SAEDNEWS: The army spokesperson emphasized that the objective of continuing the war is to bring the enemy to a point of genuine regret. While some may perceive this approach as emotional, it is in fact firmly grounded in strategic rationality. Reaching such a point is essential to prevent the recurrence of war in the future.
According to the political desk of Saed News, Brigadier General Mohammad Akraminia, spokesperson for the Army of the Islamic Republic of Iran, stated in an interview with the “Iranian Breakfast” program on Channel Two that “we were faced with an imposed war and a clear act of aggression by our enemies.” He explained that the conflict was forced upon Iran on February 27 and that analyzing it from philosophical and fundamental perspectives reveals important aspects of the current condition of the United States.
Referring to the inability of the U.S. government to provide a convincing reason for initiating the war, Akraminia said that the American president has failed to persuade global public opinion regarding the justification for this action, turning it into a serious challenge for the country.
He added that this crisis has also manifested domestically, with reports indicating that 8 to 9 million Americans have taken to the streets in protest. Similar widespread protests have occurred in other countries as well.
Contrary to Washington’s expectations, its traditional allies—including France and the United Kingdom—have not supported this war, signaling a deepening crisis of legitimacy for the United States.
Akraminia identified the second major challenge as the manner in which the war has been conducted. He stated that the United States has violated numerous humanitarian principles and international laws.
He cited attacks on civilian infrastructure, including the “Shajareh Tayyebeh” school in Minab, which reportedly resulted in the deaths of 168 students, as well as strikes on hospitals, emergency centers, pharmaceutical companies, and other critical facilities. He also pointed to threats against energy infrastructure as evidence of strategic desperation and a breach of internationally accepted red lines.
According to Akraminia, these two challenges—both the cause and conduct of the war—demonstrate that the United States is facing a serious crisis in its global standing and credibility, indicating a broader decline in its position within the international system.
He emphasized that evaluating success or failure in war depends on the extent to which each side achieves its declared objectives. According to him, the opposing side aimed to overthrow the Islamic Republic and pave the way for Iran’s fragmentation—goals aligned with U.S. regional policies and the idea of a “Greater Israel.”
Akraminia asserted that these objectives have not been realized. Iran, he said, has stood firm, responded to threats, and in some cases carried out reciprocal operations. Therefore, he concluded that the opposing side has so far failed and effectively faced defeat.
Discussing battlefield developments, he stated that, with the efforts of the armed forces and public support, Iran is now in a stronger position compared to the beginning of the war. He noted improvements in operational capabilities, including more precise targeting and enhanced radar and missile systems.
He also highlighted the role of public support in boosting morale and confidence within the defense sector, contributing significantly to overall national strength.
Akraminia stressed that the armed forces are responsible for managing the battlefield and are fully prepared for prolonged conflict. He noted that over the past nine months, the necessary preparations have been made to address evolving conditions.
He added that, according to the constitution, the armed forces are tasked with preserving the system, safeguarding independence, and protecting territorial integrity, and all actions are carried out within this framework.
He pointed out that while diplomacy is primarily the responsibility of senior officials and the foreign policy apparatus, there is ongoing coordination between military operations and diplomatic efforts, which has continued strongly during the war.
Akraminia emphasized that the ultimate goal is to bring the enemy to a point of genuine regret, which he described as a rational and strategic necessity to prevent future conflicts. Achieving this, he said, would significantly strengthen deterrence and discourage any further aggression.
He noted that public sentiment strongly supports decisive action against the enemy. According to him, Iranians have historically been peace-loving and have never initiated wars, but now expect firm responses to ensure lasting security.
He stressed that Iran’s approach is not war-seeking but rather the intelligent management of conflict to prevent its recurrence.
Akraminia highlighted the significant role of public participation, stating that the unity and presence of the people have greatly influenced the course of the war. Public support, he said, complements military operations and increases the likelihood of achieving strategic objectives.
In closing, Akraminia reflected on the leadership of the late Major General Abdolrahim Mousavi, describing him as sincere, strategic, and highly connected with personnel at all levels. He noted that Mousavi maintained regular engagement with military students and paid close attention to the welfare of personnel and their families.
He also credited Mousavi with advancing a shift in Iran’s defense doctrine from a purely defensive posture to a more offensive approach—changes that continue to shape the country’s military capabilities today.
Akraminia concluded that Mousavi’s leadership style has left a lasting and influential legacy for future generations of Iran’s armed forces.
