interceptor missiles.
It requires detection intelligence, early warning, target tracking, and reliable communication between sensors and command systems.
When a radar is knocked offline, even temporarily, the problem is not limited to the loss of a single machine.
The entire detection and interception chain is affected.
This is precisely what the Iranian strategy seeks: to curtail the adversary's technological advantage and drive up the cost of every new military operation.
The ability of the United States to utilize alternative sensors, warships, and interconnected air defense systems does not vanish.
Yet the loss of critical nodes can degrade the network's effectiveness and create dangerous operational gaps.
From Qatar to Kuwait: The cost of the Iranian response
The attrition of American infrastructure is not confined to radars.
Over the course of the war, Iranian missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles struck military facilities across several Persian Gulf states, causing damage to aircraft hangars, refueling installations, communications systems, and support buildings.
A recent investigation by the Associated Press, based on satellite material and regional sources, documented more than 115 strikes by Iranian or pro-Iranian forces against 26 American military bases and installations through August.
Kuwait ranks among the areas that suffered particularly extensive damage, while significant strikes were also recorded at installations in other countries.
This picture challenges the perception that the United States can conduct sustained operations against Iran without severe cost to its own military network.
For Tehran, imposing this cost constitutes a core deterrent tool.
Iran does not need to achieve absolute military superiority over the US to influence Washington's decisions.
It suffices to prove that continuing the conflict entails losses, financial strain, and growing insecurity for American bases and their regional allies.
Viewed through this lens, the new episode in Bahrain takes on special weight.
The Iranian leadership seeks to demonstrate that the period of relative de-escalation does not equate to accepting American military pressure.
Vance's sidelining and the political crisis in Washington
At the exact same time that Iran continues to challenge the American military presence, the administration of Donald Trump faces serious internal contradictions over its handling of the war.
The American president's decision to effectively sideline Vice President JD Vance from negotiation efforts with Tehran cannot be detached from the political cost of the conflict.
According to Axios, Vance had taken an active role in indirect contacts with Iran, maintaining almost daily communication with Qatar's Prime Minister, Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, Pakistani military leader Asim Munir, and other regional mediators.
Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner also participated in the efforts, with the primary goal of resuming talks and achieving a ceasefire.
However, the heavy Republican defeat in the November 3 midterm elections dramatically altered the political landscape.
Vance himself publicly acknowledged that the war with Iran was a decisive factor in the electoral failure, linking the conflict to economic repercussions and the loss of political support.
A few days later, Trump assigned him to focus on corruption and crime cases in states and cities governed by Democrats, declaring at the same time that the United States no longer needs an agreement with Iran.
This development reflects a deeper strategic contradiction.
On the one hand, Washington seeks to project itself as the power dictating its terms.
On the other, prolonging the war generates mounting political and economic costs, while military pressure has failed to secure Tehran's retreat.
The Strait of Hormuz and the struggle for control of the region
At the center of the confrontation lies the Strait of Hormuz, one of the planet's most vital energy arteries.
Trump reiterates that the United States has imposed control over the strategic maritime passage.
Reality, however, is more complex.
The American naval presence and the blockade of Iranian ports coexist with Tehran's ability to threaten shipping and shape security conditions in the region.
Competing claims of total control fail to capture this fluid balance.
The seven-point Iranian proposal, presented by Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf through Qatar, includes among other things ending the American naval blockade, lifting sanctions, releasing frozen Iranian funds, and formally ending the war.
Washington rejects meeting these demands without prior commitments regarding the Iranian nuclear program.
Tehran, conversely, insists there can be no meaningful diplomatic process under the constant threat of new American bombings.
This is a clash of two different mindsets: the American government seeks concessions through military and economic pressure, whereas Iran demands guarantees and recognition of its own security interests.
Tehran's message: Deterrence remains formidable
The strike announced by the Revolutionary Guards in Bahrain therefore acquires significance far greater than that of an isolated military incident.
Tehran is attempting to link its military response to diplomatic negotiation, demonstrating that it still possesses levers of pressure despite months of American strikes and economic blockade.
Trump's new threats of potential strikes do not alter the fact that Washington's strategy remains without a clear political exit.
The US government stands between three options: an agreement with Tehran, continuing economic strangulation, or resuming large-scale military operations.
None of these offers a guaranteed outcome.
The core message Iran seeks to send is that the security of American installations in the Persian Gulf cannot be taken for granted so long as military confrontation continues.
The destruction of the radar in Bahrain constitutes yet another significant blow to the American early warning network.
Targeting such installations highlights Iran's ongoing effort to shift the cost of war onto its adversary.
More than eight months after the strikes began, Tehran has not been forced to accept Washington's terms.
And this represents the central strategic problem for Donald Trump: the ability to strike Iran does not equate to the ability to subjugate it politically.
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών