Daniel Pipes, founder of Middle East Forum, spoke with India Today about Iran’s retaliatory attacks on U.S. bases across Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and other regional locations. He argued that Tehran made a strategic mistake by striking Arabic-speaking neighbors, saying the attacks are likely pushing Gulf states closer to the United States and Israel. Pipes also suggested that some retaliatory strikes may reflect internal disorder rather than centralized planning, pointing to leadership disruption after the deaths of Ali Khamenei and other senior military figures. He predicted the conflict may soon diminish as both sides deplete munitions, while warning that any post-regime transition inside Iran would likely be prolonged, fragmented, and marked by internal competition among minorities and rival political factions.
HOST: Joining me now from Washington, D.C., is Daniel Pipes, founder of the Middle East Forum, a historian and Middle East expert. Mr. Pipes, I appreciate your time. With Iran’s retaliatory attacks hitting U.S. bases across Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE, Kuwait, and beyond - along with incidents such as friendly-fire downings and civilian casualties - do you see this accelerating a post-Khamenei realignment among Gulf states? How do you read the present situation?
PIPES: I do agree with your question. Yes, I think the Iranian regime made a big mistake in attacking all of its Arabic-speaking neighbors, plus Jordan and even Cyprus. The neighbors are not taking this well. So long as the Islamic Republic remains, I think they will be more inclined to oppose it and to work with the United States and Israel. A big mistake by Tehran.
HOST: One view is also that because of Iran’s counter-retaliation spreading to Gulf airports, ports, and hotels, this is a sign of Tehran’s regime weakening and lashing out desperately.
PIPES: It is probably a sign of desperation. It is probably also a sign that there is no real leadership at the top. Not only is Khamenei dead, but so are many of the leaders of the military organizations. So these could be decisions made in the field, by low-ranking officers deciding on their own to strike. It is a bit chaotic in Iran. This may not be someone at the top deciding. It could be many people further below making spontaneous decisions, unplanned decisions, decisions not in the rule book. Who knows?
HOST: So will this now draw in more actors and prolong the conflict regionally?
PIPES: The Iranians could attack more targets. They could attack Pakistan. They could attack Turkey. They could attack Turkmenistan. I do not think it is likely, but given what we have seen so far in the past couple of days, it is not something one can automatically assume will not happen.
HOST: So is this then unplanned retaliation by Iran? Since you are saying the next target could be Pakistan, Turkey, or Turkmenistan - any country - is this all unplanned?
PIPES: That is my speculation: that this was not part of a plan. This is something that spontaneously developed by the IRGC and other commanders in the field. My guess - I do not know.
HOST: Daniel Pipes, tell me what comes next in this conflict.
PIPES: It is looking like both sides will soon run out of munitions and armaments, so I think there will be a reduction. The U.S. president talked about another month, but I do not think the United States or Israel have that kind of arsenal, and I do not think the Iranians do either. So I expect this is the height of the shooting and that it will diminish simply because the armaments are not there.
HOST: How should Bahrain and other Gulf countries respond to avoid escalation while still sending a deterrent message, given Iran’s aggression?
PIPES: You mentioned Bahrain, and Bahrain is a particularly delicate situation because the Iranian government claims Bahrain as a province - something that has always been a problem for Bahrain. I do think Gulf states should clearly and consistently stand with the United States against the Islamic Republic and help facilitate the Iranian population in overthrowing its totalitarian rulers. That is the goal here. Come on, Iranians. Let’s move. Let’s get rid of this horrible 47-year-old totalitarian regime.
HOST: But the question is also about Iran’s future. What is Iran’s future here?
PIPES: Iran’s future will be determined by whether the regime now ruling stays in power or is overthrown. There was a very dramatic change in 1979. Let us hope there will be another very dramatic change in 2026. That will largely determine the future of Iran and the Iranians.
HOST: Could you elaborate on that point? Is this then a 1979 moment for Iran?
PIPES: We do not know. But one major difference is that Khomeini came in with undisputed power, so it was a very clean transition from the Shah to Khomeini. I would be surprised if something that clean happened now. It is much more likely there will be a great deal of infighting within Iran should the regime collapse. For example, the minorities in Iran - who together form a majority of the population - are much more likely now than half a century ago to seek autonomy at minimum and independence at maximum.
There are many powerful minorities: the Azeris, the Kurds, the Arabs, the Baloch, and many others. Politically, will it be the Shah’s son who leads a transition government, or will it be the Mujahideen or some other force? I do not think it will be clean. I think it will take time for things to settle.
HOST: As a historian and observer of the Middle East, can you give a timeline for this conflict? How long will it continue?
PIPES: First the regime has to be overthrown, but once it is, I think it will take years before a clear picture emerges of where power lies in Iran after the Islamic Republic.
HOST: Daniel Pipes, I appreciate your time. Thank you for joining us.
