Iran’s top security body is now tying any future attack on Iranian infrastructure to possible retaliation against Israel, adding a sharper Israel-facing threat as Qatari mediators try to keep the U.S.-Iran track alive.
The fresh angle is not simply that Israel and Iran are trading threats. List25 has already covered Israel’s warning that it could strike Iran again and the confusing reports of new southern Iran blasts. The new development is Tehran’s specific warning that infrastructure attacks would bring a response that Israel would not escape, even as Qatar is trying to de-escalate the latest U.S.-Iran flare-up.
The Jerusalem Post, citing Reuters and Iranian state media, reported Friday that Mohammad Bagher Zolghadr, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, said any attacks on Iranian infrastructure would be met with retaliation. He added that “Israel will not be spared from the response.”
Middle East Eye also carried the warning, quoting Zolghadr as saying that “any attack on infrastructure will be retaliated against” and that Israel would not be safe from Iranian fighters’ response.
Why The Infrastructure Warning Matters
The warning lands after President Donald Trump raised the possibility of hitting Iranian electrical manufacturing facilities, power plants, and desalination plants if tensions escalate, according to the Jerusalem Post report. That shifts the risk beyond military sites, ports, missiles, and shipping lanes into the basic systems that keep Iranian cities and industry running.
That is why Zolghadr’s wording matters. Tehran is not only warning Washington against a wider target list. It is putting Israel into the retaliation chain, even for attacks that Iran frames as American pressure. In practical terms, that means a U.S. infrastructure strike could become an Israel-Iran escalation trigger.
The line also gives Tehran a way to answer Israel’s own rhetoric. The Guardian reported Thursday that Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said Israel was ready to resume its military campaign against Iran “with even greater force” and strike again “a third time if necessary.” Iran is now answering with its own conditional threat.
Qatar Is Trying To Keep Talks From Collapsing
The same Reuters-cited Jerusalem Post report said Qatari negotiators are in Iran to meet officials and de-escalate tensions, with the effort coordinated with the United States. The talks are meant to address implementation of the U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding and the issues that triggered the latest escalation, including navigation disputes in the Strait of Hormuz.
Arab News reported that fighting picked up this week in the most significant exchange since the U.S. and Iran signed a June 17 memorandum of understanding meant to formalize an April ceasefire and guide talks toward ending the war. The outlet also reported that the latest U.S. strikes targeted 90 military sites and that Iran accused Washington of hitting civilian infrastructure.
That creates a narrow diplomatic lane. Qatar is trying to keep the memorandum alive, while Iran is warning that the next infrastructure attack could pull Israel directly back into the response cycle. Those two things cannot both keep intensifying for long.
What To Watch Next
The immediate test is whether the U.S. keeps its target list limited to military assets or moves toward infrastructure targets. If Washington signals that power, water, or industrial systems are back on the table, Tehran has now publicly attached an Israel warning to that decision.
The second test is whether Qatar’s mediation produces even a temporary pause around Hormuz and the strike cycle. If it does, Zolghadr’s warning may function as deterrent messaging. If it does not, the crisis could move from U.S.-Iran retaliation back into a three-way escalation involving Israel.
For Gulf states, shippers, and energy markets, that is the danger in the latest warning. The Strait of Hormuz dispute is already volatile. Adding infrastructure retaliation and Israel’s possible role makes the crisis harder to contain and harder for mediators to package into a narrow ceasefire conversation.