Analysis of Military Strategy and Negotiation

Maybe it will make Naomi leaving not seem so bad all of a sudden, or maybe not,

We have a 'maybe'. You can't make a decision with 'maybe'. Tell me definitely, I...

I can't do 'definite', I'm leaving. Well, exactly. So, who can actually say anything for sure?

Who can say?

If we had such an upper hand, if we were at the point of victory, then why did we

accept the ceasefire? At what point should a war end?

When you are defeated, or when you are victorious? What is this?

The answer is very clear. It means if we continued, we would have consolidated it more. What does 'consolidated more' mean?

It means we don't let it happen again. How do wars end anyway?

Either with absolute victory

military, or through negotiation. Absolute military victory means you go and completely defeat the opponent,

and make them raise their hands, like what happened to Germany in the war,

War means you occupy it?

or what happened to Saddam in the war, or other cases, I don't know, or not.

Because we don't have this capacity. If you have this capacity, go ahead. No, we don't.

I would kiss your hand, indeed, I'd kiss the hand of anyone who does this. Well, if we don't...

We must negotiate. Second, when should you negotiate?

When you have the upper hand on the military front, or when you have the lower hand?

When you have the upper hand, or the lower

hand? When you have the upper hand, you are the victor of the field. You have field achievements

and strategic achievements, you must negotiate, not when the opponent has the upper hand to their advantage.

Third, if we had continued the war, would our achievements be more or less?

Let's say, would our risks and losses be more or less?

Look, it's a risk. You can't risk people's lives, with their

destiny, you can't do that. You must make the right decision, you must calculate fully, right?

What else should we see?

We are ten meters from the tent. It doesn't take much else, we are... we are also analyzing it now.

I propose this plan, they say, "Sir, we must fight to a point where war never happens again."

Do you think we have another point of war?

It will reach that too. When you want to end the war...

Let's go step by step. When you have the upper hand, you must negotiate, if you can...

finish the job with war. If you can go behind the tent and set fire to his tent, great, if not,

you must end the war through negotiation in a way that it won't happen again,

I agree. When should you do this? When you have the upper hand?

You have the upper hand. Then, where is that point? Meaning, where is the negotiation point?

That point where if you go further,

your victories might not increase, your losses might increase, or you might say,

Now is not the time, I'll go ten steps further and secure two more victories, with a fuller hand...

I'll go. This is risky. We tried this once during the imposed war in 1987,

we hit a wall.

If we had accepted Resolution 598 in '66, maybe it would have been better. Now I...

I'm telling him we should have accepted this in '67. I'm telling him, in my opinion,

In the first two weeks of the war, our strategic achievements were completed, meaning they realized it couldn't be wrapped up.

Meaning they didn't achieve any of their goals. We established the Strait of Hormuz as

a new tool of deterrence. We showed our authority to the region, we showed

that we are invincible. We showed our resilience, and we imposed costs on the world and

on the region so that no one would ever think of warring with us again. In this war, we

emerged as an international player.

Beyond the region, they were telling us, 'Sir,'

Africa is struggling, because I know... open this strait so when the fertilizer arrives, they are starving.

Excuse me, of course, this became long, meaning it's informal, with your presence... the anchor of the East, the anchor

of East Asia. Sir, I don't know, they were reduced to rationing and such things.

The others realized that without ensuring Iran's security, there can be no security

complete security. Without economic benefits for Iran, the region cannot have security. These

were all achievements that we reached in the first two weeks. We also had losses, losses

We lost our leadership, of course we replaced them. Yes, well, the system

is strong. We showed that the system is strong, we showed that our social capital is intact. These are all

achievements, but we suffered losses. We lost some individuals, I don't know,

we lost some infrastructure, we lost Mobarakeh Steel, I don't know, if we calculate the ceasefire, for example,

if we sit down and calculate, if it had happened days earlier, in my opinion,

our achievements would still be intact.

But you had Larijani, you had Khatib,

you had Asaluyeh, you had Mobarakeh Steel, well,

Now you say at that point when we ceased fire, if we had continued,

our achievements would have been greater? Ah, so you are saying instead of the 40th day,

Even your opinion is that, for example, on the 27th,

or 28th, if we had declared a ceasefire, wouldn't it have been bad?

Now, they say these things in theory. They say, "Yes, if we sit down and write it down precisely on paper,"

we might say not the 28th, but the 30th; we might say not the 30th,

but the 35th day of the war." But if we sit down and do the math,

we are deciding the fate of a country. There are no "ifs" and "buts"; you cannot gamble

with the fate of a country and people's lives. If, for example, my infrastructure reaches a point where it's crippled,

let's assume it's the people's electricity, the people's gas, or whatever,

can I then appear stronger at the negotiation table?

No. God forbid, if due to a wrong calculation,

a scratch is made to it... Now, some terms

I don't want to use here... if we create problems and my prestige is shattered, and then we go

into negotiations, it's of no use to me. Determining this negotiation point is very... No, I'm saying if

at the negotiation point, if it became, for example, the 40th or 55th day,

Didn't we have the upper hand? How should I count this 15-day period?

We didn't have the upper hand at all.

We won't find any strategic upper hand either. I say maybe those 15 days should be...

more hopeless, so next time it won't happen, or maybe it won't,

it will happen again. You can't make decisions based on 'maybe'. Give me a definitive answer.

Well, exactly. So, what can a definitive person say at all?

Nothing can be said for sure.

Very well. Who did the Constitution entrust this duty to?

The Supreme National Security Council. The entire composition of the council...

In the Constitution, look, there are military figures, political figures, domestic policy, foreign policy,

economic figures, the person who controls the country's money and financial resources, and security figures

are also there. The Constitution has envisioned and specified such a composition from the highest ranks

of each sector, stating that they should make decisions in times of peace or war,

or in times of...

In that Supreme Council meeting, well, everyone would speak precisely from their own perspective. One would say...

Sir, my resilience, for example, in terms of

the people's livelihood, how much is it? He would say, 'What is my military resilience? How long can I fight?'

'And when can't I?' I would say, 'Let's assume what our foreign policy is like,'

Are we isolated now or not? Are we getting resolutions now?

Where is our strength, where is our weakness? Everyone spoke in that meeting, in that specific final meeting...

It started at 9:00 p.m. and went on until 3:00 a.m.