Iran appears to have adopted a markedly different military posture in its confrontation with the United States and Israel, shifting from gradual escalation to a strategy designed to create widespread instability across the Gulf region and global markets, according to an international security specialist.
Speaking to Al Jazeera, Rob Geist Pinfold, a lecturer in international security at King’s College London, said Tehran’s recent missile launches indicate a deliberate effort to disrupt regional stability rather than narrowly target military facilities.
Responding to claims by Iranian authorities that their ballistic missile attacks were directed primarily at United States installations in the Gulf, Pinfold suggested the evidence points to a broader target set.
"I I think the claim that they are targeting US assets has to be taken with far more than a pinch of salt."
He noted that the range of sites affected suggests that the attacks extend beyond military objectives.
"Iran's targets are not just US bases. They are in fact primarily large-scale infrastructure and civilian targets as well."
According to him, this approach reflects a calculated decision rather than accidental targeting.
"This is not a mistake. This is by design."
Pinfold explained that Iran’s current tactics represent a departure from what analysts have traditionally described as the country’s doctrine of “strategic patience”, a method characterised by measured escalation and long-term endurance in conflicts.
"Normally uh they go with an approach they call strategic patience. Slow steady escalation uh in the belief that they can basically outlast Israel in a conflict uh and they're more resilient than Israel."
Instead, he said, Iranian authorities appear to be attempting to generate widespread disruption across the region in order to increase political and economic pressure on Washington and its allies.
"What they're doing now is trying to unleash as much chaos as possible to destabilize the region and global markets, hurt the economy, uh hurt the GCC states in order that um the US will at some point decide that this conflict is no longer worth its while anymore and will push for a ceasefire."
He added that Tehran’s strategy suggests a willingness to risk deteriorating relations with Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states if doing so advances its broader objectives.
"We've seen that Iran is targeting every single GCC state. It's prepared to burn its bridges with all of them to pursue this uh very uncertain and high-risisk strategy."
According to Pinfold, the intensity of the campaign reflects the perception within Iran’s leadership that the conflict has reached a critical stage.
"It really shows you how Iran feels like it's facing an existential threat for them. This is a real do or die moment."
He also warned that the current phase of the conflict could persist for an extended period because sustaining instability does not necessarily require large volumes of advanced weaponry.
"It's very easy to destabilize and cause chaos. Uh all you have to do is keep firing missiles and keep firing drones and that's exactly what Iran is doing."
While some analysts have speculated that Iranian missile stockpiles may eventually decline due to continued strikes by Israeli and United States forces, Pinfold said Tehran retains other tools capable of sustaining the disruption.
"Even if it runs out of ballistic missiles, it can still employ Shahed drones for example which don't require a specialist uh launch platform of any kind and can be made in a in a warehouse."
He argued that the only realistic path to ending the conflict would involve a political agreement involving Iran’s leadership, though the form such a settlement might take remains uncertain.
"So what you need here to end this conflict and end this uh instability is an agreement between ah a some kind of a regime in Iran, a regime in Iran, not necessarily this regime, but someone."
This expectation, he suggested, helps explain why Gulf states have largely refrained from direct participation in the conflict.
"And this is exactly why the GCC states are not jumping into this fight. They know that this needs to end with a deal for them."
Even when missile or drone attacks are intercepted, he said the continued launches still create economic and political turbulence that undermines regional recovery.
"Even one drone or one missile is enough to keep markets unstable and volatile to stop the GCC states from recovering."
Beyond direct military operations, Pinfold also raised the possibility that Iran could expand its strategy by supporting covert activities or destabilising actions abroad.
"That's entirely plausible and possible."
He referred to reports of alleged Iranian-linked activity in several countries.
"We know uh we've heard uh that an IRGC cell was arrested in the UK recently."
He also noted incidents involving suspected support networks elsewhere.
"There's been uh Iranian um people arrested in Bahrain, for example, for showing support for the attacks uh by Iran."
Such activities, he said, could form part of a broader effort to widen the conflict’s impact without relying solely on missile strikes.
"That's another potential um route for Iran's strategy of instability and chaos."
Pinfold maintained that the country’s existing weapons stockpiles are already sufficient to sustain its disruption strategy.
"Iran can and has enough missiles to keep causing chaos."
He added that even limited attacks can have disproportionate economic consequences.
"Even one drone or one missile is enough to keep markets unstable and volatile."
Looking at the broader strategic landscape, Pinfold said differing objectives among the United States, Israel and Gulf states could influence the direction of the conflict as it continues.
He noted that discussions about possible “regime change” in Iran remain ambiguous.
"Regime change can mean a lot of things, right?"
According to him, the term could refer either to a complete collapse of the existing political structure or to a leadership transition within the current system.
"When we're saying regime change, are we talking about regime collapse, destroying the Iranian regime, or are we talking about um reshuffling the decks at the top, having a new leader in power?"
He suggested Gulf states would prefer a leadership adjustment rather than the breakdown of the Iranian state.
"The GCC states would much rather a regime reshuffling."
By contrast, Israel may be more open to outcomes that involve prolonged instability.
"The Israelis uh seem much more comfortable with uh regime collapse and even the possibility of indefinite chaos."
According to Pinfold, these differing priorities could eventually produce tensions between Washington and Tel Aviv.
"As the war goes on, you're going to start to see a divergence between the US and Israel."