US Strikes Iranian Radar Sites as Kuwait Reports Missile and Drone Attacks

The US military struck Iranian radar and drone control installations in Goruk and on the island of Qeshm over the weekend, the latest exchange of fire in a war that began in late February and has resisted three months of ceasefire efforts. Hours later, Kuwait reported activating its air defenses against incoming missiles and drones — a grim echo of earlier Iranian strikes that have killed US troops on Kuwaiti soil and drawn one of Washington's closest Gulf partners deeper into the conflict [1][2].

The strikes and counter-strikes landed as US and Iranian negotiators remain locked in talks over a broader peace deal, with Vice President JD Vance saying it is "still TBD" whether President Trump will sign a tentative memorandum of understanding [3].

What the US Hit — and Why

US Central Command said Sunday that its fighter aircraft destroyed Iranian air defenses, a ground control station, and two one-way attack drones at sites in Goruk and on Qeshm Island, both in Iran's southern Hormozgan province [1]. CENTCOM described the operation as a response to Iran shooting down a US MQ-1 Predator drone operating over international waters and to "clear threats to ships transiting regional waters" [4].

Qeshm Island sits at the mouth of the Strait of Hormuz, making its radar and drone infrastructure central to Iran's ability to monitor — and threaten — maritime traffic through the world's most important oil chokepoint. Goruk, on the mainland coast, hosts additional surveillance and drone launch capabilities [1][4].

Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps responded Monday by saying its aerospace force had struck the source of what it called a US attack on a telecommunications tower on nearby Sirik Island. The IRGC warned that if US attacks continued, its response would be "completely different" and that Washington would bear responsibility for the consequences [1].

The exchange illustrates a pattern that has defined this conflict: both sides conduct strikes they label defensive, each escalation met with a proportional response that inches the war forward even as diplomats pursue a deal in parallel.

The Wider Damage: 228 Structures Across Six Countries

The weekend's strikes are the latest in a conflict that has inflicted far more damage on US military infrastructure than the Pentagon initially acknowledged. A Washington Post investigation, published May 6 and based on more than 100 high-resolution satellite images released by Iranian state-affiliated media and cross-checked with independent lower-resolution imagery, found damage to at least 228 structures or pieces of equipment at 15 US military sites across Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia [5].

The damaged structures include hangars, barracks, warehouses, fuel depots, aircraft, radar systems, communications installations, and air defense assets [5][6]. Kuwait bore the heaviest toll, with 95 structures damaged, followed by Bahrain with 42 and Qatar with 35 [5].

Source: Washington Post / Satellite Imagery Analysis

Data as of May 6, 2026CSV

Seven US service members have been killed in strikes on US facilities in the region since the war began — six in Kuwait and one in Saudi Arabia. More than 400 troops have been injured, most returning to duty within days, though at least 12 suffered serious injuries [5][6].

The deadliest single event was the March 1 drone strike on Camp Buehring in northeastern Kuwait, which killed six soldiers from the Army's 103rd Sustainment Command and wounded more than 60 others [7]. CBS News reported that survivors disputed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's characterization of the drone as a "squirter" — one that slipped through an otherwise intact defense. "Painting a picture that 'one squeaked through' is a falsehood," one injured soldier told CBS. Another said the unit "was unprepared to provide any defense for itself. It was not a fortified position" [7].

The tactical operation center hit at Camp Buehring was surrounded by T-walls — concrete barriers designed to shield against mortar and rocket blasts — but those barriers offered no protection against aerial attack, an architectural vulnerability dating to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan before the rise of drone warfare [7]. Soldiers also told CBS that the Army had not planned for a mass casualty event and had ignored requests for additional medical personnel before the strike began [8].

The scale of damage — 228 structures across six countries — dwarfs the physical footprint of most previous Iranian or proxy attacks on US forces in the region. For comparison, the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing killed 241 US service members but destroyed a single building. The current conflict has caused lower casualties relative to its geographic spread, in part because commanders reduced staffing at exposed bases early in the war [5][6].

Kuwait: From Safe Rear Area to Front Line

Kuwait had not been the site of a direct US-Iran confrontation since the Gulf War era. The country hosts approximately 13,500 US forces, primarily at Camp Arifjan — the main logistics, supply, and command hub for operations across the US Central Command area of responsibility — and Ali al-Salem Air Base [9][10].

The US-Kuwait Defense Cooperation Agreement of 1991 and a 2013 Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement underpin Washington's military presence. Under the DCA, the United States maintains forces and pre-positioned military equipment in Kuwait, including roughly 2,200 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles [9][10]. The agreement commits both parties to mutual defense consultation, though its precise trigger mechanisms in a scenario where a third-party state attacks US forces on Kuwaiti soil — as Iran has done repeatedly — remain a subject of legal interpretation.

The April 7 Iranian drone attack on Ali al-Salem Air Base, which injured 15 US service members, followed by the late May missile and drone barrage intercepted by Kuwaiti air defenses, has forced Kuwait into an uncomfortable position: a state that depends on its US security relationship now absorbing attacks because of that relationship [11][12].

Attribution: What Evidence Links Iran to the Strikes?

Unlike earlier proxy conflicts in the region, where the US sometimes struggled to establish direct links between attacks and Tehran, the current war involves Iranian state forces — the IRGC and its aerospace division — openly claiming responsibility for strikes on US bases. The IRGC has published videos and coordinates of its operations, and Iran's state media has released satellite imagery of damage to US facilities that the Washington Post verified as authentic [5][13].

This marks a departure from the ambiguity that surrounded, for example, the 2019 strikes on Saudi Aramco facilities at Abqaiq, which the Houthis initially claimed but which the US attributed to Iran — an attribution Iran denied [14]. In the current conflict, Iran is not hiding its hand. The IRGC's public statements after each round of strikes explicitly frame them as retaliation for US and Israeli attacks on Iranian territory [1][13].

The Legal Debate: War Powers Without a War Declaration

The US strikes on Iranian territory that began on February 28, 2026 — coordinated with Israel under Operation Epic Fury — were launched without prior congressional authorization [15]. The administration initially cited Article II commander-in-chief powers rather than the 2001 or 2002 Authorizations for Use of Military Force. In its notification to the UN, the administration invoked Article 51 self-defense, but its supporting evidence referenced incidents dating to 1979, 1983, and 1996, rather than an imminent armed attack by Iran against the United States [15][16].

Legal scholars have challenged both justifications. A JURIST commentary published in March argued that the administration "failed to point to any attack or threat of attack by Iran against the United States that is even remotely imminent," noting that decades-old grievances do not satisfy the legal standard of necessity under Article 51 [16]. Senator Tim Kaine, a persistent critic of executive war-making, said the administration was relying on Article II powers, not any existing AUMF. Senator Chris Murphy argued that because Iran never harbored al-Qaeda, the 2001 AUMF — which authorizes force against those responsible for the September 11 attacks — has no application [15].

On April 15, the Senate voted 52-47, largely along party lines, to block a resolution that would have required congressional approval for further strikes against Iran. Republican allies of the president maintained that he has constitutional authority as commander-in-chief [15][17]. Representative Tom Barrett has since introduced a new, narrower AUMF that would specifically authorize but also limit and eventually wind down the Iran conflict while restoring congressional war powers authority [17].

Mojtaba Khamenei's 'New Islamic Civilization' and the Axis of Resistance

The war has produced a leadership transition in Tehran. Ali Khamenei was killed during the February 28 US-Israeli strikes, and his son Mojtaba Khamenei was announced as the new supreme leader on March 9 [18][19].

On May 26, Mojtaba Khamenei broke his characteristic public silence with a post on X calling for a "New Islamic Civilization" and inviting "all Islamic countries and governments to friendship and cooperation in goodness" [13][20]. Analysts described this as a direct counter to President Trump's pitch for an expansion of the Abraham Accords, made hours earlier. The Times of Israel reported a separate statement attributed to Khamenei declaring that the only place for the US in the Persian Gulf "is at the bottom of its waters" [21].

The "New Islamic Civilization" framing represents an expansion beyond Iran's traditional Axis of Resistance — the network of Hezbollah, the Houthis, Iraqi Popular Mobilization Force militias, and (before the fall of Assad) Syrian government forces. That network suffered serious blows in 2024 and 2025: Hezbollah's war with Israel, Hamas's losses in Gaza, and the collapse of the Assad regime disrupted Iran's "forward defense" strategy [22][23].

But the current war has given Tehran new reasons and new leverage to rally partners. Western intelligence suggests Iran has resumed missile deliveries to Hezbollah via overland routes through Iraq and Syria [22]. The Soufan Center reported in April that Iran has tasked its Axis of Resistance partners to help thwart the US-Israeli assault, with Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Iraqi PMF militias all sharing Iran's ideology of "resistance" [22].

Whether Mojtaba Khamenei can convert rhetorical invitations to Gulf states into concrete military or financial commitments remains doubtful. Gulf capitals — particularly Riyadh, Doha, and Muscat — maintain back-channel contacts with the Iranian state, but these run through President Pezeshkian and Foreign Minister Araghchi rather than directly to the new supreme leader, whose "hidden nature complicates traditional diplomacy," according to analysts cited by Fox News [13]. And Gulf states that have been directly attacked by Iranian missiles and drones during this war are unlikely to join an Iranian-led alliance against the country that provides their security umbrella.

Gulf Backchannels: Hosting US Bases While Talking to Tehran

The paradox facing Gulf states has sharpened since February. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, the UAE, and Bahrain all host US military infrastructure that has been struck by Iranian forces. Yet several of these states maintain diplomatic channels with Tehran and have interests in a rapid de-escalation [13][24].

Oman has served as the primary intermediary for US-Iran negotiations since February, hosting the initial indirect talks that preceded the war [24]. Qatar has historically balanced its US basing relationship (Al Udeid Air Base hosts CENTCOM's forward headquarters) with engagement with Iran, with which it shares the world's largest natural gas field. Saudi Arabia, which restored diplomatic relations with Iran in a China-brokered deal in 2023, has an economic interest in stabilizing oil markets and reopening the Strait of Hormuz [24].

What concerns Gulf capitals, according to analysts, is less Mojtaba Khamenei's invitation than the terms of a potential US-Iran deal — one that might return frozen Iranian assets and leave Tehran's missile program intact while effectively rewarding the regime that attacked its neighbors [13].

The Strait of Hormuz: Oil Markets Under Strain

Iran declared the Strait of Hormuz "closed" on March 4, triggering the largest energy supply disruption in decades [25]. Before the war, roughly 20 million barrels per day of crude oil and petroleum liquids transited the strait, along with about 10 billion cubic feet per day of liquefied natural gas — representing approximately 27% of global maritime crude trade [25][26].

Source: EIA / Congressional Research Service

Data as of May 1, 2026CSV

The closure's impact was immediate. In March, with tanker traffic down more than 90%, only about 2 million barrels per day moved through the strait. The April ceasefire allowed a partial recovery to roughly 8.5 million barrels per day, and by May, first-quarter data showed throughput averaging 14.6 million barrels per day — still 30% below pre-war levels [25][26][27].

The International Energy Agency responded with the largest coordinated release of strategic petroleum reserves in its 52-year history: more than 400 million barrels from government stockpiles, including 301 million barrels of crude, amounting to roughly 2.5 million barrels per day over a four-month period [27]. But analysts at Brookings estimated that figure would cover only about 20 days of the net supply shortfall from a full closure, given that alternative pipeline routes can offset only 3.5 to 5.5 million barrels per day of the roughly 20 million affected [27].

Source: FRED / EIA

Data as of May 26, 2026CSV

WTI crude oil prices tell the story in a single line: from $55.44 per barrel in December 2025 to $114.58 in April 2026 at the peak of the disruption, before settling at $97.63 in late May — still up 58.5% year-over-year [28]. Bloomberg modeling has suggested that a prolonged full closure could push prices toward $200 per barrel [29].

Where Negotiations Stand

The ceasefire declared on April 8 and extended indefinitely on April 21 has not held cleanly. Both sides have conducted strikes they describe as defensive or retaliatory, including the weekend's exchange [1][3][24].

As of late May, negotiators were reportedly close to a memorandum of understanding, but key sticking points remain: the reopening and governance of the Strait of Hormuz (potentially with Omani involvement), the future of Iran's nuclear program, the status of fighting in Lebanon between Israel and Hezbollah, and the disposition of sanctions and frozen assets [3][24].

Vice President Vance's statement that Trump's signature is "TBD" suggests the deal's survival depends on political calculations in Washington as much as on the terms themselves [3]. Meanwhile, each round of tit-for-tat strikes — like this weekend's — erodes the fragile framework that keeps both sides at the table.

What Comes Next

The immediate question is whether Iran's warning that its response will be "completely different" if US attacks continue represents a genuine escalation threshold or familiar rhetorical posturing [1]. The IRGC has made similar threats before without following through, but the conflict has already produced outcomes — direct strikes on Iranian sovereign territory, the death of a supreme leader, the near-closure of the world's most critical oil chokepoint — that would have been considered unthinkable 12 months ago.

For Kuwait and the other Gulf states caught between Washington and Tehran, the calculus is stark. Their security depends on the US presence that makes them targets. Their economies depend on the oil trade that the Strait of Hormuz crisis has disrupted. And their diplomacy depends on maintaining relationships with both sides of a war being fought, in part, on their territory.