SAEDNEWS:The Zionists know that parts of our forces — such as the Navy and the Quds Force — have not yet entered the operation, and even the Army has not engaged with its full capabilities.
The Quincy Institute recently published a report concerning Netanyahu's latest trip to the United States and his meeting with Trump. It stated: While regional actors—especially the Gulf allies of the United States—watch the fragile ceasefire between Israel and Iran with concern, Israeli media report that Netanyahu plans to ask Trump to support him in launching another attack against Iran.
The report adds: The recent 12-day war with Iran has strengthened Netanyahu’s political position domestically and portrayed him as a bold leader confronting Iran. [1]
Some analytical circles believe that what has occurred between Iran and Israel is not a true ceasefire but rather a "pause in the war," and this pause could collapse at any moment. Even if there were a signed document, they argue, it would still not be wise to trust the Zionists.
These circles emphasize that, considering the possibility of the breakdown of this pause and the Zionists' terrorist behavior, a range of options—from “preemptive punishment of Israel” to other reasonable scenarios—must be reviewed by the country’s military commanders.
It must be understood that the Zionist regime will not cease its hostilities against the Iranian people unless it is subjected to “severe punishment and retribution.” As long as such measures are not implemented, the Zionists, with the technologies at their disposal, will continue their acts of aggression.
The true counter to these technologies—rendering them ineffective—is “jihad and severe retribution.”
According to Saednews, Major General Seyyed Yahya Safavi, former IRGC commander and senior advisor to the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, recently said in a speech to a group of Ashura mourners:
"The Iranian armed forces are prepared for all of the enemy’s plans. The Zionists know that parts of our forces—such as the Navy and the Quds Force—have not yet entered the operation, and even the Army has not engaged with its full strength. We have produced thousands of missiles and drones, and their locations are secure." [2]
General Safavi’s remarks offer hope that, in Iran’s next operation to inflict severe punishment on Israel, a true hell can be unleashed upon the Zionists.
The Islamic Republic of Iran possesses, solely at sea, two layers of naval power within the Army and the IRGC, which could confront Israel and its main ally—the United States—with the dark reality and bitter taste of war and defeat.
The deployment of Iran’s naval forces in a potential confrontation with Israel is a rational necessity, considering that the United States—Israel’s primary backer—is by no means neutral in Israeli conflicts. It enters the scene from its regional bases and outposts, especially in the Persian Gulf, to support Israel. Iran’s navy has the capacity, through overwhelming and devastating operations, to defeat the United States in the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman and eliminate its support for the Zionists.
Furthermore, from a military standpoint, one must recognize that there is no real distinction between Israel and the United States—defeating one equates to defeating the other.
According to Saednews, Ayatollah Seyyed Sadegh Pishnamazi, representative of Mazandaran in the Assembly of Experts, recently criticized the ineffectiveness of international institutions in light of the 12-day conflict, stating:
"Mere verbal condemnation is not enough. A trial in absentia must be held to legally prosecute the aggressors. Additionally, inspections of ships in the Strait of Hormuz can be implemented, and compensation should be demanded for cargoes related to enemy parties. This move would serve as both a deterrent and enhance Iran’s bargaining power."
He added, emphasizing the need for explanatory jihad (jihad-e-tabyin) and raising public awareness:
"In following the guidance of the Supreme Leader, we must explain our defensive strategies to prevent war from entering our own territory."
Ayatollah Pishnamazi also stated:
"A deterrent response is the only way to prevent further attacks. If Iran’s response is not deterrent, the enemy will become emboldened and, drawing from previous experience, will launch more severe assaults." [3]
Ayatollah Pishnamazi’s strategic proposal regarding the necessity of regulating traffic through the Strait of Hormuz is a security-enhancing recommendation for Iran and Iranians that could be pragmatically employed in critical times, such as war or invasion.
The question remains: why, during the 12-day conflict and despite U.S. involvement, no decision was made to implement such a measure?
As some political observers point out: If Iran does not use the strategic leverage of the Strait of Hormuz during wartime, then when should it?
We leave it to our esteemed readers to judge the significance of Ayatollah Pishnamazi’s statements on the necessity of a strong and deterrent response from Iran.
