Bergeracpas

Source: YouTube

Translation: resistanceaxis.substack.com

• The Islamabad Memorandum Is Dead

• Southern Iran Under Fire: A War of Pressure Before Invasion?

• Hormuz, Deterrence, and Global Security: Iran’s Doctrine on the Strait

• “War and Negotiation at Once Is Over”: Tehran’s Ultimatum

• Trump, a Global “Joke”: Rezaei’s Response to American Insults

• From Existential War to Revolution: Why Washington Wants to Reduce Iran to a Mere Political Dispute

JOURNALIST: In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Dear compatriots, ladies and gentlemen, dear viewers of our national news channel, welcome to this special program. We’re going to talk about the most important developments concerning the country and the region. Allow me to introduce this evening’s guest: Major General of the Revolutionary Guards, Dr. Mohsen Rezaei, former commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps during the Imposed War [the Iran-Iraq war], special guest of tonight’s program. General, my greetings, my respects.

REZAEI: Peace be upon you. Thank you for your welcome, and I am at your service.

The Islamabad Memorandum Is Dead

REZAEI: There are two questions here. In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Let’s begin with this noble verse from the Holy Quran:

“Authorization is given to those who are attacked (to defend themselves), because they have been wronged, and God is certainly capable of aiding them. Those who have been expelled from their homes without right.”

The Most High God says, in this noble verse, that He has authorized combatants who suffer oppression and injustice to fight, and that He grants them victory, that He aids them, that He gives them support. The reason for this is that they were unjustly expelled from their land. Their land was unjustly invaded. Their life was unjustly subjected to insecurity.

So there are two questions here. One is the question of the memorandum of understanding: why did we get to this point? The other is this war that has begun: what are its objectives, in what form is it unfolding? It seems to me we need to distinguish between the two. Let’s start with the memorandum of understanding.

It’s better to first look at the question of the memorandum of understanding, why things happened this way. As you mentioned, on the 15th or 16th of Tir [July 6th or 7th], I told Dr. Khosravi: “Gentlemen, you who are opposed to negotiations, be patient: Trump will tear up this agreement just as he tore up the JCPOA [Iran’s nuclear deal].” Why? Because there was practically nothing left of the memorandum of understanding, only a name remained, and that name could not survive either. For what reason? Because, of the five clauses that Trump had accepted as a preamble to the implementation of the other clauses, they had violated every single one of them.

Their first failure, the first violation of the memorandum of understanding, was this: they delayed the Lebanon issue, the ceasefire in Lebanon was delayed, it was never fully implemented, the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon did not take place. That’s a first violation of the memorandum of understanding.

The second matter: they came to establish a corridor, a route through the Strait of Hormuz, authorizing, encouraging, inciting a series of ships to pass outside the arrangements and management of Iran. We struck them because this constituted a violation: we struck two or three ships, we said: “The route through which 45 ships pass daily is open, why are you going through there? According to the agreement, come, pass through here.” After we struck those ships, the Americans came to commit a third violation: they attacked our coasts, attacked Bandar Abbas airport, struck Qeshm Island, struck the desalination plant, while the first clause was that we would respect the sovereignty and territory of the United States, and that they too would respect our sovereignty and our territory. On what pretext, for what crime did you violate that clause and attack our coasts? So that southern corridor was the second violation, that attack on our coasts was the third violation.

For two or three weeks, there were discussions about those 12 billion dollars they were supposed to pay us. First they said it would be a bank loan; then they said you couldn’t buy just anything with it, only food and raw materials; then they said even that would have to be bought from us, the Americans. Meaning that, in practice, we were getting nothing out of those 12 billion. That’s the fourth violation.

So, even before the day I announced that Trump would tear up this agreement (because in practice there was nothing concretely left of it), the question is: at the moment the Americans signed this agreement, did they intend to commit such violations? Yes, they did. Why? Because they thought they’d sign for the time being, but, through pressure, force Iran to act according to their demands.

We had set up a committee; Dr. Ghalibaf and Mr. J.D. Vance had come, a dispute resolution committee had been established, with the Prime Minister of Pakistan and the Emir of Qatar. Those were the ones forming the dispute committee. Our question is this: if you were truly faithful to this memorandum of understanding that you had signed, and a dispute arose, you would have gone to that committee. Why didn’t they go to it? Because they saw that, if they went to it, they would be condemned, since they had violated the agreement, and if those two mediating and arbitrating countries declared that the Americans had committed violations… That’s why they didn’t go to the Dispute Resolution Committee, and why they tried, through force, through pressure, to wage both war and negotiation at the same time — a policy the Americans in fact embarked upon after the Islamabad negotiations.

That’s why I said it was over. From the very beginning, in the negotiations we started in Islamabad, they did not act sincerely with us. That is to say, first of all, we shouldn’t have granted a ceasefire; we should have continued the negotiations under fire, because the Americans were really at the end of their rope. But in the end, our political officials judged that, since negotiations were underway, a ceasefire was needed. From the very first day of the negotiations in Islamabad, the negotiating session lasted 20 hours, yes, but their entire discourse was about the nuclear issue.

The ceasefire continued for two weeks; they then came to put the naval blockade in place. Now, a naval blockade is already war in itself: are you negotiating, or are you conducting a naval blockade? They conducted a naval blockade. Once those two weeks were over, they said: “Come, let’s extend the ceasefire.” We did not accept; they themselves extended the ceasefire unilaterally, and during those two months that passed, they reloaded their magazines that were empty or half-empty, they added refueling aircraft, they added a certain number of them, and they fell into an excessive and deceptive confidence: now that their magazines were full, their missiles replenished, and their fleet ready, they thought they could, through pressure, steer the negotiations toward what they themselves wanted, even contrary to their own signature.

Here, our Imam [the Supreme Leader], our leader, our people held firm. They constantly advised the negotiators: “Be careful, hold firm, resist.” And they [the Americans] saw that they were no longer going to achieve their objectives through these negotiations. They set aside the Islamabad memorandum of understanding. So, neither in name nor in practice does anything called the Islamabad memorandum of understanding exist anymore. If they resume negotiations, my prediction is that they will want to make amendments to it, meaning they will want to draft a new memorandum of understanding, because obviously, under these conditions, with all this lack of sincerity and this lack of fair dealing toward Iran, the situation has changed a great deal, especially with the martyrdom of the Leader of the Revolution and the matter of the right of blood, the question of vengeance. Naturally, they took a wrong path and fell once again into miscalculations. So this was not a memorandum of understanding at all, it was tied to the war.

Southern Iran Under Fire: A War of Pressure Before Invasion?

REZAEI: You see: it’s now been 5, 6 days that they’ve been bombing the southern provinces, striking them with missiles. Khuzestan province, Bushehr province, Hormozgan province, Sistan-Baluchestan province.

It’s like someone who wants to do something, but is extremely afraid, and shoots in every direction around him. They have an intention, they want to do something, but from the west of Iran to the east of Iran, they’re bombing with missiles. They’re striking barracks, they’re striking hospitals. Those bridges connecting the northern provinces to the south, they’ve struck them. Of course, we’ve dealt them resounding slaps, one after another, and we will continue to do so; we will make them pay, and this time we will go even further than before. Repeated slaps, firm, and very stinging ones. Our armed forces — the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the IRGC Navy, the IRGC Aerospace Force, the army of the Islamic Republic — we are striking. But they’re doing all this to prepare an operation, which I’ll explain.

So they’ve been waging this war for about a week now; they started by seeking, through a new initiative similar to the naval blockade, and alongside the naval blockade, to break our resistance, to say: “You’re under naval blockade, look, we’ve taken this point” — now they’re talking about Kharg and other places — but ultimately, they have an operational intent. Either this resembles the failed Isfahan operation, or it’s the bombing of our nuclear sites, which they’ve said several times they destroyed, but which they still want to come back and strike; or it’s the seizure of part of our territory, by air, landing troops, in order to say: “You’re under a severe naval blockade, and this portion of your territory, we’ve bombed it severely too — come, let’s negotiate now, let’s discuss how to amend these three or four clauses of this memorandum of understanding.”

Tabas, 1980 (2 aircraft destroyed, 8 soldiers killed in a failed operation to free the “American embassy hostages”); Isfahan, 2026 (more than 10 aircraft destroyed, unknown death toll in a failed operation aimed at rescuing a pilot and/or seizing Iran’s highly enriched uranium)

Hormuz, Deterrence, and Global Security: Iran’s Doctrine on the Strait

And I declare, on behalf of all the armed forces, that until now, we have chosen not to widen the war, and not to go on the offensive. What have we done? In the 12-day war, we really sought to avoid the region catching fire, that is, although America and Israel attacked us during the 12-day war, we did not attack the American bases in Kuwait, nor elsewhere. But after the 12-day war, we said: “Be careful, if we start the war again, it will become regional.” Unfortunately, they are the ones who restarted the war, and we have made the war regional.

In both wars, our policy has been deterrence, reciprocity, meaning: they fire missiles, and we, we send them firm and powerful missiles right in the mouth, right in the face.

“The American army has been humiliated. Today, the United States army no longer has any fighting spirit. An army that flees its own bases to take refuge in shopping malls and hotels in order to avoid being targeted by the armed forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran — what kind of army is that? Can it still be called the most powerful army in the world? An army that abandons its main positions to seek refuge in civilian centers?”

JOURNALIST: An eye for an eye.

REZAEI: That was, if you will, one interpretation: an eye for an eye. The main objective was deterrence, ending the confrontation. The Strait of Hormuz, which we took control of, that was to end the confrontation. Establishing security in the Strait of Hormuz has had, and still has, two objectives for us. One is our own security: we cannot allow hostile forces to pass through this strait and penetrate into the Persian Gulf, when the majority of the Persian Gulf’s coasts belong to us. Now, if hostile forces were to pass through the Strait of Hormuz and enter the Persian Gulf, what security would we have? So we want the Strait of Hormuz for security, to prevent wrongdoing.

The second point is the security of the global economy: if we don’t establish it, the whole world will start a world war right from this same Persian Gulf. For example, what do the Americans tell us? The Americans say: “We have nothing to object to, you can manage it too, let us manage it together in partnership.” Well, partnership, what does that mean? Partnership means the Americans coming to play a role here, at this critical chokepoint of global energy. Even the Europeans don’t accept that. Nor do the Russians. Nor China either. Why do they want to manage the world’s energy chokepoint? Because they want to have their hand on the price of oil, their hand on the price of gasoline. That means the Americans would start a Third World War from the Persian Gulf, against Russia, China, and the whole world. That would become like the Second World War: we had declared our neutrality during the Second World War, but why did the Russians and the British come and invade Iran? Consequently, the security of the Persian Gulf is directly tied to our security, and indirectly too, because it is tied to global security and the global economy. We must not allow anyone other than Iran to manage things here, otherwise America will bring global conflicts and global scores-settling right here, upon us and upon our neighboring countries. So the Strait of Hormuz belongs to us.

“War and Negotiation at Once Is Over”: Tehran’s Ultimatum

REZAEI: That’s the reason. They feel that if the Strait of Hormuz is independent, like the Islamic Republic which is independent, and that the one who owns this strait, namely Iran, manages it and prevents interference by international powers like the United States, then American interests vis-à-vis Russia, China, and other countries will disappear. Aren’t the Americans imposing tariffs on Europe right now, at this very moment? Haven’t the Europeans said they will retaliate in the future? Even between Europe and America, if the Americans were to come wanting to be partners in managing the Strait of Hormuz, a dispute would also break out between America and Europe. Consequently, both for our own security and for the security of the global economy, we must firmly hold on to the Strait of Hormuz here, administer it, and allow global trade to be established. The reason we have closed the strait at this moment is that the Americans are committing wrongdoing; we closed the strait against them.

Well, on this subject, now, they’re striking these provinces, and seeking, alongside the naval blockade they’ve resumed, to also create a new point of pressure. To say what, again? To say: both negotiation and war at once. I declare that this is over. Having both negotiation and war at once, that’s finished. If, in the next two or three days, the Americans continue the war, we will fully enter an offensive and destructive phase. What does that mean? It means we will no longer settle for simple reciprocity. No political border facing Iranian offensive forces will be safe anymore. Of course, we will respect all governments; all peoples are our brothers. But we will now pursue American soldiers through offensive action. We will now pursue American bases through offensive action. Both negotiation and war at once, that’s over. It’s finished, done with. So it would be better for them not to continue.

The reason we have reservations about doing this is that if we enter this phase, the tensions and fault lines present in the region and at the international level will be activated. That is to say, a challenge would arise between Turkey and Israel, a confrontation would arise between Saudi Arabia and certain countries, between China and Taiwan, between Russia and Europe. In short, flames would erupt all over the world, stronger and more widespread flames. And we don’t want that, we don’t want that. But the Americans, just as they spread the war to the whole region by forcing us into it, are unfortunately making this same mistake. It’s another miscalculation that the Americans are precisely in the process of making.

So I ask all the people of the region, the people of Kuwait, the dear people of Jordan, which has been the passage of the divine prophets, the people of Abu Dhabi, the people of Qatar, all of them, to prevent this war from catching fire. Don’t let the Americans and Israel, in practice, gallop about like this and unleash their horses in every direction across the region without any accounting or calculation.

Be that as it may, the matter of war is serious, but this American policy that thinks “both negotiation and war,” wanting it to drag on, in my opinion, they will get nowhere. Of course, even at this current stage, which is the stage of reciprocity, the stage of deterrence, we are striking very hard, and in the coming days we will intensify further still. Let the Americans expect waves of drones, let America expect waves of missiles: it will no longer be one or two or three missiles, that will no longer be the case. And now, if you land somewhere, for example, let’s suppose you manage to get there, then how are you going to get out, how are you going to flee? This will certainly be worse than the Isfahan incident for American soldiers, and they will find themselves in very great difficulty.

I want to ask the question: why have the Americans entered into both pressure and war at once?

Trump, a Global “Joke”: Rezaei’s Response to American Insults

JOURNALIST: Before you explain this point to us, you’re saying that the factor of insecurity in the region is the Americans. The Americans, for their part, claim that it’s Iran that is the factor of insecurity in the region. The President of the United States constantly insults the Iranian people, continues his tirades against Iran, and of course mentions that he is seizing this or that area, island in the region. What’s your response to these tirades?

"A very contemptible person." That's actually a kind assessment.

In my opinion, he is an individual whose behavior is foolish, crude, and insolent, whose statements rest on no sound or logical reasoning whatsoever, and our responses — to every crude act he commits — our friends, myself, our friends, we keep responding to it. And as for what I said concerning the fact that they would want to seize a piece of our territory: it may be that we enter this offensive phase, that we come out of the defensive state, that we come out of the state of deterrence and reciprocity.

From Existential War to Revolution: Why Washington Wants to Reduce Iran to a Mere Political Dispute

JOURNALIST: You mentioned, in your remarks, one point: that the Americans are seeking to establish the “war and negotiation” policy. Why, General?

REZAEI: You see, previously their policy was not that. They had launched an existential war against us, aimed at occupying Iran, bringing down the Islamic Republic, and dividing Iran into 5 zones. This very region that they are currently bombing was one of the zones that the Americans, among those five zones, intended to occupy — the Iranian oil zone, from Khuzestan to Bushehr to Bandar Abbas; that’s Iran’s oil-producing zone. That was one of those five zones they wanted to seize in order to bring down the Islamic Republic and divide Iran.

Then, during the 40-day war, they fully understood that this policy wasn’t working in the short term. They came to transform the existential war into a political war. As for us, what did we do? During the 40-day war, we responded to the war with a revolution. We no longer responded to the war solely with military action. A revolution rose up, a renaissance rose up. So you clearly saw, from the 40-day war until now, the state of mind the Iranian people are in. The funeral procession of the Imam [Khamenei], what situation did it create in Iran and Iraq? How are our armed forces striking with such power? A great revolution has taken place in Iran in the face of a military war.

Through this “war and negotiation” policy, they are seeking to transform this revolution into a mere political dispute, to say: “There’s no revolution here; the Iranian people and the Iranian government have a political dispute with us, we’re waging both war and negotiation, and in the end we’ll reach an agreement, in the end we’ll reach a compromise.” Now, there are a certain number of people who reject this reading, but this is a revolution. Our people have now raised the banner “O avengers of Hussein’s blood” as that of this revolution. Their slogan must be: Rise up for God. Their objectives: the independence of West Asia (the Middle East) from America and Israel. Just as Iran became independent, West Asia must become independent. A Mahdist society must be established in Iran. We ourselves can break the sanctions, the economic sanctions. There must be an economic revolution, an economic war must be launched. The Iranian people have unleashed a revolution.

Their entire fear is that this revolution will continue. They’re striving to bring it down to the level of a mere political dispute between Iran and America. A political dispute means that the war, for now, would step outside its existential nature to become a political war, and Iran would then content itself with a politico-military defense. Slowly, slowly, we would move toward closing, for the time being, our short-term dispute by obtaining certain concessions from Iran, to end the affair for now, so as to come back, in a year, two years, with Israel’s help, with the help of other countries, to try our luck again, to see whether Iran can be taken, occupied, divided into five zones.

Consequently, my request to all statesmen, to all elites, to all our dear fellow citizens: let us ourselves not bring this matter down from a revolution to a mere dispute. America and Israel are seeking to bring this revolution down. That’s why certain political disputes that I see forming in the country — that means aligning oneself with the voice of our enemies. We have unleashed a revolution. This revolution must truly change the way the country is governed, the way the economy is managed. Our armed forces must be ten times more powerful. Within two years, we must accomplish the equivalent of ten years, both in the armed forces and in running the country; we must quickly catch up. Today, many statesmen around the world say: “You’ve reached a very high standing, but will you be able to maintain that standing?” Well, maintaining that standing means we must continue the revolution.

In the face of the threats that have emerged, we must create opportunities. Creating opportunities means that these opportunities that have emerged, we must transform them, turn them into reality. Consequently, the matter of vengeance must be taken seriously. What does backing down on vengeance mean? It means that we want to transform this revolution into a mere political dispute. What political dispute is there? Since the coup against Mr. Mossadegh, America has stood against us. For 70 years, it has stood before us. For what crime did the Americans stage a coup against the nationalization of oil? For what crime did they reinforce the Shah? On 15 Khordad [the demonstrations of June 5–6, 1963 against the Shah’s arrest of Khomeini], hundreds of our people became martyrs. For what crime, in the face of the revolution of 1356 and 1357 [1978–1979 by the Iranian calendar], did they equip the Shah? For what crime did they encourage Saddam Hussein, who attacked Iran for 8 years, who used chemical weapons? For what crime did they design the 1359 [1980] coup in Baghdad with General Oveissi [failed attempt to overthrow the Islamic Republic]? And for what crime did they wage the 12-day war and the 40-day war?

A revolution is needed, and this revolution has begun, and this renaissance has begun, its banner is “O avengers of Hussein’s blood,” its slogan must be: rise up for God, and its objectives are the independence of West Asia from the presence of enemies like Israel and America, who thirst for the blood of Muslims. Those are their objectives.

JOURNALIST: General, what are the “musts” and “must-nots” for preserving this revolution, which is on this path?

REZAEI: A very good question you’re asking there. The first “must” is to not allow the revolution to be brought down to the level of a mere political dispute between us and America. We must — just as our people rose up — preserve this, not let it stop there; the revolution must continue, the revolution must go on.

Well, now, if we want the revolution to continue, what is its first condition? Unity behind the Leader of the Revolution. Criticisms, whether concerning the war or the negotiation, both sides may have valid points, but these points must be expressed in a way that preserves unity behind the Leader of the Revolution. Negotiators must act according to the policies of the Leader of the Revolution. Criticisms directed at the negotiators must be expressed within the framework of the policies of the Leader of the Revolution. Unity is not possible without alignment with the Leader of the Revolution.

So, the second point, or third point, is steadfastness. Steadfastness... Thank God, you, during the 12-day war, you acted very well, as a courageous woman, you showed your steadfastness [translator’s note: when the Iranian TV studio was bombed live on air, the anchor reacted courageously]. We must, alongside unity, have steadfastness.

This steadfastness is worth a great deal to us, its value is great, it’s difficult, but its outcome will secure Iran for the next 50 years to come. It will establish Iran’s security, set the Iranian economy right, Iranian trade will open up, America and Israel will step out of our people’s path. Of course, steadfastness requires patience, it has a cost, it requires endurance. This steadfastness is the third point.

So: first, that the revolution not be brought down to a mere political dispute; second, preserve unity behind the Leader of the Revolution; third, have steadfastness: we must firmly hold our positions, just as, up to now, we have truly, in accordance with international law, formulated our demands.

And the fourth point is that we have two matters on the table with the Americans. One is our rights: we have rights vis-à-vis America; they caused us damages, they must pay us reparations for those damages. So that’s a matter of demanding reparation from America. The second is the matter of vengeance. If vengeance is not taken, particularly vengeance for (the assassination of) our dear Leader — because, as you know, in the past, even in the time of the Qajar kings and the Pahlavi kings, a principle was observed: that the sanctuary of the marja’iyya [the religious authorities] must not be violated by anyone. At the time when the Imam [Khomeini] was arrested in Khordad 42 [June 1963], the marja’ of Qom declared: “Ayatollah Khomeini is a marja’, a marja’, you have no right to touch even a single (hair of his head).” Well, now, a marja’ (has been assassinated), we have been made martyrs in the person of our marja’, who was also our Leader. The Americans, in the martyrdom of our Leader, crossed our greatest red line.

If this becomes established, if it becomes normal that at any moment one can strike the leader of a country, strike the Leader of the Islamic Republic, who is both marja’ and Imam of the Ummah — if this becomes established, then the very national security system of Iran collapses. Consequently, we cannot, we cannot let the blood of our Imam pass without response. This is dangerous both for Iran and for the whole world, for the whole world, and for our national security, for our future generations. They committed an extremely dangerous act; they crossed the greatest red line of the Islamic Republic. America and Israel crossed that; this is not something acceptable. Even the Shah’s regime never dared do that. When the marja’ of Qom said that Ayatollah Khomeini was a marja’, that “you cannot go after him,” the Shah’s regime was forced to free him, to exile him, because it saw that this was creating an immense wave in Iran. And you saw, both in Iraq and in Iran, what an immense wave was created, and everyone was chanting “Vengeance! Vengeance!”

This is not merely a matter of belief; it’s a rational, legal matter, one concerning Iran’s future security. Consequently, we currently have two matters on the table with the Americans and with those who started this war. One is our rights: we must claim our rights, they caused us damages. The second is the future security of the country, and ensuring the future protection of the country’s leaders.

JOURNALIST: General, we’ve covered many subjects tonight on this special news interview program. Given the time we have left, two minutes for a final wrap-up and anything important, while on the air of this program, on the news channel, we continue to see the presence of the people out in the field, and these are unprecedented images after all this time.

REZAEI: I recommend, as a soldier — I truly kiss the hand of the entire Iranian people, I kiss the hand of the popular analysis, I kiss the hand of the elites. As a soldier, I ask you: this heavy price we have paid for this revolution — do not let this revolution be brought down and transformed into political waves, either domestically or in international relations. A great revolution has been set in motion. It must continue, until we achieve all of its objectives.

It’s like in the year 1357 [1978–1979], when the Regency Council was formed in Iran, before the 22nd of Bahman [February 11, 1979, triumph of the Islamic Revolution]: some said to the Imam: “Sir, let it go now, this Regency Council has come to take the Shah’s place.” The Imam replied: “How could we let it go? We must achieve our objective.” And the Imam persevered until the 22nd of Bahman, and the objectives of the Islamic Revolution were realized. We are now halfway through this revolution. This revolution must continue: from the streets, from the squares, from inside the homes, from inside the factories, from inside the universities. We need new technologies. We need our armed forces to be supported by innovation and new inventions. We need more powerful missiles. We need to continue innovations and dual-use — both military and economic — creativity. Consequently, this revolution is a comprehensive revolution; we must continue until we achieve all our objectives.

Let us not be stopped halfway: let us not have paid the price without having obtained any result.

JOURNALIST: I ask my colleagues broadcasting the news channel to give us a little more time, and I would like to ask one important question in conclusion. Perhaps we are seeing, on the field of operations and in the crushing responses of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the readiness and motivation of our valiant men within the armed forces. You are the former commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps during the Sacred Defense. The people would very much like to know: on the ground, and regarding the state of readiness of the armed forces, where does Iran currently stand?

REZAEI: I promise our dear people that, although we are truly facing a very powerful enemy — and I constantly advise all my brothers, both within the Guard Corps and the army: do not underestimate the enemy, keep your vigilance, do your rajaz [chants of warrior defiance], but do not underestimate the enemy. Despite these recommendations, thank God, during that same ceasefire period which the enemy abused, we too were able to fix some of our weaknesses, to make up for them, over those two or three months. However, we must manage the war methodically.

Yes, we could even, in a single day, fire 100 missiles and 2000 drones, but war requires planning, requires management. We must manage things according to the enemy’s final defeat, and so that, at the last point, we deliver the final blow, the one after which it will no longer be able to get back up. We must manage that. That’s why war management is an important matter, and the reason why, as I said, we have not yet entered into heavy offensive and destructive operations that would have us cross borders is that we truly do not want, even today, for the expansion of the war to happen in a way that activates international fault lines. But probably, with the mistakes the Americans are making, we may end up there, we may enter that phase. Then we will deploy our other capabilities, we will deploy our ground capabilities, we will deploy other capabilities we possess, the war will widen, and we have not yet used that capability either.

JOURNALIST: Thank you very much. Dear General Dr. Mohsen Rezaei, former commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps during the Sacred Defense, I extend my greetings, and thank you for taking part in this interview.

REZAEI: Peace be upon you. Thank you. May God keep you.

JOURNALIST: May God keep you, and thank you very much for also following tonight’s special news interview program, all of you. Asking for your prayers, good night and farewell.