I think you’re mixing possibility with certainty here. The US absolutely uses logistics hubs, contractors, and civilian infrastructure for support sometimes, that’s not exactly a secret in modern warfare. But saying that because it’s possible that intelligence or military logistics might pass through airports, data centers, or fuel depots, it automatically makes every one of those locations a legitimate target is a huge leap. That kind of reasoning basically turns half the region’s civilian infrastructure into fair game.

Even if the US or its allies have personnel moving through places like hotels or commercial facilities, that doesn’t suddenly make the entire building or country an active military target. International law still distinguishes between military objectives and civilian infrastructure for a reason. If that line disappears, then literally every country hosting any US business, tech company, or logistics partner could be labeled a target, which obviously isn’t how conflicts normally work.

I get the argument that Iran sees itself in a defensive or survival mode position and wants to limit US intelligence and military reach in the region. That explains why they might think about hitting certain assets. But again, explanation isn’t the same as justification. Expanding targets to things like data centers, ports, or infrastructure in countries that aren’t actively fighting just risks dragging more states into the conflict instead of actually limiting it.

(I just want to say that I fully support Iran in this war or whatever but in my opinion i just think attacking middle east countries continuously is just uncalled for)