SAEDNEWS: In a scathing editorial, Khorasan newspaper—aligned with Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf—accuses opponents like Khanalizadeh of lacking both expertise and accurate data on Iran’s complex military operations and recent negotiations with the United States.
According to Saed News, Khorasan newspaper argues that although countless criticisms have been voiced regarding Iran’s sophisticated military campaigns and months‑long talks with Washington, these strategic endeavors—from planning through execution, calibrated against the adversary’s capabilities—represent the highest echelon of today’s hybrid warfare. The editorial insists that effective critique demands two vast reservoirs of knowledge: first, specialized technical information on warfare and diplomacy; second, comprehensive data on the optimal timing for battle or negotiation, the condition of Iran’s own front, and the enemy’s strengths and weaknesses across political, social, cultural, economic, and military dimensions.
The paper poses a pointed question: what percentage of critics have truly accessed these often‑classified strategic details? Do most even possess adequate information to weigh in? It warns that our collective ignorance far outstrips the fragmentary facts we hold. In a sidebar note, Khorasan even highlights the “cost of converting a thesis into a book” and offers a free instructional video—a reminder that expert resources exist for those serious about scholarship.
Moreover, the editorial contends that critics habitually misattribute their own informational gaps to institutional secrecy rather than personal shortcomings. Limited knowledge, it warns, breeds overconfidence: while snippets may be accurate, they remain incomplete and thus unsuitable as a basis for judgment. Ignorance of the enemy’s capabilities further distorts assessments of Iran’s own performance.
Khorasan also cautions that the deluge of content on social media does not equate to true understanding; much war‑ and diplomacy‑related news is deliberately seeded with falsehoods to mislead. Instead, it urges a commitment to “piety in analysis”: the more rigorously one pursues reliable data, the more cautious one becomes in issuing critiques.
Citing Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s recent remarks to judiciary officials—that any critique of military or diplomatic affairs must follow thorough investigation—the newspaper closes by asking: how many of us genuinely research before we critique, versus reacting to first‑impression snippets?
