Saudi Arabia said two of its oil stations were attacked on May 14, two days after the alleged sabotage of its oil tankers. The attacks followed the U.S. deployment of naval forces in the region. Tensions have risen since the U.S. withdrew from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. 

The Iranian foreign minister accused Washington of escalating the situation, while the U.S. Secretary of State said the U.S. did not seek war. The U.S. military said it's braced for what it calls "possible imminent threats to U.S. troops in Iraq" from Iran-backed forces. Since early this month, Washington has been trying to cut Iran's oil exports to zero and to beef up its military presence.

From Iran's perspective, how should it interpret the latest incident of Saudi Arabia's oil tankers being destroyed? CGTN Senior Correspondent Tian Wei discussed them with a group of panelists.

Ghanbar Naderi, a political analyst and columnist with Kayhan International Newspaper, said these were false operations, specifically designed to have the U.S. army attack Iran in the Persian Gulf. "There are many accusations against Iran, but Iran is not going to benefit from these U.S. escalations." He further explained that it is not in Iran's interests to attack Saudi oil tankers as the country is only interested in exporting oil to international markets, not escalating tensions.

When it comes to the hawkish voices in the administration in Washington, Ivan Eland, Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace and Liberty at the Independent Institute, thinks the president is responsible for appointing these hawkish advisers, especially Bolton who was involved in Iraq in the 1990s.

Even if Iran is attacking those tankers, the United States pulled out of the agreement first and is trying to strangle Iran's economy along with declaring Iran's Revolutionary Guard as terrorists. In this case, the public may be quite skeptical, especially after the Iraq War. Iran would be a formidable enemy than a depleted Iraq.

Some says the current administration in Washington is full of uncertain focus towards the Middle East, Senior Research Fellow from the China Institute of International Studies Yang Xiyu said uncertainties come from the contradiction in the global focus and Middle East focus.  

"Globally, Trump has put Russia and China as the top threats. In general, Trump wants to withdraw from the Middle East. But in reality, they have made more trouble in the Middle East that prevented the U.S. from withdrawing. So that is the root of contradiction and paradox."

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com.)