Skip to content
Briefings are running a touch slower this week while we rebuild the foundations.See roadmap
Iran Conflict 2026
25MAY

Iran threatens to destroy Gulf energy

3 min read
13:55UTC

Iran's parliament speaker promised permanent destruction of regional energy infrastructure if Iranian power plants are struck — a threat that reaches the desalination plants on which Gulf populations depend for drinking water.

ConflictDeveloping
Key takeaway

Threatening 'irreversible' Gulf desalination destruction marks a shift from calibrated deterrence to civilisational-scale escalation.

Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf declared that regional energy and oil infrastructure "will be irreversibly destroyed" if the United States strikes Iranian power plants. The statement ratchets beyond the counter-threat issued by Iran's Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters , which promised retaliation against energy, IT, and desalination infrastructure serving US allies but did not specify permanent destruction.

The word "irreversibly" carries specific weight in a region where desalination plants produce the drinking water for entire nations. Saudi Arabia generates roughly 7.3 million cubic metres of desalinated water per day; the UAE approximately 4.6 million; Kuwait and Bahrain depend almost entirely on desalination for potable supply. Permanent destruction of these facilities would produce a humanitarian catastrophe within days — there is no alternative source. Iran has already demonstrated it can reach Gulf energy targets: drones struck Kuwait's Mina Al-Ahmadi refinery on consecutive days , , attacks on Qatar's Ras Laffan destroyed two LNG trains and removed 17% of the country's export capacity for three to five years , and debris from intercepted missiles forced UAE gas shutdowns at Habshan and Bab . Each of these attacks produced damage requiring years of reconstruction. Ghalibaf's threat promises the next round would ensure reconstruction is not possible.

Ghalibaf is not a military commander articulating doctrine. He is a political figure — Parliament speaker, former IRGC air force commander, two-time presidential candidate — and his statement carries institutional weight distinct from the Khatam al-Anbiya command's operational posture. The escalation in Iranian counter-threats has followed a clear progression since 28 February: military-for-military, then infrastructure-for-infrastructure, then permanent destruction as declared policy. Each rung has expanded the target set and raised the consequences. With Brent Crude at $114 per barrel and the IEA documenting the largest supply disruption on record , the destruction Ghalibaf describes would push oil markets toward the threshold Oxford Economics assessed would trigger global recession — $140 per barrel at negative 0.7% GDP growth 1.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

Gulf Arab states like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar derive a large share of their fresh water — in some cases 40–90% — from coastal desalination plants that convert seawater. Ghalibaf is threatening to destroy these permanently, not just damage them temporarily. That would cause acute humanitarian emergencies across the Gulf, entirely separate from any oil supply disruption. Critically, this threat targets states not formally party to the US-Israel operation — pulling neutral parties into the direct firing line.

Deep Analysis
Synthesis

The threat to 'regional' — not merely US or Israeli-allied — infrastructure pulls Gulf Arab states who have maintained studied neutrality directly into the threat perimeter. Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Qatar have avoided explicit alignment with either side. A credible threat to their desalination infrastructure fundamentally changes their calculus, creating pressure to either broker de-escalation actively or align more explicitly — ending Gulf Arab ambiguity as a stabilising factor in the conflict.

Root Causes

Ghalibaf's escalation beyond the IRGC's official military statement reflects an internal Iranian political dynamic not addressed in the body. With the IRGC effectively running operations under uncertain supreme leadership, parliament is asserting institutional relevance. The escalatory language serves a domestic function — signalling parliamentary toughness during an IRGC-dominated crisis — as much as an external deterrence function. This dual audience complicates assessment of genuine intent.

Escalation

The word 'irreversibly' carries analytical weight beyond what the body notes. Previous Iranian counter-threats retained implicit reversibility — reconstruction as a future bargaining chip. A commitment to 'irreversible' destruction signals Iran is prepared to eliminate rather than merely damage, foreclosing its own future negotiating leverage and suggesting a decision to maximise enemy costs rather than preserve diplomatic options.

What could happen next?
  • Risk

    Destruction of Gulf desalination infrastructure would create immediate humanitarian emergencies in Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, and Bahrain, independently of any oil supply effect.

    Immediate · Assessed
  • Consequence

    The threat to 'regional' infrastructure draws Gulf Arab states maintaining neutrality into the direct threat perimeter, potentially forcing an end to their studied ambiguity.

    Short term · Assessed
  • Precedent

    If 'irreversible destruction' becomes Iranian operational doctrine, it eliminates reversibility as a de-escalation mechanism that has historically constrained Gulf crises.

    Medium term · Suggested
  • Risk

    Combined degradation of Gulf energy and water infrastructure could push crude prices past the $140 per barrel Oxford Economics recession threshold.

    Short term · Suggested
First Reported In

Update #45 · Ultimatum expires; Iran tolls Hormuz at $2m

Fortune· 23 Mar 2026
Read original
Different Perspectives
Lloyd's of London
Lloyd's of London
The Joint War Committee left Hormuz war-risk premiums at $10-14 million per voyage on 25 May, declining to move on Brent's 5% fall. The JWC's protocol requires a UN Security Council resolution or bilateral government certification letter before de-listing, and neither has arrived: a verbal understanding does not satisfy the formal condition the reinsurance market's treaty terms require.
Gulf Arab producers
Gulf Arab producers
Saudi Arabia and UAE depend on Hormuz for their own crude exports; Aramco CEO Nasser has warned no oil market recovery arrives until 2027 if the blockade continues past mid-June. Monday's $98.96 Brent settlement shortens nothing for Gulf producers without a signed instrument and a Pentagon mine-clearance timeline that runs up to six months post-ceasefire.
Qatar
Qatar
Qatar holds $12bn of frozen Iranian assets at the centre of the sequencing dispute but cannot release them without explicit US Treasury authorisation, given the original freeze was a US instrument. As the asset-holding state, Qatar's leverage is real but passive: it is the escrow holder, not the decision-maker, and any resolution requires US Treasury sign-off that Trump has withheld.
Pakistan
Pakistan
With both Prime Minister Sharif and army chief Munir simultaneously in Beijing on 25 May, Pakistan has for the first time consolidated its civilian and military mediation tracks under China's roof. Munir's direct Tehran-to-Beijing flight signals that the security and financial threads of the sequencing problem are now being worked in parallel rather than sequentially.
China
China
Beijing hosted Pakistan's principal mediators and Iran's China envoy Ghalibaf simultaneously on 25 May while its banking regulator capped new state-bank lending to five sanctioned refiners. China is simultaneously the most credible third-party underwriter of the $12bn sequencing and the state whose institutions face live OFAC secondary-sanctions exposure if the deadlock persists through GL V's expiry.
United States
United States
Trump posted on 24 May that the blockade holds until a deal is certified and signed, ruling out the informal MOU structure both sides had been building. The 'certified, and signed' condition is the first operational bar Trump has attached in 87 days, but it arrived without an executive instrument, maintaining the gap between posted ultimatum and signed US policy.