Iran’s Military Strategy and Clashes in the Strait of Hormuz

For several nights, you had no martyrs and no wounded.

This—this is much more reasonable. Well, a question on a lot of people’s minds right now is that we took a very firm stance during the Supreme Leader’s meeting with the commanders.

Instructions had been given—yes… about how to respond.

Then we had these reports, reports of the clashes.

Some of our esteemed viewers are asking this question: Well, sir, these things count as aggression now, don’t they?

This is the same threat that even in that published report, it said the right to act isn’t necessarily the issue.

The mere—mere threat, the mere existence of a threat should lead us to the point where we have to respond very firmly and seriously.

But we’re not engaged in an all-out war in response to these events that are unfolding.

Could you clarify these a little, if possible, so that this—this—this has happened before, too, this is part of a back-and-forth— We need to distinguish these from one another, okay.

The Leader of the Revolution’s role is to determine your war strategies.

The commander who serves under him carries out tactical actions on the Leader’s behalf, right?

After all, His Eminence has a number of officials to carry out this task and has given the military, for instance, the overall strategy.

He’s also delegated the authority to make decisions about this matter to them.

As for striking, say, the target from last night, which I think was where our missiles were launched from, toward the Strait, they went to suppress it at the source.

And my analysis, again, is that they didn’t succeed, right?

Under these circumstances, we have to enter an all-out war.

As the Leader said, we should respond quickly, forcefully, and without geographical limits against the enemy or not. That’s for the military man to decide.

He has a lot more information than I do, and he makes that decision.

If he does decide to get involved in this matter, too, He doesn't make this conditional on the enemy striking first.

Meaning, he tries to design that thirty-day period himself, meaning he sets the response time himself and enters an all-out war.

We saw a dif— a different reaction from what we'd had so far in the south, in fact, conditions different from what we'd had so far in recent days and over the past week, or not?

This trend has more or less been there over the past few months.

After the Hormuz war ended, Look, what was the nature of the Hormuz war?

The Americans were saying, “You hit the ships,” “if you want to establish Iranian arrangements in the Strait of Hormuz—” “I'll hit the southern strip.”

“If you try to counter me in the southern corridor, I'll fight you.”

Then he limited the geography of the war, okay.

Meaning, he said the whole dispute was about the strait.

“I'll only hit the south.” “I'll hit the infrastructure.”

And what happened at the end of the Hormuz war?

An understanding was reached, an agreement was made.

No, he said, “Forget it.” And we're carrying on with our work.

We're really carrying on with our work. And now, in a few cases, he's also come and is trying to do some things again.

Maybe he's adopted a new tactic. I said on previous nights too, maybe he's trying to identify our firing positions and uncover as many of our air-defense ambushes as possible and is preparing himself for the next big war.

I don't know. I really don't know what's going through their heads.

But no new strategic development or equation has come about.

We're trying to block the strait. He fought us for a while, then backed off and retreated and we carried on with our work.

Now he's striking us. So far, I'm just describing the situation, I have no value judgment to say if it's good, bad, or what.

This is the course things have taken—