Amman — Repeated attacks on Saudi airports and critical infrastructure are no longer seen merely as episodes in the broader cycle of regional escalation. They are increasingly raising questions about whether the confrontation is moving to a wider level, in which targets extend beyond military sites to the economic lifelines, transportation networks and continuity of essential services.
According to political and strategic experts who spoke to Al-Ghad, the attacks reflect two interconnected trends. The first is growing escalation amid US pressure on Iran and the possibility of the conflict expanding. The second is the evolution of pressure tactics, with disruptions to critical infrastructure becoming a means of destabilizing states and increasing the cost of confrontation.
This does not necessarily mean that the conflict has entered an entirely new phase. Targeting infrastructure is a well-known tactic in warfare. However, the frequency of the attacks and the breadth of their consequences give them more dangerous dimensions, ranging from disruptions to air traffic and trade to increased security and economic burdens, experts said.
Repeated attacks on King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh and King Fahd International Airport in Dammam, accompanied by deaths, injuries, flight suspensions and rerouting, have placed the confrontation at a turning point that goes beyond military targeting to threaten aviation security, transportation and the economy.
According to experts, these developments indicate an escalation in pressure tactics and an expansion of their consequences amid US pressure on Iran and fears that the confrontation could spread to other regional arenas. Riyadh, meanwhile, faces difficult choices between containing the attacks through a political settlement or becoming more deeply involved in a broader and more costly confrontation.
While targeting critical infrastructure does not necessarily mean that the rules of the conflict have fundamentally changed, repeated attacks increase the cost of protection and operations and threaten service continuity. This makes a state’s ability to protect its infrastructure and maintain normal operations a central element of the confrontation.
Experts point out that while the nature of the current phase remains open to interpretation, one fact is becoming increasingly clear: confrontation is no longer measured solely by the scale of physical destruction, but also by states’ ability to protect their facilities, ensure the continuity of daily life and services, and prevent attacks from becoming a prolonged war of attrition.
A New Phase of Confrontation
Political analyst and expert Dr. Amer Al-Sabaileh said the repeated attacks on airports and critical infrastructure are not simply part of the existing pattern of escalation, but point to a new and more intense phase amid the deepening crisis with Iran and growing US pressure on Tehran.
He said this could lead to an expansion of the confrontation and the activation of additional regional pressure tools.
Al-Sabaileh said the current phase could push Iran to make renewed use of the remaining tools at its disposal, particularly the Houthis, while expanding the scope of targeting to include Saudi Arabia as part of efforts to respond to the pressure imposed on Tehran.
He linked the escalation in attacks on airports and aviation-related facilities to what Iran regards as an air blockade targeting its civil aviation sector and restricting its ability to operate.
Iran may seek to revive a strategy based on expanding the circle of instability and linking it to attacks on aviation and airports, Al-Sabaileh said. This could allow Tehran to broaden the confrontation and transfer its repercussions to other regional arenas, using these issues as pressure tools against its opponents.
At the same time, Al-Sabaileh noted that the United States is continuing to tighten pressure on Iran while preparing the conditions for the possibility of a military strike.
This parallel track, he said, reflects an escalating process in which economic, political and military pressure intersects with attempts to expand the scope of regional targeting.
Al-Sabaileh reiterated that current indicators suggest the confrontation is moving toward a new phase of escalation, with Iran seeking to activate its remaining tools while the United States continues to intensify pressure and prepare for more forceful options.
As a result, attacks on airports and critical infrastructure have become part of a broader picture that extends beyond isolated incidents toward multi-track escalation.
Expanding Targets
Security and strategic affairs expert Dr. Bashir Al-Daajeh said repeated attacks on airports and critical infrastructure reflect an evolution in patterns of escalation that have existed for years, particularly in terms of attack frequency, the expanding range of targets and the resulting consequences.
He warned that such attacks could become a pressure tool aimed at undermining states’ ability to operate essential facilities and maintain the continuity of their services.
“This is not simply a repetition of what happened in the past,” Al-Daajeh said, adding that the danger lies in the ability of such attacks to disrupt strategic facilities and interfere with their functions even without completely destroying them.
He pointed to repeated attacks on King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh over a five-day period, accompanied by widespread disruption to air traffic, as an example of the operational and economic consequences that can result from targeting critical infrastructure.
He said attacks on such facilities differ in their impact from strikes against traditional military targets because their consequences extend beyond the battlefield to the economy, society and daily life.
Airports are linked to passenger movement, trade, cargo and investment, while disruption to energy and water facilities can threaten the continuity of essential services. He warned that “the impact of an attack can extend beyond the borders of the targeted state and spread across regional and international transportation networks” because of the interconnectedness of infrastructure and services.
Regarding the ability of air defenses to protect critical facilities, Al-Daajeh stressed that an impact on a facility does not necessarily mean that the defensive system has failed.
Assessing its effectiveness requires consideration of the scale of the attack, the results of interception operations, the nature of the threats and the capabilities available, he said.
Effective protection, he added, depends not only on possessing advanced systems but also on an integrated framework involving surveillance, early warning, information sharing and coordination between military and civilian authorities, along with plans to ensure the continuity of services during emergencies.
Logistical Disruptions
Al-Daajeh identified potential military, economic, psychological and political objectives behind the attacks. These range from disrupting logistical movement and increasing operating and insurance costs to creating a sense of instability and putting pressure on decision-makers.
However, he cautioned against assuming that all attacks have a single motive, stressing the need to distinguish between established facts and analytical assessments and to examine each incident within its specific circumstances and context.
Repeated strikes, he said, could indicate an attempt to exhaust protective measures and keep authorities in a state of constant alert, placing additional burdens on the state in terms of security, repairs and emergency response.
He described this as “exhausting continuity,” whereby a state is forced to continuously allocate resources to protect its facilities and ensure their operation even when material damage is limited.
On this basis, he said the developments may reflect an expansion of pressure tools and areas of confrontation rather than conclusive evidence that all conflicts have entered a new phase.
Targeting infrastructure is not a new phenomenon in warfare, but advances in missiles and drones, combined with the interconnectedness of transportation, energy and communications networks, have increased the vulnerability of critical infrastructure and the potential for attacks to affect other sectors.
Al-Daajeh stressed that confronting such threats requires moving from protecting individual facilities in a narrow sense to protecting the wider systems on which they depend. This includes strengthening early warning, regional coordination and contingency plans for maintaining transportation, energy, water and communications services, alongside intensified diplomatic efforts to prevent the conflict from expanding and to uphold international humanitarian law.
Jordanian Priorities
For Jordan, Al-Daajeh said protecting sovereignty, airspace and critical infrastructure and raising defense readiness should be among the country’s priorities, alongside diplomatic efforts to prevent the confrontation from expanding.
Jordan, he stressed, is concerned with protecting its security, stability and national interests and must not become an arena for settling regional scores.
He noted that repeated attacks on airports and critical infrastructure cannot be treated as isolated or passing incidents, but they do not by themselves prove that the rules of warfare have fundamentally changed.
The key indicator, in his view, is the ability of such attacks to cause widespread disruption and impose sustained costs on targeted states.
The real challenge therefore lies in combining layered defense, effective civil preparedness and preventive diplomacy, because a state’s strength “is not demonstrated only by its ability to intercept missiles, but also by its ability to protect people and ensure that life continues despite threats.”
Shifting Balance of Power
Addressing whether the attacks represent a shift in the course of the confrontation, Dr. Khaled Shneikat, president of the Jordanian Political Science Association, said repeated attacks on airports and critical infrastructure, alongside maritime and missile threats, indicate an unprecedented pattern of escalation against Saudi Arabia.
He said the developments also reflect a shift in the balance of power, as the Kingdom is now facing some of the pressure tools it previously used during the war in Yemen.
Shneikat said the continuation of this trajectory leaves Riyadh with difficult choices: either pursue a settlement that halts the human and material losses or become more deeply involved in the war, with all the military and economic burdens that would entail.
He considers a settlement to be a rational option, but said it faces Yemeni demands related to lifting the blockade and the withdrawal of Saudi forces and forces allied with them, and possibly demands for compensation for the costs of the war.
He warned that continued confrontation would increase the cost for Saudi Arabia, particularly amid challenges facing its oil exports, pressures on the budget and development plans.
“Continuing this pattern of warfare is costly,” he said, warning that it could turn the confrontation into a prolonged war of attrition.
He cited the experiences of regional and international powers that intervened in Yemen, arguing that their historical record does not encourage involvement in an open-ended war.
At the same time, Shneikat noted that an expansion of Houthi capabilities, if reports to that effect are confirmed, could further complicate the situation and increase the risks of escalation.
The US position also remains an influential factor in determining the next phase, he said, amid uncertainty over the limits of US military support for Saudi Arabia and differing US priorities concerning maritime security in the region.
According to his assessment, the confrontation faces divergent paths, ranging from a settlement to broader escalation. The decisive factor, however, remains the calculation of costs and the balance of power.
The attacks do not merely represent security pressure; they also place Saudi Arabia before a strategic test over its ability to contain threats without sliding into a more costly and complex war.
