17AUG

Artesh claims Kuwait and Bahrain strikes

2 min read

15:37UTC

Iran's regular army, not the IRGC, claimed the 16 July drone strikes on Kuwait and Bahrain and named them phase ten of Operation Saeqeh.

← Back to A 35-party Iran action, invisible to search Jump to analysis ↓

ConflictDeveloping

Key takeaway

Iran's regular army claimed the Kuwait and Bahrain strikes under its own named operation, stepping out of the IRGC's shadow.

The regular Army of the Islamic Republic of Iran (Artesh), not the IRGC, claimed the 16 July drone strikes on Kuwait's Ali Al Salem Air Base and Bahrain's Sheikh Isa air base, and gave the campaign a name: the tenth phase of Operation Saeqeh (Lightning). ¹

Every prior Gulf reprisal in this war had carried the IRGC's name. The IRGC fired on Jordan's Azraq base and struck three Gulf states on 9 July , and ran the Gulf-wide retaliation that answered the blockade . This time the IRGC claimed only the separate hit on Jordan's Azraq base, while the Artesh took Kuwait and Bahrain under its own banner.

A named, numbered, multi-phase operation implies sustained institutional planning, distinct from the corps' improvised strike-and-claim pattern. The Artesh has spent this war in the IRGC's shadow as the conventional-defence force; a numbered army operation is a bureaucratic claim on the war's prestige, and such claims outlast the strikes that prompt them. Mojtaba Khamenei was installed through IRGC channels, so an army asserting its own operational brand under a Supreme Leader it did not choose is a fault line worth watching.

Kuwait's armed forces said their air defences intercepted hostile drones on 16 July, independent, non-Iranian confirmation that the attack was real. ² A quieter reading also fits: the two forces may simply be dividing targets, with no rivalry implied. Even so, no earlier Iranian strike this war has carried a numbered army operation's name.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

Iran has two separate armed forces that don't answer to a single military command: the regular Army, called Artesh, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC, which is the more ideological force that has led most of the war's retaliatory strikes. This time it was Artesh, not the IRGC, that claimed credit for drone strikes on air bases in Kuwait and Bahrain, giving its campaign the name Operation Saeqeh and calling this attack its tenth phase.

Deep Analysis

Root Causes

Iran's constitution establishes Artesh and the IRGC as parallel, formally equal armed forces answering separately to the Supreme Leader, with neither holding overall operational primacy over the other.

That dual-track structure gives each branch an incentive to publicise its own named, numbered campaign, Artesh's Operation Saeqeh among them, rather than issue a single joint claim.

What could happen next?

Meaning
Artesh's willingness to publicise its own named campaign suggests the regular Army wants independent credit for retaliation, rather than letting the IRGC's messaging define the war's narrative.

Sources:Tech Times

Mentions:Iranian Army →Operation Saeqeh →Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) →Kuwait →Bahrain →Jordan →Ali Al Salem Air Base →Sheikh Isa airbase →Iran-Iraq War →Iraq →Iran →Mojtaba Khamenei →Tehran →

First Reported In

Update #155 · US bombing moves inland as blockade hardens

Tech Times· 18 Jul 2026

Read original →

Causes and effects

This Event

Artesh claims Kuwait and Bahrain strikes

A second Iranian force is now claiming strikes under its own banner, a sign of institutional jockeying inside Tehran's war effort.

Led to

Iran fires back across the Gulf again

The Army's named Operation Saeqeh phase 10 followed the 14 July Gulf-wide retaliation.

Occurred 14 Jul 2026

Read story →

Iran's army widens Saeqeh to three states

The 16 July Artesh claim on Kuwait and Bahrain preceded and matches the widened 18 July phase-14/15 claim.

Occurred 18 Jul 2026

Read story →

Different Perspectives

Shipping and insurance underwriters

Kpler counted five Hormuz transits on 16 August against 31 the previous weekend, while Windward logged four vessels going AIS-dark for up to a month; underwriters price both the attacks and a sanctions register that names their counterparties in unreadable scanned images. Two trackers now measure only the ships that consent to be seen.

China

China sits at the end of the payment chain the 14 August designation targets: Iran's shadow banking network exists to convert sanctioned oil sales, much of it to Chinese refiners, into usable funds. Beijing has previously refused to recognise OFAC's jurisdiction over its own entities buying Iranian crude, leaving this designation to test compliance rather than change trade.

Qatar

Qatar's foreign ministry denied on 16 August holding any Iranian pilots alive, contradicting Iranian General Mohammad Bagherzadeh's claim that Doha holds three Su-24 aircrew, and said it had recovered only one set of remains. Qatar carries Iran's messages to Washington, and this is a public break with Tehran over a fact only one aircrew inquiry can settle.

Oman

Oman's shipping-map talks, covering monitoring, environment and maritime services, were publicly decoupled from any Hormuz reopening by Iran's own foreign minister on 17 August. Muscat's mediation channel keeps functioning on the narrow file it was given, while the political decision it hoped to unlock stays with Iran's security council.

Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia separately called the recurrence of tanker attacks on Emirati shipping a dangerous escalation, breaking from the UAE's repeated formula. Riyadh speaking in its own name over an attack on another state's vessels signals it reads the pattern differently from Abu Dhabi's flat statements.

United Arab Emirates

The UAE foreign ministry condemned a third ADNOC-linked tanker attack on 15 August in language identical, word for word, to its statement the day before. Three consecutive strikes on Emirati shipping have not moved Abu Dhabi's public wording by a single adjective.